Islamic Jihad threatens violence in cartoon row

[barb162]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10778523.htm

Islamic Jihad threatens violence in cartoon row
10 Feb 2006 12:06:12 GMT

Source: Reuters

GAZA, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Islamic Jihad, a militant group behind suicide bombings in Israel, threatened violence on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad printed in newspapers around the globe.

"Until now we have limited our action to demonstrations, but if they did not stop their offences to Prophet Mohammad we will defend the Prophet with our souls and blood," Islamic Jihad leader Khader Habib told thousands of supporters after Friday prayers.

"So far we have demanded an apology from the governments. But if they continue their assault on our dear Prophet Mohammad, we will burn the ground underneath their feet," Habib said as dozens of gunmen fired rifles into the air.

The threat from Islamic Jihad was the first of its kind from a militant group behind attacks in Israel. But other groups have threatened to kidnap Europeans to protest the cartoons.
snip

[file83]

1. As Charlie Brown once said....

"Bring 'em on!"

Oh wait...

[catmother]

2. here we go again. more violence. why should the governments

apologize? it's free speech. i don't see the jews out burning down embassies because of the cartoons the arab world prints about them. rabbis drinking blood, etc. very nice right after the prayers he preaches violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Why would anyone want to keep republishing them?

That's a bit of a rhetorical question, as the answer has zero to do with the sadly overused and misunderstood 'freedom of speech' and everything to do with Western arrogance and attempts to pour fuel on the flames. Sadly what has been totally ignored in this whole sorry mess is that the vast majority of Muslims who have not resorted to violence have been deeply offended by the cartoons, and for that reason alone anyone who continues to republish them are being completely irresponsible and showing a complete lack of sensitivity to Muslims...

The following piece was written by a former Australian Prime-Minister, and it appears in a newspaper that has refused to republish the cartoons, because as it says, using the freedom of speech argument to try to argue the right to lampoon Islam isn't the best way to argue the right of freedom of speech...

----------------------------------

In 1997, there was an exhibition of photographs by American artist Andres Serrano at the National Gallery of Victoria. Many regarded the exhibition as offensive to Christ. Churches and others objected. The Catholic Church sought a court injunction. The objections were strong. A youngster eventually damaged Piss Christ with a hammer, violence was involved. The exhibition was closed.

That was our reaction to an exhibition that many people regarded as offensive to their religion. The reactions to the Danish cartoons have clearly been much more widespread and violent, that must be condemned. But those cartoons were published in a highly charged political atmosphere.

We have a right to free speech and expression but that right is in some instances circumscribed by law. The worst excesses are covered by defamation laws or laws relating to racial or religious vilification. These set the bar very high and most of us understand that if we wish to live in a civil society where there are broadly harmonious relationships between different groups, races and religions, we must exercise that right with common sense and, hopefully, with a degree of wisdom.

Today we know that Islamic fundamentalists, who won't be changed by logical argument, will use any excuse to stir their supporters to encourage the view that Christian nations vilify and degrade Muslims. Thus the fundamentalists gain new recruits. If terrorism is to be overcome we need to make it much harder for the fundamentalists to use arguments, however superficial, that attract potential suicide bombers.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australia-forgets-its-own-democratic-principles/2006/02/09/1139465790450.html

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Why shouldn't they?

As odious as some of them are, they (the Arabic press) have no issue reprinting anti-Semitic filth. I guess it just depends on the victim.

[barb162]

5. Yes, the Arab press is notorious for its anti-semitism

[Violet_Crumble]

15. As you don't give any specific examples...

...and you have claimed that a clearly offensive cartoon aimed at Muslims wasn't bigoted or offensive, maybe the Arab press feels the same way about things that you consider to be anti-Semitic...

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

6. The point is to "keep hate alive". That is why these cartoons are

being published over and over. In fact, it is said that the editor is friends with this notorious anti-Arab racist, Dan Pipes. He hates Arab and Muslims so much, and his mind is so twisted and perverse, that in 1987 he supported arming Saddam... yes, Saddam, who, after all, was doing plenty of killing on his own (so don't that make sense, just give the man a few chemicals, a few arms, make some money, and have him do the killing for you, and he gets Iraqis killed too!, Pipes probably though of that as a twofer! ( See here http://tomjoad.org/pipes.htm ) Pipes is popular with the Bush administration and for reasons they need to explain for themselves, the Anti-Defamation League.

All the while Muslim children are being bombed in Iraq, men and women tortured, a countries resources taken. In Palestine homes demolished, villages buried in trash.
http://stopthewall.org/latestnews/print1088.shtml

People are shocked by these violent words (and the action of a few) of the Muslim protesters, somehow the despicable and barbaric actions that are being promulgated by the "West" are ignored or sanitized.

It is true you will never see a mob of Connecticut Yankees setting fire to a embassy or media outlet to protest an editorial cartoon. YOU will see their tax money being spent on a nice, sleak, jet bombers that will bomb a media office in Afgahnistan, as the US did to an Al Jazeera office in 2004. That was not the only instance either. We have the now famous discussion of Bush and Blair discussing bombing the same media, in a country friendly towards the US, no less.

Or check out this story and celebrate a real "free speech hero". Check out the story of Charmaine Means.
http://tomjoad.org/warheroes2.htm#means

"They Sow the Wind, and Reap the Whirlwind" -- Hosea

[Andromeda]

7. You are using your own vanity websites,

as references. It's all right with me if you have your own POV but don't present your opinions as facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Shoot the messenger time...

If you'd clicked on the two links that were to Tom's site and read what was there, you'd have noticed that what was contained wasn't opinion at all, but facts. The third link wasn't even to Tom's site, btw. If I were to write off something as opinion rather than factual, I would explain what about it made it opinion, rather than a broad 'you wrote it, therefore it's just yr opinion'...

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

17. My website has Danny Pipes own words. Not my opinion, his

words. Went to the library and got it myself. You can see a scanned copy of the article, which i posted because of its educational value. (Fair use, because it was for educational purposes only, and not for private gain.)

If you wish, go to the library yourself and look up The New Republic on April 27, 1987 article by Daniel Pipes and Laurie Mylroie. It is called "It's Time for a U.S. Tilt".

Of course, I have opinions about his words, and i find it despicable that he wanted to add fuel to that miserable war, and more pain and suffering to our planet. That is my opinion (shared, no doubt, by many others, and this being a liberal/progressive board, i think almost everyone here, if they were honest when they signed the agreement). What is not in dispute is that he supported arming Saddam Hussein. It is also not in dispute, that when Mr. Bush wanted him appointed to the "United States Institute of Peace", is that the Anti-Defamