Gazans burn Danish flags, demand cartoon apology

[barb162]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-31T193420Z_01_L31775785_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-DENMARK-CARTOONS.xml&archived=False

Gazans burn Danish flags, demand cartoon apology
Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:34 PM ET

Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Thousands of Palestinians protested against Denmark on Tuesday for allowing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad to be published, and Arab ministers called on the Copenhagen government to punish the newspaper that printed them.

Demonstrators burned Danish flags, chanted "War on Denmark, Death to Denmark" and called for an Arab boycott of products from the small north European country until it showed contrition for the satirical caricatures deemed blasphemous by Islam.

Anger has spread across much of the Muslim world.

The offices of the Danish newspaper were evacuated on Tuesday after a bomb threat, but were later given the all-clear after police with sniffer dogs searched the building.
snip

[channa18]

1. "Death to Denmark" ???

Well......its not like we havent heard that little rant before.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Are you trying to make out only Palestinians do the 'death to...' thing???

What next? We'll get told Palestinians are the only ones who burn flags and that flag-burning is total evil?

btw, I noticed you didn't say a word about the bigoted cartoons that upset the protesters. Don't you think it's kind of understandable that people would be upset and offended by bigotry like that?

Violet...

[barb162]

7. I think the first poster expressed the point clearly

Of course people burns flags of other countries and sometimes their own flags. But that has nothing to do with this story. Cartoons are often bigotted. What's new? As a matter of fact, most political cartoons are pretty obnoxious; it's fairly common for them to be that way. However I think while people might smirk or be offended when cartoons are directed at them in some way, most people don't burn flags, demonstrate, boycott, etc., over political cartoons. Can you think of any such situation in the last few years? I can't.

Here's a link for an article about some anti US cartoons which also shows the cartoons. I doubt if anyone in the US will be burning the Palestinian flag, demonstrating, etc. over these cartoons.
http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Mar-10-03.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Yr attitude is 'what's new?' about bigotry??

That doesn't appear to be yr attitude when it comes to bigotry against Jews, and despite yr claims the bigotry against Muslims displayed in that cartoon has a hell of a lot to do with the story, and it doesn't surprise me that some would take the opportunity to berate people for daring to protest against bigotry than speaking out against the bigotry itself...


btw, the cartoons you posted weren't bigoted. The Danish one was. There is a huge difference...

Violet...

[barb162]

24. My statement is "Cartoons are often bigotted. What's new?"

There are political and social cartoons in the papers every day that lampoon, insult, etc., countries, political leaders, policies, international and local problems, etc. Again, what's new about this? Nothing, it's common.

I disagree with your post

[Violet_Crumble]

50. And?

What's yr point here, barb? That there's something wrong with people being upset when they find something offensive? We should all just get over it coz 'cartoons are often bigoted. what's new?'

Do you think it's a bigoted cartoon?

You disagree with my post? Can't say that's something that needs to be pointed out. But in the case of disagreeing with this post, can you maybe be just a little bit more specific and say what specific bit of it you disagree with?

Violet...

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[liberalhistorian]

178. People have every right to

protest it, but NOT to take it to such ridiculous and ludicrous levels. Arab newspapers are full of anti-semitic cartoons and comments. If you don't consider "death to the Jews" and "death to Israel" to be bigoted, then that's a real problem. Or is it only OK when one side does it?

[Violet_Crumble]

197. I'll make my opinion very clear for you...

For the record, I do consider things like 'death to the Jews' and 'death to Israel' to be bigoted, and unlike many in this thread who I've been arguing this issue with, I clearly don't think it's only okay when one side does it...

People don't have the right to do things like threats that lead of buildings being evacuated, but I don't think I've ever claimed that they do. They do have the right, however, to boycott Danish products, regardless of whether or not we personally agree with the whole boycotting thing. They also have the right to chant what they like, just like the media have the right to publish bigoted cartoons like the one this thread is about....

Violet...

[channa18]

20. Thank you.

:):):):)

[Englander]

22. What do you think of the cartoons?

I think they're deliberately inflammatory, offensive, & the editors who
published them are idiots. The Danish PM had to get involved, & it looks like
the French PM will as well, soon;

'France enters Muslim cartoon row

A French newspaper has reproduced a set of Danish caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad that have caused outrage in the Muslim world.

France Soir said it had published the cartoons to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.

Their publication in Denmark has led to protests in several Arab nations.

Responding to France Soir's move, the French government said it supported press freedom - but added that beliefs and religions must be respected.

Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet Muhammad or Allah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669360.stm

[channa18]

23. Apparently I'm the ONLY one who hasnt seen the cartoons....

any link so i can see what theyre all about??

[barb162]

26. Germans print Muhammad caricatures

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622526823&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Feb. 1, 2006 16:45 | Updated Feb. 1, 2006 16:55
Germans print Muhammad caricatures
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BERLIN

Two German newspapers on Wednesday reproduced controversial drawings depicting the Prophet Muhammad, with one of them arguing that a "right to blasphemy" was anchored in democratic freedoms
snip

But the German Welt daily put one of the drawings showing the prophet's turban transformed into a bomb on its front page on Wednesday. It said the picture was "harmless" and expressed regret that the Danish Jyllands-Posten daily had apologized for causing offense.

"Democracy is the institutionalized form of freedom of expression," the paper said in a front-page commentary. "There is no right to protection from satire in the West; there is a right to blasphemy."

The Berliner Zeitung daily also printed two of the caricatures as part of its coverage of the controversy.
snip

[pelsar]

31. France and Spain

have also printed the cartoons..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

with this:

Under the headline "Yes, we have the right to caricature God", the daily carried a front-page cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud.

It shows the Christian deity saying: "Don't complain, Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here.
__________________

and that is good.

[barb162]

45. Thanks for that

I didn't know Spain was in on it too now. The European papers seem to be on a roll because they are, I would suspect, concerned about freedom of their press. (And to offend everyone as they damn well see fit so it seems, LOL.) Having been on the receiving end of this so often, it tends to roll off our backs as in: what's new, yawn.

From that BBC article which you so kindly linked


"The paper argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire.

"The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial. "

And this below is also insightful (though I don't agree with Mr. Bencheikh) because the West long ago tended to "cartoon" just about everything with a no holds barred attitude.

"Theologian Sohaib Bencheikh said "one must find the borders between freedom of expression and freedom to protect the sacred".

"Unfortunately, the West has lost its sense of the sacred," he wrote in a column accompanying the cartoons in France Soir.

[smirkymonkey]

38. Isalmic Tradition is NOT the law of the land in Denmark or France.

Therefore, Muslim nations should not have a say in how things are done in these countries. I am tired of this bullshit. It's true - religious dogma has NO place in a secular, democratic society - NONE.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Asking for an apology for something that bigoted is a problem for you???

I'll tell you what should have no place in a secular democratic society - this complete bullshit where people offended by particular types of bigotry are attacked for daring to be offended.

Just curious, but do you see the bigotry involved in a cartoon portraying Allah as a terrorist?

Violet...

[smirkymonkey]

78. Being offended is one thing, advocating violence against the

supposed "offenders" is another. Personally, I find any anti-religious humor funny. And since I don't think religion (any religion) has any merit whatsoever, I don't have a problem with people making fun of it. But that's just me. Some people do have a problem with it, but most of those people are equally bigoted toward non-belivers.

I just don't see why bigots - and yes many follwers of Allah are bigots - feel they have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing "bigotry", especially when it is intended as political humor in a secular, progressive nation.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. "supposed offenders"?? "bigotry"??

And the one that says it all: "and yes many followers of Allah are bigots"

But portraying an entire religion as one of terrorism isn't bigotry according to you. What in yr opinion, if anything, does constitute bigotry against Muslims then?

Violet...

[smirkymonkey]

98. I believe that all fundamentalist religions are guilty of ignorance

and intolerance. Calling them on it is not bigotry. Calling for the death of citizens who practice the Muslim religion is wrong (although the Danes are not guilty of this) and bigoted. Criticizing a theocracy that promotes the idea that all non-Muslims must convert or die is not bigotry in my book.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. Sorry, but portraying Muslims as terrorists is bigoted...

Seeing as how yr book says there's no such thing as bigotry against Muslims, my opinion of the stinkiness level of that book is pretty high....

Violet...

[smirkymonkey]

150. I am speaking of fundamentalists - all of them, Muslim, Christian, etc.

Not all Muslims. Many people on DU love to ignore the distinction so they can go off on how religious people are so persecuted. To your point, I am bigoted against all fundamentalists - All.

[pelsar]

190. i agree

fundamentalist by definition are bigoted, and i find their intolerence to be incompatbile with western thought and freedom.

[Violet_Crumble]

193. No, yr not...

See, I've got a problem with fundies of any stripe, but no way am I going to try to argue that there's nothing bigoted against a cartoon that portrays an entire religion as one of terrorism. What I've got a problem with is those who hide behind atheism and try to pretend that there's no such thing as religious bigotry, and that it's totally reasonable to applaud bigotry against entire religions. They're just as much extremists as the religious fundamentalists (in their world that means entire religions) they claim to detest...

Violet...

[pelsar]

195. just those cartoons?

are there other types that "you are against"....what other groups would you find offensive?

cartoons lets say against: settlers? jews? americans?, arabs?

is it just religion or other social groups as well?

[Violet_Crumble]

198. I find all bigotry offensive...

..but that's just me...

Violet...

[pelsar]

202. i mentioned cartoons...

large percentage of satirical cartoons generalize.....and poke fun of groups...so your basically saying that, the whole art form should be "restricted" with self censorship?

and just poke fun of individuals?

[Violet_Crumble]

206. No, I didn't say anything of the sort...

There's a difference between poking fun and making sweeping and negative stereotypes of entire groups of people. Also, I have said many times I don't believe in censorship....

Violet...

[pelsar]

207. i have a different opinion...

i think the cartoons were "poking fun, being satirical"...is your "opinion" somehow superior to mine?

is your "moral compass" the better one?....who decides?

[Violet_Crumble]

210. Yeah, my opinion is the right one...

Just like my opinion that some urls posted here a few months back were bigoted against Jews is vastly morally superior to that of the person who claimed they weren't...


Violet...

[pelsar]

211. the difference...

bigotry can be claimed..and supported and is bad..

but from what your saying: your version is the "right version" and cartoons and satires shall be limited to fit "your version".....

and that is simply limiting freedom of speach and freedom of the press.

[Violet_Crumble]

215. Yet again, that's NOT what I said...

Nowhere did I say that I support limiting speech and freedom of the press....


'bigotry can be claimed...and supported and is bad...' I've got no idea what that sentence means? Can you rephrase it?

Violet...

[pelsar]

216. then clarfiy...

what are you saying?

bigotry is bad?....i agree

should the paper be allowed to print such thing?...and if they apologies, doesnt that mean they "wont do it again", hence they will be doing self censorship


that is what i understand your saying...



my poor sentence: people have different definitions of bigotry, though the defiinition is relativly clear in the western democracies, it remains a western concept, others will have different definitions, hence it is in essence: an opinion.

[Violet_Crumble]

279. I've been very clear about what I've been saying...

I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again...

Violet...

[barb162]

307. some people can't do a post without the word bigot

or bigotry or bigotted even though it may not have a darn thing to do with the subject which happens to be about free press

[Violet_Crumble]

325. A bit of a sweeping generalisation there, barb...

btw, when something's bigoted, then of course the word is gonna pop up a bit. The only folk who'd have issues with that would be the bigoted types themselves...

Violet...

[barb162]

333. Wrong again on all counts

the word "some" is not a generalization nor is it sweeping. And wrong again on your other comments. Got any links for proof on your last sentence?

[Violet_Crumble]

346. Not wrong at all...

It was very obvious that I was referring to "can't do a post without the word bigot". Which is why my post said: 'when something's bigoted, then of course the word is gonna pop up a bit.'

As the last sentence is subjective, I won't be supplying any links for you...

Violet...

[smirkymonkey]

249. Oh, yes I am.

Yes there is such a thing as religious bigotry. The thing is, I don't have a problem with it. My sentiments can be summed up in the immortal words of Graham Chapman (of Monty Python fame):

"We don't deliberately set out to offend. Unless we feel it's justified. And in the case of certain well-known religions, it was justified."

To me, religion itself is a virulent form of bigotry.

[gulfcoastliberal]

164. How is it "portraying" when they are calling for acts of violence against

the Norweigan office because ONE newspaper in Norway reprinted the cartoon? That is advocating an act of terror.

[Violet_Crumble]

192. I didn't realise all Muslims were terrorists...

Nor did I realise that Islam was such a small religion that it's made up solely of 'they' who called for acts of violence blah blah blah...

Violet...

[pelsar]

194. totally irrelevant...

its not a matter of bigotry or satire..both belong to the writers and viewers opinions...its a matter of free speach. The gunman in gaza or elsewhere have no right to threaten people because of cartoons drawn in a democratic country thousands of kilometers away.

its that simple....

[Violet_Crumble]

199. Bigotry isn't relevent???

Remind me of that that it's all about free speech and opposition to censorship next time there's posts talking about something printed somewhere that's anti-Semitic. I won't hold my breath waiting, though, because there'll be some excuse why it's suddenly different...

Violet...

[pelsar]

204. the right for freedom of the press....

anti semetic stuff is bad....doesnt mean they dont have the right to print it.....its thats simple. I will complain about it....scream about it but

freedom of the press is far more important than "moral squads patrolling" and deciding what is and what isnt morally acceptable.

(btw, why is your definition of bigotry the "proper one"....i think other social/religious groups might disagree with your definition)

anyway your not being clear:
so should papers now avoid cartoons that make fun of ALL social/religious/communities?
which would includes soliders, boyscouts, judges, fireman, office workers, jews, astronauts, house owners, car drivers, etc....

[Violet_Crumble]

209. again you miss the point...

The attitude of you and a few others in this thread is that not only do you not consider portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism not to be bigoted, but anyone who thinks it is should be shouted down with posts telling them they're trying to censor freedom of speech, etc. So next time you complain about anti-Semitism in print, don't be surprised to see yrself being told that freedom of the press is far more important than something that may or may not be bigotry. I may even borrow yr words: 'freedom of the press is far more important than "moral squads patrolling" and deciding what is and isn't morally acceptable."

My definition of bigotry is one where Muslims aren't excluded, and I think it's pretty close to the definition that DU admin would have. Why? Which other social/religious groups would disagree with my definition?

Violet...

[pelsar]

212. and i will agree....

i will scream about anti semetism, and support their right to protray it, print it, and discuss it.....

so you would support a ban on cartoons that make fun of policemen? (they are a distinct social group)

[Violet_Crumble]

294. That's a really, stupid question...

You don't honestly expect an answer, do you? Coz I'm not wasting my time on that one...

Violet...

[Englander]

222. That's it, fully expect calls for censorship, should that arise.

[Spinoza]

58. Good,. I hope they are offensive.

The best political cartoons are inflamatory, offensive and piss the hell out of people. Thats a good thing. I love political cartoons that upset people, especially religious fundamentalists. Lets see more cartoons making fun of Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, Karl Marx and other religious figures. Any apology is really sickening.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. I hope you feel the same way about anti-Semitic cartoons...

Do you?

Violet...

[Spinoza]

83. Certainly, as an atheist, I enjoy cartoons

mocking and ridiculing all religions and all religious figures. That would, of course, include jewish religious figures such as Moses, Jesus, etc. Did that answer your question? No religion is exempt from ridicule including Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Of course I don't like anti-semitic cartoons or racist cartoons of any kind. However, sarcasm, mockery or ridicule of Jewish religious figures is not, in itself, anti-semitism. (Also, I musty add that even in instances of overt anti-semitic or racist expressions I am utterly opposed to any form of government censorship.) Personally, I believe the world would be infinitely better off if ALL religious figures were held up to public mockery and ridicule. Of course, that includes the Prophet with a capital P. Anything else you want to know?

[Violet_Crumble]

84. I'm an atheist too...

And labelling an entire religion as one of terrorism is outright bigotry, and whether yr an atheist or not is totally irrelevent. Atheists who embrace bigotry by hiding behind the 'oh, i'm only making harmless fun of this religion and it's not bigotry' (interesting to note that more often than not the only religion they're pulling this with is Islam) give the rest of us a really bad name...

Violet..

[Spinoza]

151. Satire and mockery is not

bigotry. No institution, belief or group, good or bad, has the "right" to be exempt from ridicule. Period. If it feels offensive, too bad. Muslims have every right to protest cartoons they don't like. But saying the Prophet canot ever be made fun of, because it offends Muslims is no different from saying the "Piss Christ" exhibition in NYC should have been banned because it offended Christians. Sorry. The right to free expression trumps a claimed "offense".

[Violet_Crumble]

196. The problem is it's bigotry, not satire and mockery...

The reason is because it potrays an entire religion as one of terrorism. Making that sort of broad stereotype of an entire religion IS bigotry. Until someone explains to me why portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't bigotry, all the 'oh, it's only satire and mockery' and 'if it feels offensive, too bad's in the world don't hide the stench...

If it was merely making fun of a religious figure or drawing a representation of one, I wouldn't give a toss who was offended, but this is different, because on top of those issues, the cartoon was clearly bigoted.

Can you give me some examples of things you'd consider to be bigoted towards Islam and Muslims? Because seeing yr arguing that portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't bigoted, I can't see how you could see a comment like: 'Convert to Islam - the religion of terror' as bigoted either, whereas I definately would...

Violet...

[Spinoza]

267. Can you give me an example of

satire or mockery directed against Jihadist suicide bombers that you would NOT consider bigotry? Or is it impossible, in your opinion, to laugh at Jihadists without engaging in bigotry? How can we make fun of these Jihadist suicide bombers (i.e. lunatics) without employing what YOU consider to be bigotry? In other words, give me a joke you can approve of about a Jihadist suicide bomber. Can you?

[Violet_Crumble]

281. I didn't catch yr answer, Spinoza...

So here's the question I asked you again:

"Can you give me some examples of things you'd consider to be bigoted towards Islam and Muslims? Because seeing yr arguing that portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't bigoted, I can't see how you could see a comment like: 'Convert to Islam - the religion of terror' as bigoted either, whereas I definately would..."

[Englander]

225. See post # 221.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=114337&mesg_id=114789

[Spinoza]

266. But I am against censorship

even of overt anti-semitic or racist cartoons. I make no distinctions.

[Englander]

313. Well, at least you're honest!

:)

[liberalhistorian]

179. And what about all the hateful

anti-semitic cartoons and commentary Arab newspapers often publish? Or is it okay when they do it?

[Violet_Crumble]

200. A question...

You asked me the same question. Is there some assumption that anyone who's offended by anti-Muslim bigotry must be anti-Semitic until they say otherwise?

Violet...

[Englander]

226. Was that post meant for me?

Since I can't see how the 'questions' were relevant, or addressed the subject of
*these* bigoted cartoons. But, nice job at managing to mention a-s, & the use of
the rhetorical devices to make the insinuation of a-s.

[SidDithers]

27. I thought the poster was being sarcastic...

saying that Denmark isn't usually a target for those types of chants.

At least that's how I took it.

Sid

[liberalhistorian]

177. Yes, of course they have

the right to be upset, no question. But certainly not to overreact in such a ridiculous way, that's just ludicrous. To threaten to KILL people over it and to make people afraid of their lives over a fucking cartoon is pretty goddamned dumb, I'm sorry. There are far more important things for them to be concerned about. And if that had been an anti-semitic cartoon, they would have likely not had any problem with it.

[pelsar]

2. a comparison...

what immediatly comes to mind, is Englands award winning cartoon showing sharon eating a palestenian babie...remeniscent of the worst of the antisemetic cartoons.....jews and and israels write articles, send letters expressing their disgust.....and thats it. Bottom line? respecting the rules of democracy and 'freedom of expression"

our "neighbors" have a very differerent way of doing things, .....which doesnt include respect for freedom of expression.

expressing "death to denmark" is not an expression of tolerence, quite the opposite

this lack of understanding of a basic priniciple of democracy shows how far the palestenains are from grasping an important concept....

perhaps ISM should go back to gaza and attempt to teach the real meaning of "freedom" and how its meant for all, and not just select groups?
_________________________________________

actually what bothers me, is not the palestenians lack of tolerance, (though that does in principle, but I have a double standard), but how "freedom seekers of the world, tend to overlook this aspect of their society as well as its consequences.

A palestenian society free of israels occupation, may in fact make life for the palestenian even more restricted, more miserable, more dangerous, more extreme....according to some hamas spokesmen. But those westerners concerned with "freedom" will probably "overlook it"...because..(help me out here, because i never really understood ........)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[barb162]

9. So didn't little Arafat die of some gastrointestinal problem

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Why are you talking about Arafat?

Is it some instinctive response to just about everything?

Violet...

[barb162]

28. "Instinctive"...Oh my goodness

:hi:

[Tom Joad]

6. Israel needs to stop waving the "death to Arab" flags.

Throughout my stay "in the only democracy in the Middle East" there were placards present that said things like "Transfer (ethnic cleansing) equals peace". Even "Arabs to the Crematorium" is sometimes a phrase used by Hebron settlers.

This does not express the majority sentiment of the Israeli people, but it is certainly present, and by more than just a handful of crackpots. There were officials in the government who supported the idea of transfer. The most notorious of these was Rehavam Zeevi who was the Israeli tourism minister. Other governing parties still support this concept.

Some may come to the conclusion that "this lack of understanding of a basic principle of democracy shows how far the Israelis are from grasping an important concept."

For myself, I don't agree. That would be too simplistic an assessment of Israeli society. I don't think we should use blanket generalizations. In fact, such use constitutes a violation of the basic rules of the i/p forum at DU. I respect these guidlines, even in the face of blantent and continued disregard by others.

[pelsar]

15. numbers count.....

a "few crackpots" are found in all societies..and we must tolerate them.....but theres a difference between a few and "thousands who protest"....one represents the tolerance that democracies have to put up with, the other represents a society that is not on the road to democracy.....and that is the question at hand. not all societies are tolerent (iran, saudi arabia)..is perfectly legit to wonder to question the palestenain society, which may in fact be secular, but just voted in religious fanatics who keep discplined and balanced books as part of their platform.



as far as the comment of "generalisations" such are the professions of sociology, anthropology and others that study sociieties....

[Violet_Crumble]

16. There are thousands of such crackpots in Israel...

Just as there are in countries like my own. Trying to portray Palestinian society as not being a tolerant one is not taking into account that Israeli society can also be portrayed as not being tolerant.

And no, I think when someone thinks they should question the motives of the Palestinian people while not doing it of any other group, I'm going to be questioning the motives of the person questioning the Palestinians motives...

Uh, you don't study societies - yr posting on a discussion forum that has rules about making generalisations about entire groups of people. You get annoyed when you see people make generalisations about Israelis, so you shouldn't do the same to the Palestinian people, okay?

Violet...

[pelsar]

29. yes and no..

generalizations, cartoons about israelis are all game....i would guess i get anoyed when the extremists are taken for the general...and I would give the palestenians the same.....what i dont know, and neither do any of us, is what part of the palestenain society is "extreme and which part isnt.

In israel, the knesset is a good measure of the country, extremist parties get few votes, the gaza withdrawl was significant in the numbers on each side....in the palestenian society its a bit more complicated, having only two major parties limits their choices....one is extreme and intolerent (maybe, sort of who knows?) and the other secular in nature but hardly democratic....

and the religious one got the vast majority of the votes....that does say something, though i'm not sure what.... But what is for certain, religious fanatics are very intolerent.....and hamas fits the definition.

does that reflect the "real" palestenian society?..it might, and i do believe that it can be discussed, are they going the way or iran?.....i wouldnt call them a very tolerent society....but NOT discussing it is a form of censorship......

[Tom Joad]

34. a few crackpots?? A FEW crackpots?? 46% is a few crackpots?

Then why the hell was Rehavam Zeevi appointed to a ministerial post??

"Some 46 percent of Israel's Jewish citizens favor transferring Palestinians out of the territories, while 31 percent favor transferring Israeli Arabs out of the country, according to the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies' annual national security public opinion poll."
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=140196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

There are maybe three reasons that could explain your reply. You are simply ignorant as to how popular this way of thinking is in Israel. Or You are deliberately attempting to mislead people into thinking this is just a few crackpots. Or the last alternative is that you do not believe that such thinking is that of crackpots at all, but a viable final solution to the "Palestinian problem".

Let's just hope it is the first alternative. You were just ignorant to the how popular this thinking really is among Israeli Jewish citizens. The point being is that one can say there that a large number of Israelis are not at all that tolerant.

[pelsar]

36. how about 75%?

check the various polls on the palestenains and you will find that the percentages vary from 6o%+ to over 75% that favor the continuation of suicide bombers.......

if we were to take that at face value, its clear to us israelis that the palestenian society (over 75%) wants us dead. Far more intolerent than the "mere 46% of israelis.

I would choose no 1, but i'm also aware of the difference between wishful thinking and reality. The reality version is what the israeli govt looks like, the far right, who are actually in favor of transfer etc, remain a small minority.

And that is the reality of israel

[Colorado Blue]

82. Right. That ancient poll. Sheese.

Yes! It's the famous one that goes back to March of 2002 when 150 Israelis were murdered by suicide attacks in one month. I'm sure that anyone who values his own skin might consider transfer either of them or oneself under such conditions.

This classic study gets trotted out in an updated current Haaretz window every so often on DU.

Hamas, meanwhile was threatening Israelis daily, and celebrating every night.

Give us a break already.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. I see. The poll wasn't wrong, but there's excuses for racism?

There is NO justification for appalling views like the one about expelling Arabs. What is most disgusting about those who try to justify why it's acceptable to have those sorts of views is that more often than not they're the same people who would claim that any attempt at all to justify appalling views held by Palestinians is anti-Semitism, etc etc...

Violet...

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

100. Aw bullshit, I personally excuse her insensitivity. nt

[Jim Sagle]

101. Well, exCUSE ME!

[bemildred]

102. Well, OK. Everybody is excused. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Everybody? And here I was thinking I was special n/t

[bemildred]

118. You are special. But that's no excuse. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

140. I know...

As Jimbo pointed out, I'm ever so insensitive for not seeing that it's A-OK for Israelis to be racist towards Arabs. And I'm doubly insensitive for not understanding that if anyone points out that racism, the standard reaction is to blame the Arabs for it...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

104. Yeah. Kinda like the East Bay - and its academic community.

A few crackpots. (John Yoo and the Lefties, too)

The study you referred to was done right after 150 israelis had been killed in a month of suicide bombings, March 12, 2002. http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/haaretz1203.html - The date is in Anglit/English.

Ma ha yom. Ha yom 12/03/2002.

[Colorado Blue]

81. This, I believe, was during the height of the intifada?

I don't think it's proper, as you say, to generalize or stereotype. I've heard from some people in Israel who are quite outraged by your comments, or insinuations that extreme ideas are in fact supported by more than a few individuals - any more than they here, in fact.

And this is following decades of war.

All the polls, even in the face of Hamas' election, indicate Israelis are moving more and more to a centrist and moderate position - supporting the foundation of a Palestinian state.

Meanwhile, the presence in government of people whose positions you don't like, isn't unusual in parliamentary systems. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts we'd have neonazis and klansmen in Congress, if our system wasn't structured around the two-party system.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. The "mother from Israel" strikes again?

I've heard from some people in Israel who are quite outraged by your comments

If they're anything like that vile 'mother from Israel' you quoted with her clear hatred of Arabs and cutesy euphemisms for the destruction of Arab homes, then if I were Tom, I'd be happy that they're outraged...

CB, ignoring the fact that there are thousands of Israelis who do hold extreme views is denying reality. What were all those people who turned up to protest the disengagement? Invisible people or something?

Violet...

[Englander]

21. Er, Jabba isn't a prophet.

There aren't any religions that believe that creating a pictorial depiction of him
are forbidden, which is the case regarding Muhammad/Islam, so for that reason & others,
yer analogy is quite absurd. But, we get the message, you don't like the Brits, or the
ISM, or Palestinians, &tc, &tc, &tc.

[barb162]

30. Isn't that just a bit of a generalization

"...you don't like the Brits, or the
ISM, or Palestinians, &tc, &tc, &tc. "
I don't understand your first sentence nor your subject. By the way, if that is a supposed perjorative reference to someone, are we only talking about perjoratives for one side. Don't we want to refrain from perjoratives for all sides and respect the beliefs of others? One of the reasons I posted the article was to note the reaction to the cartoons. If in fact some people find them offensive and hurtful, then why add further offensive comments. Understanding goes both and all ways and so do double standards. And if I think there is a double standard, I will note it in some fashion or another, as I forwarded some negative cartoons about the USA in Palestinian newspapers to another poster here.

I expect more European papers to be publishing the cartoons as this thing snowballs.

[Englander]

223. I was replying to post #2.

If you read post #2, then my post, it may make the comments clearer, or make some
sense, or appear relevant, or it may not, I can't say.

Why would any 'negative cartoons about the USA' be relevant, the US = not a religion.

[smirkymonkey]

39. Thank You for your very sensible post.

Why do western nations have to be tolerant of Islamic intolerance?

[Jemmons]

5. This will be hard for you to accept and understand:

But the danish government really asked for this: For a number of years our political right wing (which happens to be far to the left of the US Democratic Party) 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 - you should try it - 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.

[barb162]

8. Thank you for this post. I am glad you posted your thoughts

I am for the rights of a free press and am a big supporter of same. Were the cartoons published over a period of a few days?

[Jemmons]

11. They were all published on the 30. of september ´05. n/t

[bloom]

273. Originally they were posted in Sept. and then more were posted

in November:

In November another Danish newspaper, WeekendAvisen, published another 10 satirical pictures of Muhammed.<3>
3 November - The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishes one of the cartoons


in January:

1 January - The Danish Prime Minister makes his yearly New Year's speech, emphasising that both religion and Freedom of Speech are respected in Denmark.
10 January - The Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet publishes the drawings.
22 January - The Brussels Journal publishes the pictures
31 January:
- The Icelandic newspaper DV publishes six of the twelve drawings.
- The German newspaper die tageszeitung publishes two of the cartoons.


Apparently there wasn't enough reaction - so in February there has been more postings:

1 February:
The French newspaper France Soir publishes the cartoons, adding one of their own. Chief editor Jacques Lefranc is fired later the same day by owner Raymond Lakah, a French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic<26>. The French Government dissociates itself from the initiative<27>.
The German newspaper Die Welt publishes some of the cartoons<28>, as do the German newspapers Tagesspiegel and Berliner Zeitung.
Italian La Stampa publishes the pictures.
Spanish El Periódico de Catalunya publishes the pictures.
The Dutch papers Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad and Elsevier publish the pictures.
Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch political party Group Wilders and holder of Group Wilder's seat in the Dutch parliament, puts the drawings on his personal web site.

2 February:
German newspaper Die Zeit publishes one of the cartoons on page 5. <34>
The Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan prints the drawings. The newspaper's manager is fired.<35>
The American newspaper New York Sun publishes two of the cartoons<36>.
The Belgian newspaper Le Soir publishes two of the drawings. <37>
The French newspaper Le Monde publishes a drawing of Muhammad's face formed only from words. The words read "I may not draw the Prophet."
The Swiss newspapers Le Temps and Tribune de Genève publish some of the cartoons, as does the Hungarian newspaper Magyar Hirlap. <38>
The Portuguese newspaper Público publishes one of the drawings - the most heated one - Muhammed with a bomb on his head.
The BBC shows the pictures on its news programmes but edits the image of the Prophet out of the scenes
The cartoons are shown in British television news programmes on ITV and Channel 4.
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS displays some of the images in its segment on the issue.

3 February:
The Belgian newspapers De Standaard publishes the cartoons.
Het Volk prints drawings of the prophet by Flemish cartoonists and says Belgian papers should publish such caricatures every week "so that Muslims can get used to the idea." <45>
The weekly New Zealand newspaper National Business Review prints one of the cartoons. <46>
Australian TV broadcasters SBS and ABC show images of some of the cartoons in their evening news bulletins

4 February:
The daily New Zealand newspaper The Dominion Post prints the cartoons and an accompanying article, including text from the Wikipedia article on the topic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

[pelsar]

14. so?......

I disagree....whatever the motive....for the most obvious comparison look at englands award winning cartoon....a direct "copy" of older anti semetic cartoons...and yet the response was well within the bounds of democracy.....

yes it was very offensive, but thats not enough to start with self censorship. Making fun of god is perfectly legit in democracies...those who are offended by it, can writer letters.....

[Violet_Crumble]

17. The Danish cartoon was bigoted...

..in that its intent was to portray Islam as a religion of terrorism. That's not making fun of god - that's outright bigotry...

I notice that everyone who's suddenly such big fans of 'freedom of expression' weren't holding that same view when it came to the comments of the Iranian president. The reactions to that called for a lot stronger stuff than mere letter-writing....

Violet...

[pelsar]

32. Your for censorship???

big difference between a cartoon in a newspaper and a president of a country threatening to wipe out a second country....
____________________________________________

but if were talking about bigoted cartoons, does that mean you found Englands award winning cartoon offensive?......many here felt it was perfectly ok.....(including me, didnt like it, though it was disgusting, but i wouldnt dream of calling for censorship...)

how about the last movie about Christ, that sure was anti semetic.....you would have that censored?

so i understand that cartoons of muhammed are not good...how about christ?..or moses?.....are they okay to make fun of?

sounds like censorship to me.....perhaps some guidelines of what we can and what we cant make fun of are in order?

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I'm opposed to bigotry...

I don't recall saying anythign about censorship in my post, or are you saying that even pointing out that something is bigoted is now censorship?

Violet..

[gulfcoastliberal]

165. So you're opposed to the bigoted platform of Hamas that advocates

destroying Israel and killing Jews?

Are you aware that jews have lived in Israel for over 2000 years? That they fought the Romans before the religion of islam was even created? Israel belongs to the Jews, and history proves it.

[Violet_Crumble]

201. WTF did that have to do with my post??

n/t

[smirkymonkey]

40. I suppose their is no bigotry or intolerance of western nations and

their customs in Muslim nations. Yeah, right. I call death threats the most extreme form of bigotry their is.

[barb162]

41. Were the cartoons calling for wiping a country off the map

No comparison, Violet

Lambasting something does not equal calling for the destruction of something

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Oh, so something is only bigotry if it's that??

Here's a big newsflash barb: Painting an entire religion in a way that portrays it as one of terrorism is bigotry. Lambasting is making fun of something. Learn the difference...

Also, calling for the destruction of something isn't necessarily bigotry...

I find this concept of approving of 'death to..' stuff ONLY when it's over something that someone agrees with to be exactly what it is...a display of double standards. There is no difference between the acceptability of 'death to...' type things depending on what it is they're calling 'death to'...

Maybe we should just rewrite the definition of bigotry so it says: 'If something is aimed at Israel, it is bigotry. Aimed at anything else, it is only lambasting, especially if aimed at Arabs or Muslims.'

Violet...

[barb162]

59. I just so love these little newsflashies of yours

So here's one for you. I am for freedom of the press. If you think something else, like satirical cartoons, are more important than freedom of the press, that's your problem.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. I'm glad to hear that...

We're both for freedom of the press. That isn't something I'm aware we disagree on. What you seem to be doing is claiming a cartoon that's bigoted isn't bigoted at all. I tend to think that's important, don't you?

Violet...

[barb162]

75. "Enough lessons from these retrograde bigots!"

French paper reprints Mohammed cartoons

The French newspaper denounced "this religious intolerance that refuses to support any mockery, any satire, any gibes." And the newspaper derided a motley assortment of critics of the cartoon -- ranging from Arab ministers who called the cartoons an "offense to Islam," to the Islamic Jihad and other extremist groups -- as hardly the "paragons of tolerance, humanity and democracy."


"Enough lessons from these retrograde bigots!" France-Soir wrote. "There is nothing criminal in these drawings, no racist intention, no will to denigrate a community as such. Some are funny, some less so, that's it. It's to show this that we've decided to publish them."

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060201-093618-4960r

Freedom of the press takes precedence over satire.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Barb, it's not satire. It's bigotry...

And I'll repeat it yet again for you. This isn't an argument about freedom of the press etc, as I haven't said I don't think things such as this shouldn't be published. What I'm finding strange is that anyone who sees the clear bigotry of it and is offended is labelled as someone who is opposed to freedom of this and that accusations...

But feel free to explain why labelling Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't bigoted...

Violet...

[barb162]

106. This is about freedom of the press, period

And when Rush Limbaugh trashes liberals day in and day out, I don't boycott Florida products, burn the state flag of Florida nor do I send death threats to Rush. I think there is a huge overreaction to these cartoons. The Danish Imams are now calling for quiet

[Violet_Crumble]

113. It's also about bigotry..period...

Is there something that's happening that when I say repeatedly, 'I'm not in disagreement about any freedom of the press' stuff, that it appears in invisibile ink? It's just that you keep on arguing it as though I disagree with that point...

What I find disturbing is the fact that articles like this one are aimed at and used to attack Muslims as a whole, while denying that portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't bigotry at all. I'm wondering why you seem to believe that the cartoon isn't bigoted, and why you think there's only one aspect to the whole thing. Considering most issues related to things in this forum have more than one aspect to them, I'm happy to say I at least can multiskill and talk about more than just one thing at a time...

Violet....

[barb162]

182. It's about satire, freedom of the press and about fundie zealots

who are trying like hell to censor the press, using tactics like death threats, bomb threats, kidnappings, etc.

PS. So glad you reported in to DU that you can multiskill. (Yours:"...I'm happy to say I at least can multiskill"...)

[Violet_Crumble]

203. Would you like to try explain why you don't think the cartoon's bigoted?

I've asked several times and had no luck yet...

P.S. I'm so glad that yr so glad, but yr gonna have to explain why it makes you so glad, as I've got no idea...

Violet...

[barb162]

263. Because this is about freedom of the press

and not about what you're trying to portray in the situation. Bigotry? Nope. Nada. No way, Jose. I liken this subject of supposed bigotry which you seem to see to the definition of pornography and US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous comment "I know it when I see it"

I don't see any bigotry in these satirical cartoons. I see freedom of the press as the preeminent issue and secondarily I see violent zealots who are way OTT with their death threats, kidnapping threats, bomb threats, etc. WTF ever happened to the concept of peaceful demonstration?



Yours "P.S. I'm so glad that yr so glad, but yr gonna have to explain why it makes you so glad, as I've got no idea..."

And I am delighted you're glad that I'm glad.....

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

282. It's also about bigotry...

Personally I think anyone who doesn't think that potraying Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't really thinking about it, and as I said to bemildred, this issue is a magnet for the anti-Muslim bigots so prevalent in the US. But I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time some folk who've been so very loud in this thread about how the cartoon isn't bigoted start shrieking about publications they consider to be bigoted against Jews, because some of their own words are going to get thrown right back at them...

Uh, oh-kay. I'm delighted that yr delighted that I'm glad that yr glad. Happy?

Violet...

[Wordie]

342. If you feel so strongly about freedom of expression, barb...

Then I'm sure you'll cease the posts critical about expressions of anti-semitism, won't you? In support of the need for free expression?

Both the anti-semitic posts/articles are bigoted, imho. Yet you support the freedom of expression idea for only those bigoted against Muslims. Can you explain this contradiction? Or do you only express outrage at limitations on free expression in one case, but not the other?

And, don't go off with a litany of the evidence of the secondary issue to avoid answering my question. As you said yourself, freedom of expression was the preeminent issue.

[Scurrilous]

110. Oh well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1700224,00.html

<snip>

"The front page of the daily France Soir carried the defiant headline: "Yes, we have the right to caricature God," and a cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud. Inside, the paper ran the drawings.

But last night it was reported that the paper's managing editor had been sacked and an apology issued. According to Agence France Presse, France Soir's owner, Raymond Lakah, said that he removed Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".

The paper's initial decision drew condemnation from the French foreign ministry, which acknowledged the importance of freedom of expression but said France condemned "all that hurts individuals in their beliefs or their religious convictions". The rare governmental rebuke revealed domestic sensitivity; France is home to western Europe's largest Muslim community with an estimated 5 million people. Germany has about 3 million."

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Jemmons]

18. and mindbogglingly stupid...

"I disagree....whatever the motive....for the most obvious comparison look at englands award winning cartoon....a direct "copy" of older anti semetic cartoons...and yet the response was well within the bounds of democracy....."

What exactly is your point with this poorly phrased and foggy statement?


"yes it was very offensive, but thats not enough to start with self censorship. Making fun of god is perfectly legit in democracies."

A lot of self defeating strategies are legitimate and even perfectly legitimate. That doesn't meant that they are not also bigot, racist, inflaming and mindbogglingly stupid.


"..those who are offended by it, can writer letters....."

And so they did, letters which hurt the credibility of danish middle east peace initiatives and the danish economy and brought danger and anxiety to a lot of tourist and NGO-workers in muslim countries. But we should all wear a smile at the next funerals, because those cartoons are so damned funny?

[pelsar]

33. censorhip?

so there are posters here who are for censorship?

the problem is not with the danes?....the problem lies with those who are intolerent.....

i dont believe freedom of expression is a "self defeating strategie".. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracies.

I understand then that cartoons that "offend" certain groups should be illegal?...hmm, perhaps you would like to list some guidelines for me?
Hindus?
Jews?
Vegetarians?
Cowboys
Politicians
Soldiers......

we wouldnt want to offend any of them with a biggoted cartoon now would we?

[barb162]

42. Well stated. And I think we have to let the political cartoonists

and newspapers do their thing, whether I think any particular choice on their part is in good taste or not.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[barb162]

47. Aint that the truth!

At least several European papers seem to be agreeing

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Yr right. It's hard to believe...

...and that'd be because I haven't seen anyone actually doing that in this thread...

Violet...

[Jemmons]

55. If only they had....

Traditionally it is the cartoonist prerogative to be the jokers, who can say whatever if there is a point to it. They are not expected to hold back, something which is left to the editors, who's job it is to draw the line (p.i.).

In this case the cartoonists were told what to draw by the editors, who then seemed to forget what their own job was.

[barb162]

61. good point

[Jemmons]

54. unless you refer to doing a bit of thinking before you run your mouth

"so there are posters here who are for censorship?"

Not me, unless you refer to doing a bit of thinking before you run your mouth.


"the problem is not with the danes?....the problem lies with those who are intolerent....."

I think you will find that I know a bit more about the danes than you do.


"i dont believe freedom of expression is a "self defeating strategie"..

That would be a strategy, but you are right. It just doesn't apply to this discussion.


"Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracies."

Ah, yes. What is the news here?


"I understand then that cartoons that "offend" certain groups should be illegal?"

No, you don't understand. And how could you if you read as badly as you write? It is not - and shouldn't be - illegal to get yourself a heavy tan in a solarium in just one day. Its just very unhealthy and mindbogglingly stupid. Jyllandsposten had - and should have - every legal right to do what they did. It was just an extremely narrow minded, self defeating, stupid and bigot thing to do.

"...hmm, perhaps you would like to list some guidelines for me?
Hindus?
Jews?
Vegetarians?
Cowboys
Politicians
Soldiers......"

Don't put your foot in your mouth. For details: Go on experience!

[pelsar]

63. i'll simplify for you...

And so they did, letters which hurt the credibility of danish middle east peace initiatives and the danish economy and brought danger and anxiety to a lot of tourist and NGO-workers in muslim countries.

which means because muslims are so intolerent of cartoons in a danish newspaper 1,000 of miles away, the danes should then limit their freedom of expression. (actually not just danes, but europeans, well and americans as well....)

many people have fought and died for the right of freedom of expression. and here you are "caving in to intolerence".....like i said, are there other types of cartoons that might cause "anxiety of tourists and NGO in other christian countries? or is this just a muslim thing?

[Jemmons]

68. Oh - but you still don't get it:

Having freedom of speech is not the same as running your mouth!

I have a friend who is in vain about a small promotion he got lately and glorifies his boss. I find they his employer is mostly just taking advantage of him and that my friend overestimates the importance of what he does. I have all the freedom I need to tell him, but why should I? Seems to me that: a) I could be wrong, b)he would not be convinced, c)he would feel hurt, d)it would make me a "smaller" person. So I don't.

I think that you will find that your heroes who fought for freedom of speech didn't think that we needed more gossip, lies, slander or rumors, but rather that it should not cost us years in prison to speak the truth when it was NEEDED!

[pelsar]

69. your confusing personal with society...

not hurting your friend by keeping your mouth shut is hardly the samething as a cartoonist drawing cartoon and "insulting millions". One is personal and your making a very specific judgement based on personal knowledge, the other involves a society which has expressed intolerence for a society that is very tolerent of the "other."

there is no reason to be tolerent of "intolerence". Where does it stop:....ice cream tops that a muslim "sees' allahs name? Nikes shows that have "allahs name on the back?...piggy banks?......

The cartoonist did nothing special, they've been making fun of all gods, religions, policiticans ever seen freedom was allowed. No society should be exempt from the cartoonist pen, that is the essence of freedom, being tolerent of intolerence is not a good thing, see iran and saudi arabia for examples of intolerence, see europe or america for examples of tolerence-where would you rather live?

the "tolerent countries have the right values (of tolerence) the others have the wrong values, being intolerent is simply wrong, and one doesnt bend to the intolerent, thats backward, its is they whom should be doing the bending. Tolernce is good, intolerence is bad...and yes its that simple.

as far as your "turth when it is needed"...well according to my values that truth is need now! today!

[Jemmons]

88. Are you drunk? n/t

[Spinoza]

152. "And how could you if you read as badly as you write?"

Considering that Pelsar is an Israeli I think his English writing is pretty good. How well do you write Hebrew?

[Violet_Crumble]

73. You seem to be mistaking opposition to bigotry for censorship...

Saying that something is offensive is NOT a call for censorship, pelsar. But seeing yr kind of focusing on censorship and freedom of speech, here's a question for you: Countries like my own have laws against inciting hatred. The riots at Cronulla were started by someone sending text messages around telling people to go bash some Lebs. The person who originated that text message was arrested and charged. I take it that yr appalled by the lack of freedom of expression afforded to them? Personally, I find the habit of some Americans to think that shrieking 'freedom of expression!!' when they like whatever bit of bigotry someone else is offended by to show a distinct lack of understanding of what freedom of expression entails. No-one can be stopped from saying whatever they like, but there are consequences for things said and written if they incite hatred, or are bigoted etc. As a friend of mine used to say, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can jump up in a darkened cinema and yell 'fire!!!!'. There are consequences for those actions. In the case of the cartoon, the consequence was that people were offended by it and the newspaper apologised. So I'm not really understanding why yr seeing people being offended by a cartoon as meaning they are for censorship...

Violet...

[pelsar]

120. yelling fire in a cinema....

the classic opponent to "freedom of expression"...and it does have its limits.

but if your going to claim that "bigoted cartoons" that make fun of a god are "off limits".....you've just widened the limits to include just about every politiical cartoon that can be drawn.

I would guess then you must be against ALL cartoons that make fun of religion?...i would also include other social groups as well.

and who are going to be the "moral cops" that decide what cartoons are "slightly bigoted" and ok and which are not?

(you did see Englands award winning cartoon correct?....does that fit the "bigoted definition" us jews sure thought so)

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html

[Violet_Crumble]

123. Where did I claim that bigoted cartoons are off limits??

Read what I said to you, pelsar. How is pointing out that speech has its consequences a classic opponent to "Freedom of expression"?? I'm wondering why yr so opposed to people voicing their offense over bigotry aimed at Muslims (anyone who claims that this isn't bigoted, but merely a bit of fun is a bigot themselves).

Most folk have the integrity to get a clue as to what's bigoted or not. Anyone who can say that a cartoon that portrays Islam as a religion of terrorism, yet complain loudly that even political cartoons about Israel are anti-Semitic really needs to take a good hard look at themselves and their motives...


Violet...

[pelsar]

131. complaining is fine....

those who are insulted should complain...thats part of freedom of speach....NOT being able to draw them for "fear" of insulting is censorship.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. And where have I been saying they shouldn't be drawn?

I think the slimy little bigots should draw to their heart's content and show themselves for what they really are. But most folk wouldn't draw them, not out of "fear", but out of being disgusted by bigotry...

Violet...

[pelsar]

189. the threats are real...

gunmen in gaza, the ministers of denmark no longer ride their bikes to work, but in armored cars, two of them hide out in army bases...
the intolerence of "some of those who are muslims and some of whos leaders are encourging it" is based on intolerence.....and that is a far greater wrong than mere cartoons that may or may not be bigoted

[Violet_Crumble]

205. For fucks sake, the cartoon is bigoted!

What's based on intolerance is the repeated view that it isn't. Maybe you can now point out to me where I've said that there's no threats, etc, because I definately haven't...

Violet...

[Name removed]

272. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

292. I'm growing to admire you...

You admit the cartoons are bigoted, and yr honest about not having a problem with religious bigotry. You've displayed a lot more honesty than one or two others in this thread, so thanks for that...

Violet...

[barb162]

275. Sez you.

And what in the world is this strangely composed thing supposed to mean?

"What's based on intolerance is the repeated view that it isn't"

[Violet_Crumble]

285. Actually, many more people than me find it bigoted...

Don't you see how portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism is bigoted? Do you think it's possible for anyone to be bigoted against Islam or Muslims?


Violet...

[barb162]

291. I am sure the people demonstrating and others agree with you

and many others don't.

[Violet_Crumble]

293. I've got no idea who exactly agrees with me...

I'm merely pointing out that yr 'sez you!' retort to me pointing out that the cartoon is bigoted is strongly implying I'm somehow alone in thinking this, when I'm most definately not...

Don't you see how portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism is bigoted? Do you think it's possible for anyone to be bigoted against Islam or Muslims?

Violet...

[barb162]

303. These are some strange questions, however I will try to answer

1."Don't you see how portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism is bigoted?"

If you are making a reference to the 12 cartoons, I think that portraying one person in a religion does not portray the entire religion as any one particular thing. I think I have written this before to you and wonder why you keep bringing the same thing up again.

2. "Do you think it's possible for anyone to be bigoted against Islam or Muslims?"

People can be bigoted about any religion, race, ethnic background, social background,etc. Why do you ask this? It is extremely common knowledge available in any basic sociology, psychology, etc text and many other sources

[Violet_Crumble]

324. That 'one person' excuse has already been blown apart...

That 'one person' isn't just a person, but Mohammed. Portraying him as a terrorist is an attempt to portray the entire religion as terrorists. No, I don't think you have written that to me before, apart from the one very recent post where I blew that particular excuse apart...

It's very clear why I asked, and it's got to do with denying the clear bigotry of portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism. If that sort of thing isn't considered to be bigoted, then I've got to wonder if there is anything that is...

Violet...

[barb162]

183. The gunmen today should have been arrested and charged

along with those sending out death and bomb threats, those going through the hotels looking for Europeans to kidnap, etc.

[rfkrfk]

10. cartoons are vastly more important than electricity service

if you don't believe me, ask Bulwincle the Moose or
Marvin the Martian

first things first --> cartoons

[barb162]

37. Rocky the flying squirrel agrees

:satire:

[Violet_Crumble]

19. How dare they demand an apology!!!!

There's got to be some slant where offended Muslims can be accused of stifling the freedom of expression of someone somewhere by demanding an apology for something that was offensive and bigoted! Let's drag out the butchers paper and marker pens, do some brainstorming, and come up with ten quick reasons why we can blame the offended Muslims by using those convenient words 'freedom of expression!! Bonus points are awarded for throwing in the words 'Israel is the only democracy in a sea of hostile Arab countries!!!' and any totally random reference to Arafat. We've got us some workshopping to do!!!

Violet...

[barb162]

25. France enters Muslim cartoon row

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4669360.stmast Updated: Wednesday, 1 February 2006, 12:55 GMT

France enters Muslim cartoon row

A French newspaper has reproduced a set of Danish caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad that have caused outrage in the Muslim world.

France Soir said it had published the cartoons to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.

Their publication in Denmark has led to protests in several Arab nations.


snip
The paper said it had decided to republish them "because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society". Do you agree?

snip

Violet, do you see that last sentence immediately above? That's a very, very important sentence to some people. I will repeat the thought: "...no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society"

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Which people would it be important to, barb?

Only bigots would try to claim that a bigoted cartoon is merely an 'attack on religious dogma'


Violet...

[barb162]

57. These newspaper editors from several different European

countries would probably disagree with you, since they chose to print the cartoons. But to make sure, why don't you ask them since I don't speak for them. Are you under the impression I am their spokesperson?

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Huh? I asked you what people it would be important to...

Why are you telling me I have to ask them and that I think yr their spokesperson? That's one of the weirdest things I've ever read...

Violet...

[barb162]

153. why are you asking me "what people it would be important to"

Violet, I am not the spokesperson for other people. And yours likewise:"That's one of the weirdest "questions" I've ever read..."

[Violet_Crumble]

191. Because you said: 'That's a very, very important sentence to some people.'

n/t

[barb162]

278. Let's get things back in context and exact quotes,Violet

Part of my post 25 was:
"snip
The paper said it had decided to republish them "because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society". Do you agree?

snip

Violet, do you see that last sentence immediately above? That's a very, very important sentence to some people. I will repeat the thought: "...no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society""


The paper in question was France Soir. Now if you want to question people, check with those who wrote it, the editors most likely , and ask them about it. You might also want to write an open letter to the readers of the paper and perhaps open letters to other papers that published the cartoons. I also happen to very much agree with that comment in the paper and I think it is self-explanatory and needs no further discussion.

[Violet_Crumble]

284. I posted the exact thing in context...

From what I can work out, yr claiming the sentence is very important to some people, but you've got no idea why they find it important...

I dont' want to question the people who wrote the article. I never said I wanted to question the people in the article. I asked you a very simple question based on the fact that this is a discussion forum and you'd said that it was a very very important sentence to some people. Now I know that you have no idea why someone people find it a very very important sentence, I think we can move on to something a bit more constructive...

Violet...

[barb162]

301. The sentence IS very important and self explanatory.

Since I didn't write it though perhaps you should question or get further clarification from those who wrote it versus me. It is so clearly written I see nothing to discuss.

[Violet_Crumble]

323. How do you know??

You claim you don't know why it's very important, just that it is. So how do you know that it's found important. Maybe you could even explain why YOU find it important?

Please stop telling me to get in touch with people I've already said I'm not interested in talking to...

Violet...

[Igel]

43. They got one.

However they continue to caricature Islam in ways that make the Danes' petty drawings look downright complimentary to Muhammed.

Contrition. Punishment. Retribution. In short, intolerance of the worst stripe.

What--a mere apology? Sorry, we're not done our arrogant rage at the slight. We, the worshippers of the Compassionate, feel absolutely no need to show the least bit of it. After all, our god needs defending. Insult our prophet, and you--infidels--deserve to die. All of your ethnicity. Communalism at its best, but that's our tradition: don't just respect it, adopt it.

I think even the apology was wrong and spineless. It should have been worded, "I'm sorry that you found this offensive. But you should understand Danish culture and the context in which these were produced--one of intolerance and compulsion on the behalf of, it seems, so-called Muslims very much like yourselves. Feel free to caricature us and our values, but calling for our execution and government oversight of our press is, in our opinion, vile. You defame and insult Islam and all Muslims by your arrogant and intolerant words and actions, lacking all mercy and compassion. As non-believers, we're embarrassed for Allah if that's the best he can attract."

There are Islams that are religions of peace. But one should not confuse the identity of name for identity of referent. Not all Muhammeds are the prophet. There are Islams that are not religions of peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

119. Who wrote that crap?

Got a link? Whoever it was has an appalling grasp of English and it was so incoherent it made little sense. All it proves is that there are some folk who hate Muslims so much that even an apology for what was a bigoted cartoon raises their blood pressure so much their writing turns into incoherent babble. Or it could be that Danish is just such a weird language that it's hard to translate into English.

Anyway, I'll put that babble into the same pile of bigoted stuff as the morons who insist that all Muslims must apologise for acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. It appeals to some for obvious reasons, but it's the same sort of vile you'd hear from some uneducated redneck boofhead...

Violet...

[barb162]

35. Newspaper says 'sorry' to Muslims

http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,610577&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&ic_itemid=915671

31 January 2006
Newspaper says 'sorry' to Muslims

Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten apologises to Muslims for stepping on their religious feelings by publishing caricatures of Mohammed


Four months after publication of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, Denmark's largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, apologised to the Muslim world on Monday.

The newspaper said it never intended to harm the feelings of Muslims, and that it had published the cartoons as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression.

'In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize,' wrote editor-in-chief Carsten Juste in an open letter to all Muslims on Monday.

snip

[Spinoza]

60. Backing down like this

is really cowardly. Who ever said political cartoons cannot be offensive to some people? To many people? Since when do the religious, of any religion, get a blank pass on not being offended? The best political cartoonists are terribly offensive to many people. So what? As far as I am concerned, a good rule of thumb is the more people hugely pissed off, the better the cartoon. Lets see more cartoons making fun of religions and religious figures. No one is exempt, including the Prophet.

[barb162]

108. No "unreserved" apologies

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2018709,00.html

snip
"The diplomatic row has intensified after Jyllands-Posten, the offending newspaper, and Mr Rasmussen both refused to offer unreserved apologies for the images, which were first published last September and reprinted earlier this month by a Norwegian Christian magazine."
snip

[channa18]

46. Does anyone have any link where I can see these??

man, ive looked everywhere and read descriptions but no ACTUAL CARTOONS on any link.

[barb162]

48. yeah

as they showed up in the original paper, I believe, and this was through a BBC link


http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aiid=3530562:img=P/

[Coastie for Truth]

52. Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones - But Names Will Never Hurt Me

Get effin real.

When I was in Junior High School I used to walk past a Parochial School - and my friends and I were routinely greeted with the age old cry of "Christ Killers".

And there were some appenders who used to routinely misquote W. Seth Carus' Bioterrorism and Biocrimes - The Illicit Use of Biological Agents Since 1900. So I bought a copy - read the portion, and the referenced paper, and saw they were effin full of biohazard biowaste -- and gave them the credibility that they deserved.

Get effin real - get over it.

[appolonios of tyana]

62. ...

I'm glad they don't show south park episodes there.


Or we would be :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

I think they need more comedians..maybe a few stand up clubs or something? I'm just saying...There are bigger fish to fry other than being upset at what a Non-Islamic/Non Arabic nation chooses to post as a cartoon.

[Tom Joad]

64. You forget. The US has nuked Arab countries already.

Depleted Uranium and all that. I think these folks are upset because of all the terror the West has unleashed on them for decades, from standing behind a brutal occupation and then the genocidal project in Iraq, that the cartoon is just one more insult. If it were not for that context, then I think the cartoon would have been ignored as the rantings of a lunatic fringe.

Much like South Park. That is not an anti-free speech statement, i am just giving my opinion of Comedy Central's idiocy.

By the way, graphics are not allowed on this forum. So it will be deleted.

[appolonios of tyana]

66. Sorry...

Sorry, I didn't know about the graphics thing.

I know that the west is a culprit in a lot of ways..I just wish humor could/would have a bigger play in everything. I think the world would be a better place if we learned how to laugh at ourselves and appreciate our differences as apposed to constantly trying to defend them as better than the next guys.

Again, Sorry for the graphics...This is the second post that I have used graphics in..OOOPS! :shrug:

[pelsar]

67. the west is the culprit?

for what?....freedom of speach?....their intolerence (muslims in islamic countries) is hardly anything new, in fact if you knew the history of the region and culture you would find that not only is the west NOT involved but that its very much part of the culture (sometimes history and facts are a bit more important than political correctness)

[barb162]

76. Welcome to DU

I think almost all the other forums allow graphics.

You're right about the humor issue. Imagine if the people of every country started boycotting, making death threats, etc., to the citizens of other countries every time a snotty cartoon came out poking fun at something or some issue.

[pelsar]

65. Burger king offend muslims....

THE fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim.
The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a "jihad".
_____________
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1951292005

so if i understand correctly the designer of ice cream cones was a bigot?.......


or perhaps Nike?
Nike and the Council on American-Islamic Relations completed an agreement last week, officially resolving a problem that began in April 1997 when CAIR objected to a shoe with a design on the heel similar to the Arabic word for "God" or "Allah."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/21/nike.islamic/
________________

can you imagine those bigots at nike!

[barb162]

77. those are pretty interesting stories

[smirkymonkey]

80. Jesus H. Christ!

This is beyond ridiculous. :nuke:

[Violet_Crumble]

115. All religions do it...

If it surprises you, I'm wondering where you've been hiding all this time. btw, I'm wondering if I should stress the word ALL when I say all religions do it, because some folk on the net appear to only be interested in the faux outrage thing when Muslims are offended by something...

Violet...

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[barb162]

288. There seems to be a huge amount of intolerance

and hypersensitivity on the part of those who are doling out the threats and violence. The over-reaction and apparent rage is amazing.

If a person finds the cartoons disrespectful and that person is angry, that person can peacefully demonstrate, refuse to buy the paper, write letters to the paper, tell the local and other mosques not to buy the paper, have the local religious organization complain, etc. But death, kidnapping, and bombing threats and the violent demonstrations just show that a fair number of people have gone bananas about this. Somehow, my right to freedom is the press should be usurped by their religious dictates about what is proper ?

The first time I actually ever heard your basic premise discussed was when a TV show covered a story about a Palestinian business man a few years ago. He wrote a letter to one of the major newspapers and said something along the lines of: we are the laughing stock of the world because we refuse to modernize, we are always looking backward and we are always blaming everyone else for our problems, etc." It was a long letter and I am paraphrasing. It caused a sensation in Pakistan at the time and I saw a discussion of it with a panel of Mideast newspaper editors and scholars on a PBS show. I cannot recall even the year (about 3 yrs ago) I saw the show and I remember only one of the panelists but it was one of the damned most interesting shows I have ever seen!

[barb162]

283. "All" sure is a broad brush

Do you keep track of what the Bahai, Theravada Buddhists, Episcopalians, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, etal are doing? And are you keeping track of the dissident groups too?

[Violet_Crumble]

286. No, broadbrush is portraying an entire religion as terrorists...

Y'know, like in that cartoon that you repeatedly insist isn't bigoted...

Violet...

[barb162]

289. Could you explain your comment about : All Religions do it

And correct, the cartoons aren't bigoted.

[Violet_Crumble]

290. I can't make it any clearer for ya...

And yr wrong. The cartoons are bigoted, and I've explained why in a lot of detail in another reply to you...

Violet...

[barb162]

302. How about some links where "All religions" as you claim

are boycotting products, getting products changed, etc. You made the claim.

And I must again reply this is a free press rather than a bigotry issue. I have also explained why that is the case.

[Violet_Crumble]

327. Considering I didn't say that, the answer is a big no...

And just to clarify for anyone who'd try to wilfully misinterpet what I said - I said all religions did it in reply to a post that pointed out examples of offense being caused to Muslims and sometimes asking for things to be changed. I did not claim all religions boycotted or whatever the hell else you claimed I said...

Clear enough? Good. I can't believe so much time gets taken up with this garbage...


Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

329. Considering you did say it...

"All religions do it...

If it surprises you, I'm wondering where you've been hiding all this time. btw, I'm wondering if I should stress the word ALL when I say all religions do it, because some folk on the net appear to only be interested in the faux outrage thing when Muslims are offended by something...

Violet..."

post 115

That was in response to a poster commenting about the absurd nature of people boycotting Nike and Burger King.

[barb162]

336. Yeah, it sure is clear as day in post 115! Talk about denial

by some posters, WHEW!!!! and EWWWW!

[barb162]

335. Your post 115 : "All religions do it..." links please, proving this

sweeping generalization

[Violet_Crumble]

347. I've already told you no...

And explained the reason why I'm not going to. I'd prefer it if you don't ask again...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Here's another interesting story...

I was asked once not to use the term 'porky' here in the forum as it offended one of the Jewish posters that was here at the time. So explain to me, Pelsar, what's the difference?


Violet...

[pelsar]

121. a direct personal request....

vs a threat......if the DUer threatend to close down DU if you didnt cease, that would be a bit different wouldnt it?

[Violet_Crumble]

122. It wasn't a direct personal request...

And if I hadn't ceased I would have been banned. How is that different exactly? And what happened to all that stuff about censorship? Seems to me there's a pattern of selectivity emerging here. When Muslims do something it's bad, but when others do it, theres always got a million and one excuses...

Violet...

[pelsar]

124. the difference is...

that when jews/christians/hindus are singled out in cartoons in a paper in a different country one doesnt see "boycotts" and threats, when the US is poked fun at, the streets arent lined with boycotting americans (or did i miss something?)

perhaps you can show us some examples of when other groups (religions, nations) were insulted by a cartoon in a different country, they started screaming "boycott, insulting!, with large protests?...i dont remember any....


as far as you not being able to use the work "porky".....well, lets just say i would have used it in every post possble....(a request can be listened to or not, a threat is to be called upon....). I would have been glad to join up and use that "awful word"....


just to emphises the point: religion does not have 'special rights" when it comes to political satire....quite the contrary, religion with all of its upside down/brain washing thinking and ethics should be made fun of....

[Violet_Crumble]

125. What utter bullshit...

You were responding to the post that was carrying on because some companies had altered products because they offended Muslims. I pointed out that other religions were offended by things and asked people to alter their behaviour/products, and suddenly I'm being told that it's different when it's Muslims. No need for me to wonder why anymore...

Violet...

[pelsar]

129. its also how its done....

for companies to be sensitive to religions if fine...i have no problem with that...i do have when the system used is to scream "jihad" and threaten the company...as was the case with burger king, (and lesser with nike)

but i was talking about the cartoon (I may have gotten mixed up), company products are a bit more complicated and do require a bit more sensitivity to the various social groups, and i believe they do since its in their economic interests.

[barb162]

344. talk about bullshit!? Your post 115 states "all religions" Links?

Your post 115 states: "All religions do it"

I've asked for links a few times on this sweeping generalization of yours.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. Here's the stuff you posted that there's no difference with...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x114337#114510

This had nothing to do with cartoons, it's got to do with the fact that religious people being offended is not unique to Islam, yet there's a bunch of folk here acting as though that's exactly the case....

Violet...

[pelsar]

128. so islam was insulted?

big fukin deal....jews and israel are insulted everyday....so?

thats what satirical cartoons are all about.

and this one?
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html

i dont recall when this came up on the DU, you were protesting it, me I found it very insulting (and rather very unoriginal)

[Violet_Crumble]

132. Big fucking deal?

This wasn't a satirical cartoon. It was bigoted, and as you've yet to explain how portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism is not bigotry, I'll keep on waiting for yr explanation...



Violet...

[pelsar]

135. how about this one?

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html

(did you protest that one?...i dont recall, when there was a discussion about it)

thats not just bigoted, insulting its also unoriginal......yet they have every right to draw it, post it and i will be insulted....but i will not tell them that they have to apologise for it (the cartoonist refused to when asked....).....end of story.

i thought the danish drawings were satirical cartoons....seems they fit the definition

[Violet_Crumble]

138. Explain how portraying an entire religion as one of terrorism isnt bigoted

I've asked you more than a few times now and I want to know how that isn't bigoted.

Don't waste yr time trying to ask me a single question until you do me the courtesy of explaining how portraying Islam as a religion of terrorism isn't bigoted...

Violet...

[pelsar]

143. is it bigoted?..

according to some (you) its is, as i see it its satirical, just as Jews or israelis are protrayed as a single evil entity or americans or french etc etc.

perhaps you can tell me where that line is between bigotry and satirical, and i will then link you to quite a few million satirical cartoons that all protray certain societies/social groups/ etc with gross generaliztions that are insulting.

and you can tell me that they are all bigoted...and maybe in your eyes they are, but thats also the definition of satire:

Satire is a mode of challenging accepted notions by making them seem ridiculous. It usually occurs only in an age of crisis, when there exists no absolute uniformity but rather two sets of beliefs. Of the two sets of beliefs, one holds sufficient power to suppress open attacks on the established order, but not enough to suppress a veiled attack.

Further, satire is intimately connected with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, and assumes a civilized opponent who is sufficiently sensitive to feel the barbs of wit leveled at him. To hold something up to ridicule presupposes a certain respect for reason, on both sides, to which one can appeal. An Age of Reason, in which everyone accepts the notion that conduct must be reasonable, is, therefore, a general prerequisite for satire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
___________

now you can answer my single question.....(see above)

[Violet_Crumble]

213. It most definately is bigoted..

And for the same reason that portraying Jews in a negative way is bigoted. Try this exercise, pelsar. Ask yrself why the very same sort of things that you find bigoted when aimed at Jews isn't found by you to be bigoted when aimed at Muslims.

[barb162]

276. And how do 12 cartoons about one person imply that an

entire religion is one of terrorism? Was there an attack on the Koran or something?

[Violet_Crumble]

287. Here's why...

Because the person wasn't any Joe Average as you imply, but Mohammed. Think about it this way, barb. A cartoon appears with Rabbis sitting around formulating US foreign policy for him. Using yr 'logic' when it comes to the cartoon of Mohammed, you'll sit there claiming that the cartoon's not bigoted because it's not implying that an entire group of people control US foreign policy? That it's okay because the cartoon was only about two or three people and you'd really like to know how a cartoon about two or three people implies that an entire group of people control US foreign policy. After all, it's not like someone took a dump on the Talmud or something...

Bottom line is I know there are some folk who it's pointless to try to discuss this issue with, or any issue relating to bigotry against Muslims or Arab, which makes me glad I don't live in the US, where bigoted attitudes are much more common than elsewhere. Those type of people refuse to see any instance of hatred or intolerance of Muslims as bigotry, and go out of their way to spread misinformation and distortions about Islam and Muslims. Bigotry's an ugly thing and those folk are every bit as slimy and poisonous as their close relatives, the anti-Semites...

Violet...

[barb162]

298. Your "analysis" is incorrect. Were those cartoons about Allah?

The cartoons were not about God or Allah and certainly not about the Koran. Yours: "After all, it's not like someone took a dump on the Talmud (Koran, Bible, what have you)or something..." That's right.

It has everything to do with freedom of the press and over-reaction by zealots who are threatening innocent people.

[Violet_Crumble]

300. Nope, it was fine. Try reading the post again...

Take special note of 'Because the person wasn't any Joe Average as you imply, but Mohammed. Think about it this way, barb. A cartoon appears with Rabbis sitting around formulating US foreign policy for him. Using yr 'logic' when it comes to the cartoon of Mohammed, you'll sit there claiming that the cartoon's not bigoted because it's not implying that an entire group of people control US foreign policy? That it's okay because the cartoon was only about two or three people and you'd really like to know how a cartoon about two or three people implies that an entire group of people control US foreign policy?' This is the bulk of the post that I think you really need to concentrate on. The rest is window-dressing, and I'll go back and edit it out so it's not too distracting if you like...

Violet...

[Name removed]

304. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

321. I read it again...

I was concentrating just like I was the first time. So, let's go back to the section of my post which I reposted for you and recap:

You claim that the cartoon isn't about Allah or the Koran. There's been no dispute that the person protrayed in the cartoon was Mohammed. You do realise the importance of Mohammed in Islam, don't you? Now, can you explain what yr pointing out the Allah/Koran stuff has to do with the example I gave of the cartoon about Rabbis and US foreign policy?

Violet...

[barb162]

337. Quite simply, Islam is not being trashed by those cartoons

and I think bringing other religions amnd US foreign policy in the discussion is off topic. How can the whole of Islam be trashed when the Koran isn't even mentioned.

[Violet_Crumble]

348. Yes, I already know that's yr opinion...

And I think that particular opinion is one that doesn't show any consistancy when the same sort of logic is applied to the same sort of stereotyping against other religions or ethnic groups. It is very possible for something to be bigoted against Islam or Muslims without the Koran being mentioned, and it makes no sense at all that something can only be bigotry if the Koran is mentioned. Also, the example of the Rabbis and US foreign policy is definately NOT off topic. Anyone who would see that particular cartoon as bigotry would have an impossible task to then turn around and claim that the Danish cartoon isn't bigoted....

Violet...

[barb162]

277. Islam wasn't insulted

at least not in my book

[Violet_Crumble]

295. Of course it wasn't insulted in yr book...

Never had any doubts about that one. I'm more interested in books that are a bit more impartial when it comes to Muslims...


Violet...

[liberalpragmatist]

137. Actually, RW-Hindus are EXTREMELY sensitive...

... as a Hindu, I'll state that plenty of my co-religionists are nutcases who jump at the slightest provocation. There have been boycotts against McDonalds in India for various reasons, and lots of other agitations - for example, banning a book that argued (quite convincingly) that ancient Hindus ate beef. Now, you're right that this kind of mass protest engulfing much of the Muslim world is more unique - even in India, most people just ignore it and it's a subset that reacts very loudly.

Overall, though, this kind of sensitivity is actually a problem all throughout the Non-Western world and even in some quarters IN the Western world. The Christian Right certainly boycotts over ridiculous things and what they see as "un-Christian" values. Part of that is cultural and part of it's economic. Economically prosperous, democratic, open societies are less religious and more rational and generally ignore what they disagree with. Plus, most non-Western cultures haven't had a recent experience with open debate and free speech, so they don't exactly take kindly to satire.

As for these cartoons - they were clearly in bad taste and I don't like them. But free speech is free speech. If Muslims are afraid that it defames God, than it'll be God's judgement. Calls for a Jihad, boycotts, and diplomatic snaffus are silly, even if I can understand where they're coming from.

[Behind the Aegis]

141. That is true.

I remember when a few went bat-shit over a "Xena" episode.

ON EDIT: RWs of any group are always oversensitive, unless they are the ones doing the targeting, then the victim needs to "grow a thicker skin."

[liberalpragmatist]

142. Right

Actually, on reflection, I'm not sure I really oppose a boycott. I don't know the specifics, and I haven't seen the offending cartoons. I'm as big an opponent of excessive political correctness as anyone, but if these cartoons really were blatantly bigoted, a boycott is well within people's right to protest.

I mean, I'm sure that if a publication in the U.S. was anti-Semitic and employed caricatures out of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, plenty of DU'ers would boycott or insist on an apology, and I don't think that could be defended on "free speech" grounds.

OTOH, calls for a Jihad, calls for the Danish government to intervene, calls for violence, and recalling ambassadors is absurd and in the case of advocating violence, terrible. And while it's within offended Muslims' rights to protests, I wonder if this didn't just buy the offending cartoons a LOT more publicity.

[pelsar]

144. boycotting is fine...

but apolgies from a tolerent country to start acting "intolerent" is not acceptable.

[channa18]

85. In case anyone cares at this point........

Apparently images/cartoons of Mohammed have been used for CENTURIES in books and literature and EVEN IN POSTERS.

Absolutely amazing pictorial and most are apparently from muslim TYPE publications or authors/artists.

Quite a collection of representations

http://info2us.dk/muhammed/

[bemildred]

87. This is a free speech issue.

The Danes should tell the Muslims to fuck off, in this case, whatever the cost.
Of course, every effort should be made to do that in a diplomatic way, but the
message should be made clear.

[channa18]

92. Holy shit !!! ...."tell the Muslims to fuck off" ???

I cant believe my eyes !!

wheres your empathy ??

[bemildred]

94. I'm fairly rigorous about free speech.

And when people start talking about "heresy" and "blasphemy" and so on I get annoyed. I don't care much for taboos or any sort.

Edit: I have to say I don't care for the story much, it does reek of Muslim bashing, it's not like Muslims invented this sort of shit, or are even the foremost practitioners of it.

[channa18]

103. My view...

I've withheld my opinion about these cartoons BECAUSE I STILL HAVENT SEEN THE DAMN CARTOONS YET IN CONTEXT AND CLARLY VISIBLE.
(UH-HEM)

But be that as it may, i have no problem skewing religous figures but let me be clear....not because of their religion but for their USE/MISUSE of religion. For instance, skewing Pat " gods going to call me home unless you send me money" Robertson deserves to be used by cartoons for derision and ridicule because he ABUSES RELIGION and not beause he's believes in christ.

Terrorists deserved to be derided because they USE religion as a weapon TO CARRY OUT ATROCITIES.

The Nazi's used cartoons to dehumanize Jews BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS....not because they abused their religion.

Each cartoon has to be judgd on its intended purpose.

[bemildred]

105. The Nazis did not rise to power because of free speech.

And the first thing they did was suppress it.
Therefore, I oppose censorship in all its forms.
Let everyone be ridiculed. Let all taboos be violated.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. It's also a magnet for anti-Muslim bigots...

Kind of noticing that lately. I don't think the Danes have to do anything. I think the newspaper owed people an apology coz it was a bigoted cartoon, and that's abou tit...

Violet...

[bemildred]

96. Yeah, see my edit in post #94.

But I stand by my point.

[Violet_Crumble]

116. Yr point about free speech?

I'm not disagreeing with you about that bit, though I think some in this thread dont' seem to realise that this free speech thing isn't some unlimited magical thing and that there are consequences to what's said. The fact that some are upset about the newspaper apologising for the offense the cartoon caused says a lot to me about their lack of understanding of what free speech is about...

Violet...

[bemildred]

117. Well, yeah.

I'm not advocating bigotry, I'm just saying let them talk all they want.
And I extend that to Holocaust deniers and anti-semites too, and Pope-bashers
and Jerry Falwell and islamic fundies. It's the people that want to throw
other people in jail for speech that worry me, and the ones that want to
"protect" us from speech.

[pelsar]

134. no apology....

if you apoligise it means you were wrong and you wont do it again....that means no satrical cartoons involving islam...and that IS WRONG, a greater wrong that muslim intolerence.

[Violet_Crumble]

136. What's wrong is claiming such a bigoted cartoon is only satire...

You still haven't explained to me how portraying a religion as one of terrorism isn't bigotry. Apologising is something any decent person with a shred of integrity would do, and considering only bigots would want to publish that sort of crap again, I wouldn't expect them to want to apologise...

btw, saying people being offended by that bigotry is 'muslim intolerance' is just another example of attacking Muslims for daring to be offended by anything. Something you seem to be unaware of is that just like there is bigotry against Jews, there is also bigotry against Muslims....

Violet...

[pelsar]

145. bigotry or satire?

i see it as satirical....

the muslims can be insulted as much as they want to be, just as i am when i see anti israeli/jew cartoons....so big fukin deal.

thats not reason enough for the danes to limit their freedom of speach or apolgies for that freedom

[pelsar]

130. hey we agree.....

do it nicly, but do it.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. I doubt it...

I think bemildred's motivations are very different to yrs. Here's what'll sort the wheat from the chaff, though:

The Israeli govt complained and demanded an apology over a cartoon they found offensive that was published in another country. You'd say that Israel should be told to fuck off in a nice way? Somehow I doubt that very much...

Violet...

[pelsar]

146. i would say....

that the country (england is a good example) would explain thats its part of their culture and israel just has to accept it....which is exactly what happened when england chose a very antisemetic cartoon as their "political cartoon winner"

the israeli response was to lodge an official protest. In response, The Independent, published the cartoon a second time on its front page, along with responses both for and against.

and there were other complaints as well.....crying it was anti semtic etc.....

and thats the way countries that are tolerent, and insulted handle those things...satire generalizes and insults, the musims dont have any more rights than the jews in that respect.....they can and should be insulted just like the rest of us..and they should be told politily just like israel was" to fuk off"

[Jim Sagle]

97. So who's going to do the cartoon apology? Pat Oliphant?

[barb162]

107. Danish imams urge calm over Muhammad cartoons

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2018709,00.html
snip
Last night, after gunmen threatened to kill Danes travelling through the Middle East because of the cartoons, Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, issued a statement through a Jordanian news agency to try and dampen the controversy but he refused to apologise unreservedly.

"The drawings are not against the law but have indisputably insulted many Muslims, for which we shall apologise," the statement said.
snip
"The people I've spoken to today said the cartoons just welcomed Muhammad to the beloved Danish tradition of satirical humour. They are absolutely clear they will not apologise," said Browne. "They said the Prophet received the same treatment that Christians and Christ would get from cartoonists and that it would be wrong to treat Islam any differently from other religions."
snip
"We have from the beginning said these drawings are making Muslims angry and hurt. But we honestly never thought this case would develop to the point where Danish products in the Middle East are being threatened to this extent," Ahmed Abu Laban, a prominent imam, said in a statement.
snip

[channa18]

109. Dear Mr. Juste, After reviewing your statements, you may want to...

BUILD THE BIGGEST DAMN WALL IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD !!!!


Good luck , pal....:hide:

[pelsar]

127. intolerence?

change your own definition of freedom, your own countries culture, live in fear of the "wrong cartoons" wrong ice cream tops...or stand up for ones right to draw bigoted, and or ugly and stuiped satircial cartoons.....

[Jemmons]

147. 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 will not be on record for saying what he clearly thinks. Ann Coulter comes to mind as a good example of someone who serves the powers that be by giving voice to their venom in a way that they themselves could never do in public: "The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient". 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.

[pelsar]

149. in the interest of curiosity...

I assume that "this cartoon" also fits your description of causing maximum anger? and indirect violence, hence it should not be "allowed"


http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html

[Behind the Aegis]

148. Link to the cartoons in question

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Colorado Blue]

155. What is this link? And what does Spielberg have to do with

this thread?

[barb162]

158. Is this a personal blog?

[Colorado Blue]

156. I understand that Post #93 refers to me as "The Mother of

Israel."

LOL! I should run for Prime Minister maybe? Maybe a good Yiddishe Mama could straighten out this situation.

Seriously: the topic of this thread is Danish cartoons, which have now been published throughout Europe, and which are causing an uproar.

This is an interesting and serious topic and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL.

Can we please discuss the topic?

Thank you.

[Violet_Crumble]

280. You understand wrong...

I was referring to the 'mother FROM Israel' who (as I stated in my post #93, which for some reason is being replied to here) in another thread had said some really disgusting and hateful things about the demolition of Palestinian homes...

You might not have noticed, but I have been discussing the cartoons in this thread. Feel free to join in anytime, okay?

Thank you...

[barb162]

157. Westerners flee Gaza, West Bank

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138878507685&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Westerners flee Gaza, West Bank
Spiralling anger over Danish caricature
Feb. 2, 2006. 11:55 AM
IBRAHIM BARZAK
ASSOCIATED PRESS


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Armed militants angered by cartoon drawings of the Prophet Muhammad published in European media surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as outrage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world.
Foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers began leaving Gaza as gunmen there threatened to kidnap citizens of France, Norway, Denmark and Germany unless those governments apologize for the drawings.

In Paris, the daily newspaper France Soir fired its managing editor after it republished the caricatures Wednesday, and Pakistani protesters chanting “Death to France!”

Gunmen in the West Bank city of Nablus entered four hotels to search for foreigners to abduct, and they warned hotel owners not to host citizens from several European countries. Gunmen said they were also searching apartments in Nablus for Europeans.

Militants in Gaza said they would shut down media offices from France, Norway, Denmark and Germany, singling out the French news agency Agence France-Presse.



snip

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[smirkymonkey]

160. You make some excellent points.

I wish the Muslim world agreed with you. They have gotten completely out of control in this matter.

[Colorado Blue]

254. I think there's a huge cultural gap here. Eventually, we will

come closer together, I hope.

I was thinking about this in the context of Japan. It was only a few decades ago we were involved in a total war with the Japanese, and the Japanese people were portrayed as "The Yellow Peril." And certainly, the path to understanding between Japan and the West hasn't been easy and it's been extremely painful - especially to the Japanese, I think, whose traditional culture has been challenged.

However, they have managed to open themselves to our ways while remaining uniquely Japanese, and their culture has influenced our own, dramatically - especially in the areas of art, design, architecture, as well as technology.

I hope we can get to know the Muslim world better and vice versa. But I think it will take time. It complicated by the fact that much of the Islamic world has the misfortune of sitting on a lot of oil. Our relations with them have been primarily economic and primarily for our benefit and we've neglected getting to know them as people, and there is intolerance and xenophobia in the Muslim world as well.

I hope we can all get to know each other better without more violence!

[Spinoza]

161. Apparently, "Mothers of Israel"

sure can write well! What a treat.

[Colorado Blue]

253. Thank you!

[Violet_Crumble]

296. No, it's Mother from Israel, and MFI isn't CB....

MFI couldn't write her way out of a paper-bag....

Violet...

[Englander]

220. That's not correct.

--The cartoons of Mohammed, as I understand it, are being condemned primarily because they depict the prophet - period - and not because they're offensive, although I can certainly understand why people might be upset IF they portrayed Islam as a violent religion or Muslims as evil people, or were created specifically to demonize Muslims.--

At least three, possibly more, of them do exactly what you've described, so, as you say;

--If that were the case I too would be angry, and I would protest, because in that case the fine line might well have been crossed. Diversity and peaceful co-existence require mutual respect.--

_________________


I think those who are calling this 'freedom of expression' would most probably use
different standards if the situation were different, this cartoon makes that point;

Post #146, from a lbn thread;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2080827#2082553

[Colorado Blue]

251. Bottom line, the people who are offended are the ones who

have the right to judge what is offensive.

So, if people find these cartoons offensive then they are, full stop.

That doesn't obviate the free speech issues, nor the freedom of the press issues.

It's painful, because two good values are conflicting: tolerance and mutual acceptance and respect, vs. freedom of speech.

I'm hoping, maybe this issue will make all of us more sensitive to each other. This might also include people who are offended by these cartoons.

There is nothing tolerant about "Death to the Infidel," about death threats, about fatwas against artists like Salman Rushdie. And the bigotry in the M.E. and parts of Asia, which often finds violent expression as well as taking the form of speeches, sermons and cartoons, is really dreadful. So if Muslims are offended by these cartoons, perhaps they could look at their own cartoons of Jews or the treatment of minorities - including even various Islamic sects - within the Muslim world.

And, people in the west would be well served by learning more about Muslims, about Buddhists, Hindus, and others whom we might find threatening or strange.

It would be a wonderful thing if the end result of this cartoon flap would be a more tolerant, open and accepting world.

[Englander]

311. No.

The cartoons are offensive because they target a specific ethic/religious group,
not because the targeted group say they're offensive. The targeted group say the
cartoons are offensive because they've been specifically targeted by the cartoons.

As you said, the cartoons are offensive because;

--they portrayed Islam as a violent religion or Muslims as evil people, or were created specifically to demonize Muslims.--

[eyl]

259. There are any number

of artworks - in the US and elsewhere - depicting Jesus (and Mary, in at least one case that I recall) in fashions which Christians considered extremely offensive (Piss Christ is perhaps the most famous, but not the only one). Would you support banning those works as well?

[Colorado Blue]

262. If you'll permit an aside, the suppression of freedom of

expression by American artists, because some people felt offended, has reduced Federal support for the arts dramatically.

In order to provide less money for artists who MIGHT produce something "offensive", the US has probably prevented Michaelangelos from ever reaching maturity.

This goes hand-in-hand with an oppressive idea of what constitutes "morality", what is acceptable in terms of one's sexuality, what is considered acceptable for a woman to do with her own body.

And yes, many of the images that infuriated The People Who Count, i.e., those with the pursestrings, had something to do with Christianity and/or, powerful politicians. For example one image that caused a major furor in Chicago, was a portrait of Harold Washington, the mayor, dressed in women's undies.

For things like this, which have offended the powerful or the guardians of "public decency", all American artists have been punished.

I think it's both lamentable and absurd.

[Englander]

316. Nice logical fallacy, there. n/t

[occuserpens]

162. Cartoons, movies and the total cold war

2006-02-02 Cartoons, movies and the total cold war - includes a link to disputed images.

[gulfcoastliberal]

166. Palestinian thugs kidnapping German foreigners over the cartoon.

Threatening to bomb EU offices. If that isn't terrorism, please, someone exlain it to me.

[smirkymonkey]

167. Apparently, they can't handle the truth.

Such a reaction is inexcusable.

[occuserpens]

168. This is not about excuses

This is cold (or warm) war

[channa18]

169. War ??

Are you trying to say that whether we like it or not, the world is at war against radical islamic terrorism and that there people who want to make "excuses" to cover up this fact ??

[occuserpens]

172. WBG is in the state of guerilla war

What else is new?

[barb162]

184. Closing the EU office and threatening innocent Europeans

with kidnapping and death threats doesn't seem like a really smart move especially if they want EU money to run the government, pay salaries, etc. Aid workers are leaving Gaza. Isn't this known as biting off the nose to spite the face. Of course, I have seen stories where other sources of money are being followed.

[barb162]

170. People being kidnapped, death threats, etc., is that reasonable

or the actions of intolerant zealots

[barb162]

171. It's terrorism to me

It's criminal. Where's the cops?

[occuserpens]

173. Just guerilla war

as usual

[barb162]

188. Cartoons...guerilla war... something's wrong with that picture

[bemildred]

174. Well, I'll try.

On the one hand, I don't want to defend this sort of violence. On the other hand, the minions of Western civilization have been visiting exactly this sort of violence on muslims and other citizens of the second and third worlds for quite a while now, and the beef seems to be that the non-western peoples are now able to reciprocate effectively, after a some centuries long hiatus in which they could not do much.

The problem with the notion of terrorism is not that it's a faulty idea, it's that the application of the idea is not even-handed; it's a perjorative term, applied to the violence done by ones opponents, as opposed to our own fellows, who are heroes. And the problem is not so much that terrorism is a faulty idea, as that to have credibility in calling the other fellow a terrorist, you have to avoid causing "collateral damage" yourself.

[occuserpens]

175. Right

Guerilla conflict is an ideal neutral term

[bemildred]

180. Just because you are better armed, that doesn't mean you're moral. nt

[Colorado Blue]

255. Well, the corrollary is also true. Just because you have less

weapons it doesn't make you more moral.

[bemildred]

256. Indeed, morality and ethics are not much in evidence. nt

[Colorado Blue]

258. Maybe this cartoon thing will provide an opportunity for

people to see each other better.

I hope so.

Maybe the beginnings of morality lie simply in accepting that "the other" is a human being.

We seem to be hardwired not to kill or harm our own family, our own tribe. But once a person is perceived to be "the other", non-human, less-than-human - we are capable of atrocity.

If we could just see that we are ALL one family, one tribe -

[bemildred]

260. The unfortunate thing is that most atrocites are committed in defense of

ones tribe, family, religion, or the like. Nobody EVER considers himself
an aggressor, we're all just trying to defend outselves. It's the do-gooders
you have to watch out for, the ones that want to build some pie-in-the-sky
utopia, the kingdom of God on Earth, the Communist Utopia, The Third Reich,
bringing "civilization" to those benighted little brown people. Why with
that sort of future benefit to mankind you can justify any sort of cruelty
and violence now.

[Colorado Blue]

261. Too true.

Meanwhile we complete ignore what's going on RIGHT NOW, all around us, including the devastating damage to the planet herself.

What to do?

[barb162]

185. Could you explain this part a bit more

"...you have to avoid causing "collateral damage" yourself."

[bemildred]

227. No, I've been over that a zillion times already.

People that see the point don't need elaboration, and people that do not want to see that cannot be made to by me talking more.

[DemFromMem]

176. The bigger story

I agree that the cartoons are offensive and members of the Muslim faith should be upset. They have the right to demand an apology from the NEWSPAPER that published them. What has bothered me about this contoversy is the demands being placed on the Canish government to apologize. In much of the Arab world, the media is an extension of the government. But that's not the case for Denmark and beyond expressing regret that one of its papers printed offensive materials, the government of Denmark should not be pressured to punish the publication.

I also think its a bit hypocritical of many of the complaining governments to gripe about Denmark when they regularly trumpet things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (an unbelievably anti-Semitic tract accusing rabbis of canabalism!). That nonsense regularly shows up on television and in news media in the Arab world.

I should also say "What the f*$k is up with the European press?" Some of the anti-Semitic political cartoons that have shown up in supposedly mainstream European newspapers over the last few years has been shocking. I'm not really surprised that anti-Muslim cartoons are showing up as well. You would never see anything like that in a normal American newspaper.

[barb162]

186. Very nice post

Plus when you're in Europe going past any newsstand is like looking at a porn show. I can't believe some of the photos of nude women in their papers. (I've never noticed the photos of nude men, though. hmmm)

The press in Europe seems to be way more open than ours on many counts; they are not as much concerned about being offensive I think. This basically works for them.

I think it is more than a bit hypocritical that the complainer governments don't take a look in the mirror about what they show in their media. They have no reason to expect a double standard for their hot points.

[Englander]

224. Could you provide egs, please?

--I should also say "What the f*$k is up with the European press?" Some of the anti-Semitic political cartoons that have shown up in supposedly mainstream European newspapers over the last few years has been shocking.--

I hope those cartoons you're referring to aren't from the UK press, from the Guardian, or
the Independent, as those political cartoons that feature Sharon, wouldn't be classified as
a-s. Anyone who would call the cartoons that I've seen a-s isn't being v. objective, imo.

[DemFromMem]

247. I've seen it with my own eyes

I attended a conference about two years ago and an ADL speaker gave a talk about the rising number of anti-semitic acts in Europe (and I'd like to hear how desecrating cemetaries, setting synagogues on fire, etc. are just legitimate anti-zionist expression). Part of the presentation involved showing political cartoons in various European newspapers. Yes, they tended to depict Sharon. But the pictures themselves presented Sharon with a typical hooknose (classic anti-semitic caricature) or eating the flesh of a Palestian baby (think Protocols of the Elders of Zion). The message was clear and I doubt too many Jewish readers of these publications - regardless of their opinion of Sharon - missed the message. Criticizing Israel and depicting Israelis using anti-Semitic imagery are two different things entirely.

You're welcome to lecture me on what, as a Jew, I am free to call anti-Semitic. But as one famous Supreme Court Justice once said, I know it when I see it.

[Englander]

306. Well, thanks for proving my point.

I think those cartoons you've mentioned *are* from the Independent, or Guardian,
I'm not sure of the 1st one you mention, but I think I know which the 2nd one refers
to. Attempts to claim those are a-s have more to do with deflecting criticisms of the
GoI than with a-s, imo. I don't think the viewer is being at all objective if cartoons
that feature Sharon, exclusively, without any images that suggest ethnicity, or religion,
are claimed to be a-s. I do not mean to 'lecture' you, I hope I do not, but I believe,
as you say;

--Criticizing Israel and depicting Israelis using anti-Semitic imagery are two different things entirely.--

And the cartoons I've described belong in the 1st category.

[Behind the Aegis]

314. Enjoy...

http://www.honestly-concerned.org/Infomaterial/WESTERN-CARTOONS_A4_NEU.pdf

[Englander]

319. What, no Steve Bell?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/graphic/0,5543,435245,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1147435,00.html

?click

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1408920,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1648123,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1337076,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1200506,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,999131,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,970118,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,947196,00.html

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

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

[DemFromMem]

340. One was from a Spanish newspaper

And, I'm sorry, but when you show an Israeli Prime Minister eating a non-Jewish baby, one image comes to mind - the ancient blood libel canard. Are there Jewish readers on this forum who feel differently?

[Colorado Blue]

252. I think, if we're going to say the Danish cartoons are offensive

and bigoted, because Muslims are upset, then we have to agree that the British cartoons are antisemitic.

One can't pillory the Danes whilst simultaneously giving a free pass to the English press.

The response to the cartoons didn't result in fatwas and threats from the Jewish community, however. That doesn't mean the cartoons weren't offensive. They are.

There's a need to be consistent here. Many people on the Left seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Jews, or feel that bigoted antisemitic cartoons are merely "realistic".

Well, the same could be said about the portrait of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

[Violet_Crumble]

297. What British cartoons?

Are we even allowed to know what ones they are, or do we just have to blindly agree with you that they're anti-Semitic?

Speaking of consistency here, CB, this thread is a very good example of a complete lack of consistancy. Many people on the Left seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Islam and Muslims, or feel that bigoted anti-Islamic cartoons are merely "realistic" and "freedom of speech". When claiming it goes both ways, one has to honestly believe it goes both ways. So if we're going to say the British cartoons (pending knowing what British cartoons they are) are anti-Semitic because Muslims are upset, then we have to agree that the Danish cartoons are bigoted and anti-Islamic....

btw, the reason I think the Danish cartoon bigoted and offensive merely because Muslims are upset - it's bigoted and offensive because it portrays Islam in a very negative way using a very negative stereotype...

Violet...

[Englander]

308. No.

That's not why those bigoted cartoons are bigoted, CB. They're not offensive because the
targeted group are upset, they're offensive because they target the said group. There's a
difference.

Which cartoons? Those cartoons that *aren't* a-s, or some other ones? Please be specific,
that way I'll be able to realise what you're referring to. If the comments refer to those
from the Guardian, or Independent, then anyone claiming they're a-s, isn't being objective,
& is trying to deflect legitimate critques of Sharon by claiming a-s.

[Coastie for Truth]

181. To show my support for the people of Denmark

I shall have an apple-cinnamon danish (yum :9 ) with my mid morning latte tomorrow.

[barb162]

187. Great idea, I think I will too. With Royal Copenhagen china

[Coastie for Truth]

271. It was good.

I got a nice Cinnamon-Mocha Latte to go with it (you can't have a warm appled-cinnamon Danish without a Latte), then I took my morning walk and listened Al Franken. Life don't get no better. ;)

[Jemmons]

208. To me this is all about immense stupidity!

To me there is:

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 DU'ers who confuse being political correct with having no freedom of press.

Then there is the general context in which this all happens:

The stupidity of the danish "blame the immigrants for whatever" -campaign.
The stupidity of the anglo-american empire building ambitions.
The stupidity of the violent response on part of the muslims in the middle east.

[pelsar]

214. its not stuiped...

its about a fundemental right for a newspaper to print satire......bigoted or not, because thats what satire is all about.

and appartently other europeans dont think so as well:


_____________

Switzerland's Le Temps and La Tribune de Geneve ran some of them on Thursday, as did Magyar Hirlap in Budapest. Some European dailies ran cartoons making fun of the controversy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/678045.html
_______

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

219. so your pro censorship.....

book burning too?

i find that attitude to be rather dangerous if not down right foolish....

either that, or your for limiting your own freedom so that intolerent people can put their intolerent views on a society thousands of kilometers away.....

[pelsar]

217. violet - clarify...

so what are you saying exactly?

the cartoon is bigoted.....what then should be done?
_______________________________

should the danes and others practice self censorship and avoid printing cartoons that might be bigoted?
and if so, is it just religious groups or all economic/social groups that the cartoonists have to "self censored"

if not that, then what?

[Englander]

221. ~~

?click

[pelsar]

233. and this.....

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html

[Englander]

312. ...is completely irrelevant. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

318. No, not irrelevant. You just missed the point. n/t

[Englander]

228. Guardian editorial;

Cartoons and their context

Leader
Friday February 3, 2006
The Guardian

Like other principles, freedom of speech is only absolute until it is shaped by its context. The fierce and serious debate that is coursing through and beyond western Europe about the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad is no exception to that rule. The cartoons, which are of very mixed quality (and which many newspapers would reject on those grounds alone), offend and provoke. But that is what cartoons do, whether they are good or bad. The right to freedom of speech which allows newspapers to publish such provocative cartoons has been hard won, is inextricably essential to liberty, must be robustly defended and has sometimes to be controversially asserted. If free speech is to be meaningful, moreover, the right to it cannot shirk from embracing views that a majority - or a minority - finds distasteful, even on occasions bitterly so. All those considerations point towards a case for wider publication of cartoons which, even though offensive and provocative, say something about uncomfortable issues that are central to the modern world and have triggered an anguished debate in Europe and elsewhere.

But that is not the end of the matter. There are limits and boundaries - of taste, law, convention, principle or judgment. All these constraints matter and cannot be automatically overriden by invoking the larger principle. In any case, the right to publish does not imply any obligation to do so. Adults are entitled to make up their own minds about what they individually want to view or read, which is why we are publishing details of the internet links to the cartoons in the newspaper and on our website. But newspapers are not obliged to republish offensive material merely because it is controversial. It would not be appropriate, for instance, to publish an anti-semitic cartoon of the sort that was commonplace in Nazi Germany. Nor would we publish one which depicted black people in the way a Victorian caricature might have done. Every newspaper in the country regularly carries stories about child pornography, yet none has yet reproduced examples of such pornography as part of their coverage. Few people would argue that it is essential to an understanding of the issues that they should do so.

Context matters very much in the case of the cartoons of Muhammad too. It is one thing to assert the right to publish an image of the prophet. As long as that is not illegal - and not even the government's amended religious hatred bill makes it so - then that right undoubtedly exists. But it is another thing to put that right to the test, especially when to do so inevitably causes offence to many Muslims and, even more so, when there is currently such a powerful need to craft a more inclusive public culture which can embrace them and their faith. That is why the defiant republication of the cartoons in some parts of Europe (some of them with far less good histories of intercommunal relations than this country) is more questionable than it may appear at first sight. That is also why the restraint of most of the British press may be the wiser course - at least for now. There has to be a very good reason for giving gratuitous offence of this kind. Yesterday's acquittal of two British National party officials on race hatred charges for attacking Islam - and the triumphalist scenes as the two freed men emerged from court - are part of the context that must be weighed in asserting any right to publish cartoons that offend Muslims. So too is the political situation in Denmark itself, where the cartoons were first published, and where a large and strongly anti-immigrant party provides part of the parliamentary coalition supporting Denmark's centre-right government. What is the message that is being sent, both in the BNP acquittal context and in the Danish context, by insisting on publishing such images? Those questions cannot be ducked - and nor can the answers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1701092,00.html

[bemildred]

229. Nice piece.

I feel that the proper solution in these cases is to fight fire with fire, to put such cartoons in their larger context of jingo and bigoted cartoons with other subjects, anti-semitic, anti-polish, anti-chinese, anti-russian, racist, etc. This sort of propaganda is all very much alike, whatever the subject matter. We used to have some lovely anti-american cartoons in the underground press back in the Vietnam days. The one thing you don't want to do is let it be swept back under the rug, tabooed, suppressed, and pretended away. It needs to be out there front and center annoying everybody, making them face up to the asshole that lives in all of us, all this bigoted and xenophobic propaganda, but in the proper context.

[pelsar]

231. i doubt it would make a difference.....

to put such cartoons in their larger context of jingo and bigoted cartoons with other subjects, anti-semitic, anti-polish, anti-chinese, anti-russian, racist, etc.
________________

it wont make a difference to those who are protesting, the issue with them is not "freedom of speach" is the insulting of their god. Comparing their god to "others" might even make it worse (comparing allah to the jews?)

[Englander]

234. 'Them', 'their', 'those'. Oh, my. n/t

[Englander]

232. It was, yes.

It summed up my opinions on this matter, free speech used responsibly, you could say.
It's all about the context.

[pelsar]

235. got it...

so if enough people threaten to kill, then free speach should be limited.....

guess israel should have threatened to nuke England and maybe they would have apologised for their cartoon....next time we'll know.

[Englander]

238. No. n/t

[pelsar]

230. i'm confused...

perhaps you can acutally answer:

is this then antisemetic?
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html


or is the paper just being hypocritical:
It would not be appropriate, for instance, to publish an anti-semitic cartoon of the sort that was commonplace in Nazi Germany

see the above award winning cartoon and the many similar types used throughout the years to protray antisemetism as well as the typical blood iibles against jews (eating christian/muslm babies, using their blood etc)


so is the paper being hypocrtical? I would suggest that the award winning cartoon is far worse than any drawing of allah, and that is protected (as it should be) under the banner of free speach.

[Englander]

236. No, but you carry on missing the point.

And, *I'm* confused, I thought it was only clueless, non-objective bigots
who believed that the Jabba cartoon was a-s?

[pelsar]

239. so all we need is a similar cartoon....from the LBN

But not the one it intends, in that some radical Muslim groups were happy to use banners along the lines of the top right cartoon during anti-war marches in the UK prior to the Iraq war (one of the reasons why I felt I could not participate, even though I was stridently opposed to the war), and similar images are commonplace in countries such as Syria which are now so outraged at the Danish government for not restricting freedom of expression.

But of course the difference between the top two cartoons and those in the lower panel is obvious; Blacks and Jews are ethnic groups, Islam is a religion i.e. a body of ideology. Though Judaism is also a religion, Hitler did not primarily persecute Jews because of their religious beliefs, but because of their ethnicity- I myself am a non-religious Jew, but would hardly have escaped the death camps on that basis.

A more honest depiction of events would show the Piss Christ next to the Mohammed cartoons, with "This is Freedom of Expression" next to both.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2080827#2082553

_________

Heres the "context".....it already exists and in massive numbers.
the cartoons of allahs just came a bit late

jews as monkeys, jewish god as being greedyl, jews and israelis drinking arab blood...long long long long list...
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm

and englands award wining one...(you forgot to answer.....) that too is part of the "context"
_________

[Englander]

241. Someone else who misses the point, I see.

I've no idea why you've posted those links, I can't see the relevance, but it
does provide an opportunity to make insinuations of a-s, I guess. Again, I've
got the message, the ability to tell the difference between political satire,
& hateful/bigoted images based on religion/ethnicity/race isn't for everyone.
It appears that abililty to distinguish between the two is a distant dream for
some.

[pelsar]

242. the difference is...

that "freedom of expression" for some isnt worth fighting for....a little bit of rioting, some threats, and all of a sudden some are willng to give up that freedom.....for others, who are actually more tolerent of hateful messages, we say however hateful the message, they still have that right (the response in turn may NOT be violent)

politicial satire is by nature bigoted...

but you never did answer directly: is the englands award winning cartoon bigoted in your opinon?

[Englander]

243. See post #88. n/t

[pelsar]

245. i dont get it..

you have to write simpler for me...i dont seem to be that smart.

sometimes for me i have to ask very direct questions to understand..question which also require a definitive answer, otherwise i get confused.

so i shall try again, but please try to answer directly, the cartoon that won the award in england, do you believe that it was bigoted or not.

[Englander]

237. Oh yes, whatever happened to freedom of expression? n/t

[pelsar]

240. freedom of expression...

is part of western democracy....once can protest, boycott, write letters....but not threaten to kill, kidnap etc

the award winning cartoon was not only not original it was insulting and pathetic.....and the organization should have been swamped with letters and emails...but no more than that, and infact, not even that happened.

[TomClash]

244. WHAT ABOUT BUGS BUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I think the answer to this problem is quite simple.

Neither the Danish nor the French nor any other government has the right to stop derogatory cartoons from being published about the Prophet Mohammed or anyone else. It is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for starters. If you can prevent speech you don't like, liberty is finished. I like liberty and I want to keep it, not replace creeping Bush fascism with Islamo-fascism.

That said, the cartoons are in poor taste and every jewish organization on the planet would be screaming if France Soir published a series of cartoons depicting jews with swastikas and jackboots, spewing nonsense like "the jews were responsible for the holocaust," or some similar lie. Christians would hardly love it if Christ or the Pope was depicted dropping depleted uraniium bombs on Iraqi children, no matter how well you dressed it up as humor.

Some of the posts here by the defenders of the Israeli right wing are especially hypocritical, though - antisemitic writings are largely banned in Germany and I suspect few of these posters would object to that.

It is not surprising that some Muslims have a problem with the cartoons, but their only means of redress should be to use moral and financial pressure on the offending newpapers. "Death to Denmark!"- which sounds like a preview for a Mel or Albert Brooks remake of Hamlet - only demeans their cause.

[pelsar]

246. actually i wouldnt....

antisemitic writings are largely banned in Germany and I suspect few of these posters would object to that.

i may get pissed, write nasty letters, tell them their hypocritical, etc....at the sametime i will defend their write to print, characterize and make fun of anything they want to.....

wrong characterture of me....(you've confused "right wing" with liberals that demand one to be responsable for ones actions....and to understand that actions have consequences)

________
btw, you should open you mind abit, israeli liberals are a lot more complicated than the "left wing berklely type"....we have to make tough decisions based on real life scenarios that involve conflicting values and lives as well...but thats just us

[TomClash]

248. Good - you're not a hypocrite and you're one of the few

Actually, that criticism wasn't aimed at you - it was aimed at certain Americans on this Board who defend Israel no matter what - and call anyone who disagrees with them an "anti-semite."

I know first hand that being bombed, beaten and shot at sharpens one's views.

I may disagree with you often but I respect your views in part because you live there.

I am also well aware that general characterizations don't always apply; this is true of politics in the US as well. I know Israeli liberals are not cardboard cutouts. I'm using shorthand - this is a message board.

[pelsar]

250. i'll be "gosh darned"...

we may be able to "talk' after all.....which is always preferable than to being "ignored".....
and just for record...i may defend the settlers and risk my life to defend them ....but my personal opinion of them as well as their views is hardly something i agree with....but i would do the same for an anti semite as well, as much as it would disgust me....a liberals life is not always easy....when put in real life scenarios.

[Colorado Blue]

257. I don't think you should characterize people who defend

Israel and Israelis from egregious attacks, as hypocrits or rightwingers either. In fact the Israeli right wing is a shrinking phenomenon and you'll find few defenders of that philosophy on this forum.

And many of those attacks on Israel and on Zionists in general, are indeed, antisemitic. Frankly, if people in the west need to develop more sensitivity to people from Asia and Africa, then people on the far Left need to awaken to their own shortcomings as well. No one group is without sin.

Indeed, that is the primary thrust of most proIsraeli posters on this forum: not that Israel is always right, or that Israelis aren't mere mortals - but merely that Israel isn't always wrong, either, and that the Arab side has also been at fault.

This doesn't consitute the sort of blindness that you're describing.

That's also stereotyping. And if this discussion, ultimately, is partially about the evils of stereotyping, then this would be a good time to agree that labels like this are all too frequently applied - when it's convenient - to people whose political point of view might disagree with yours.

[TomClash]

264. I disagree

This is an old canard that masks the oppression of the Palestinian people - you trot out "antisemitism" solely for the purpose of discrediting people who express a more balanced view of the Palestinian problem. Few people who seek justice for Palestinians and post here are "antisemitic." Violet Crumble, for example, has never posted an antisemitic word nor expressed an antisemitic thought here that I've seen. In fact, those who do so almost immediately have their posts deleted.

If you are saying that people on the "far left" are wrong for their attempts to silence different views, then I'm with you on that point. If you are saying that the Palestinian leadership has made errors, few would deny that. But the notion that the pro-Israeli posters on this Board do not consistently and unswervingly defend Israel is absurd. And it's not stereotyping if its true - once again, you only call it "stereotyping" in an false attempt to discredit my argument. No one said all jews unswervingly support Israel - because they don't - so it cannot be "stereotyping" in any meaningful sense.

[pelsar]

268. let me clear it up.....

what polarizes the issues and brings the sides to the "extemes" is the abundance of false information....and consequently removes any chance of a reasonable conversation:

for instance, and i will pick for me one of the most absurd, which is gaza. Multiple posts/articles claim how its a concentration camp, israel controls its, etc...even up to the point where the electricity that comes from israel is "oppressing"....all of that talk totally ignores the palestenian access to egypt, their options there.

when kassams are launched any and all israeli responses are defined as "bad, collective punishment etc"...yet if i am to request for a "lawful response" the answers i recieve here, "I dont know" or silence. I can accept that, but then i expect the criticism to cease as well, which it doesnt, a day later we'll see another article on how israel has locked it down, by closing off one of its borders which will simply be false since the others are still open....

given that fact that acutal facts are misrespresentated or ignored....what possible conclusions can be made?.....

or more interesting, its practically impossible to get a conversations going here about comparititve countries..israel doesnt exist in a vacuum, there are other countries out there that do a zillion times worse, putting the I/P conflict into perpesctive is not such a horrible idea, discussing why israel vs zimbabwa or russia, is nt such a terrible idea....why is that..why israel?....it may or may not be subtle antisemetism....but somethings amiss. (russia really does carpet bomb, syria really does use poisen gas, Saudi Arabia really does have apartheid (gender/religion), African conflicts (multiple) really do target kids....

the question is can you when discussing the conflict stick to the real facts and not use buzz words that really dont belong?

[TomClash]

338. Huh?

Why should the Palestinians have to leave their own towns in Gaza and go to Egypt? Should the Ashkenazi go back to Europe?

When a suicide bomber blows up some innocent women and children in Israel, in the US it receives widespread coverage with videotape and it is repeated over and over and over again. When the IDF responds, a statement is read saying 5 Hamas or PIJ or terrorists were killed and that's it. No one knows whether it is true or how much "collateral damage" there is - you're not told of the 20, 30, 50 innocent people who are killed or wounded. Your view of the "Israeli response" is almost never the view presented in the mainstream US press.

The reason why Israel gets so much coverage in the US is that both Israel and American jews want that coverage - and most of it is favorable. Your complaints don't resonate with the daily American experience. Plus, the region is strategically important to the US. If that is antisemitism . . . wow. That's really debasing the coin, don't you think?

Americans can be insular - few of us really care much about the rest of the world or can speak another language - an odd thing for an Empire. So it doesn't surprise me that there are no comparative forums or discussions here.

[Colorado Blue]

269. Excuse me? I believe you've just insulted me. I will ignore

this because I know for a fact you're mistaken about me, about my motives and also, I think you're in denial about the antisemitic nature about many attacks on Israel, which include misinterpretations of the very nature of Zionism and the complexity of the situation.

The "oppression of the Palestinian people" is no myth - but neither is Arab xenophobia and terrorism, the murders of Jewish people which date back to the 1920's, and the many wars since 1948, compounded by terrorism. The failure of many proPalestinian posters to see this situation in the context of war, of unremitting violence and hostility, is unfortunate. It causes people to see Israel as evil; I've actually been confronted with that very term; that her very existence is bad; people then try to jam Israel into a paradigm that was appropriate for South Africa but which has nothing to do with Israel at all.

You might ask yourself WHY people on this board leap to Israel's defense.

That is because the attacks are so brutal, because they overlook the fact that Israel isn't a THING, it's PEOPLE, human beings. You can see that Pelsar is a human being, right? So, I'm one also, and my friends and family are people, and people who defend Israel on this board have lost relatives and friends in suicide attacks and in wars.

When attacks are stereotypical and one-sided, the defense will be too. It's difficult to have nuanced conversation with people who aren't interested in nuanced conversation but in trotting out accusations and bigoted fingerpointing at people - as you've just done to me.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[Englander]

315. lol!

--In fact the Israeli right wing is a shrinking phenomenon and you'll find few defenders of that philosophy on this forum.--

[Colorado Blue]

341. Englander, that is a FACT. Likud is now a small party and

the center is clearly gaining ground.

I think perhaps you're confusing religious Zionism with right wing politics.

With the former it's hard for any Jew not to have at least some sympathy, even it it isn't politically correct. But the attachment of the Jewish people to this land is profound, and some among us are deeply religious, though I am not; I don't think any of the posters on this forum are. Most of us believe the settlers need to wake up and smell the coffee and that pertains to the majority in Israel today.

Now - back to the cartoons ok?

But I do have a question for you: isn't tolerance a two-way street?

[Spinoza]

265. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

"Some of the posts here by the defenders of the Israeli right wing are especially hypocritical, though - antisemitic writings are largely banned in Germany and I suspect few of these posters would object to that."

I completely support the right of the European press to publish cartoons which satirize and/or ridicule the Prophet. If some people take offense, thats just too bad. I am completely against any government censorship ever including German censorship of anti-semitic statements or viewpoints. If some people take offense, thats just too bad. Don't jump to conclusions. Some people actually have principles.

[Colorado Blue]

270. Thank you! And now I hope we can get off Israel and her

defenders and get back to the topic at hand, which is the cartoons and ultimately, the rights of free people and a free press not to be intimidated. That is what we should be focusing on in this discussion.

Although, unfortunately, I have just read that American, Danish and ISRAELI flags are being burned at protests of these cartoons. And the Mossad is already being blamed for the sinking of the Egyptian ferry. Why am I not surprised.

So I guess we can't escape being thrown into this mess.

I think the people who are having a fit over some cartoons should think about what they're saying when they threaten people with death, seek terrorist revenge on Denmark and burn the flags of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the cartoons. Tolerance is a two-way street.

[Violet_Crumble]

299. Yes, we must ignore the double standards!

'Israel and her defenders'?? That sounds like Israel's some virgin in a tacky romance being staunchly defended by a knight on shining armour and it's a bit lame sounding...

The double standards engaged by some of the pro-Israel brigande when it comes to their reaction to anti-Semitic stuff being published is very much an issue that belongs in this thread. In fact, considering this is the ISRAEL/PALESTINE forum, and not the What Nasty Muslims Are Doing Round The World Forum, it makes much more sense to discuss Israel and/or Palestine, than stuff like Denmark and what Muslims are doing elsewhere in the world. This thread also isn't about Mossad, egyptian ferry disasters, or whatever else has just been thrown into the mix...

And some of the reactions are ones of complete hypocrisy where their open support of censorship when it comes to Holocaust Denial does make one question (not me, I've worked it out and the motives stink to high heaven) their motives for holding such very different opinions when it comes to bigotry against Muslims. Tolerance is something many of these folk need to learn the definition of...

Violet...

[pelsar]

305. violet .....in case you missed this...(previous post).

would you clarify.....so what are you saying exactly? (not related to the above post)

the cartoon is bigoted.....what then should be done?
_______________________________

should the danes and others practice self censorship and avoid printing cartoons that might be bigoted?
and if so, is it just religious groups or all economic/social groups that the cartoonists have to "self censored"

if not that, then what?



just to show the problem:
Englander seems to believe that their award winning cartoon about sharon wasnt antisemetic...others here see otherwise given the character of the drawing and its subject-who decides?....i was insulted by it, and found it pathetic as well, but will defend their right to print it

[Violet_Crumble]

322. If you don't find the Danish cartoon bigoted...

..then I don't find anything wrong with any cartoon you claim is anti-Semitic....

Violet...

[pelsar]

326. you didnt answer the question.....

i find it bigoted...the question that you avoided is "whats next"?

selfcensorship? govt censorship, apologies and "promise never to do it again"

what?

[Violet_Crumble]

328. You find what bigoted??

The Danish cartoon? Then how come you've been arguing that it's not bigoted?

Violet...

[pelsar]

331. i was convinced-changed my mind

i still believe its satire (as thats what satire is), but in that same light i'm willing to call it bigoted as well....(I did some thinking....)

now whats next?

censorship?

[Violet_Crumble]

349. Nothing comes next...

I'm opposed to censorship, both in the strict sense of the word and also when it comes to the broader meaning given to it. I'm aware of a few specific instances where I'm not consistent (eg I do support a ban on Holocaust denial in some European countries), but my reasons for that one is pretty clear and compelling, and it's one I've done heaps of thinking about before coming to the conclusion I did...

btw, I hope yr for real about seeing the Danish cartoon as bigoted as well as satirical, and not just doing the contrary thing like I did when I said 'if you think x isn't bigoted, then I don't think y isn't bigoted' in an earlier post :)


Violet....

[pelsar]

350. i am serious..

the change in my opinion was with englands award winning cartoon showing sharon eating palestenains babies...something i see as extremely anti semtic...yet obviously others dont (englanders mentioning that its irrelvant)....hence the subjectivity of it.

so too with the danish cartoons, whereas i put the more emphises on the satrical part, i can also see where others will see it as bigoted, hence i also accept that as well.....

that said, i believe the sharon cartoon has every right to be printed as well as the danish cartoons....just as the anti semetic cartoons run wild in the arab press...i view freedom of the press as crucial. I dont like the ban on the holocaust denial, it makes me feel uncomfortable, i dont like that "special treatment."

i dont like censorship, not that some dont deserve it (kach)...but once it starts it can start creeping forward and start taking away legit opinions, hence my fear of it.

[Englander]

330. Can you stop that, please, pelsar?

Can you please stop trying to claim what my opinions are on any subject, &
in particular subjects that are only vaguely related to the main subject of this
thread? Acting in such a manner really doesn't do yourself any favours, & it's
starting to look like more than merely asking questions in the hope of getting a
reply, so stop it, please.

[pelsar]

332. just guessing...

sometimes when i'm trying to figure out what your saying...or to be more exact, pin you down on an opinion or force you to make a definitive statement based on the real word, you seem to avoid it, slip through it, so i would say i'm probably "goading you' to make you say something more definitive...

but i shall stop.....sorry if i went to far.

[barb162]

310. you will be happy to see post 309

voices of sanity

[TomClash]

339. I've never read your posts before

So I could not have been talking about you.

[barb162]

309. Reaction just as offensive, Muslim congress says

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d550ffb8-edd5-417f-ae03-3bf36532c9d5&k=31263

Reaction just as offensive, Muslim congress says
'Protests fall straight into trap of proving we are violent people'
COLIN PERKEL, CP
Published: Friday, February 03, 2006
Cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist are deeply offensive, but so is the violent reaction to the drawings from Islamic extremists, Canadian Muslims said yesterday.

Outrage over the cartoons, first published in Denmark in September and reprinted in other European countries, has been spreading along with ominous threats throughout the Islamic world.

"The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right," said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

"It's falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are."
snip

[pelsar]

317. wow....

realizing the violent reactions only reenforces the cartoons stereotype....a voice of sanity.....


and theres this:
, the Muslim world suffers from a lack of visionary leadership. In this
particular case, when Muslim leaders, including American Muslim leaders, realized that
Muslims are furious they joined the chorus of fury rather than explain to their people
that they must be reasonable and that freedom of speech is healthy even if it is
insulting. What is even more disgusting is that most American Muslim organizations, who
should know better, have joined the chorus of instigators rather than taking this
opportunity to teach their members about the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance.

http://www.freemuslims.org/blog/?id=384

[barb162]

334. double wow for the link you provided

thank you so much

[Colorado Blue]

343. Hooray. Voices of reason.

Bless the "radical center". And long live the voices of tolerance and peace.

A sense of humor doesn't hurt either:)

[barb162]

345. We need to see a lot more tolerance and peace!

and a lot less (hopefully none)in the way of death, bomb and kidnapping threats

:hi:

[undergroundrailroad]

351. Locking.

This thread has become quite heavy for our dial-up users.

Thank you.


Undergroundrailroad
DU Moderator
I/P Forum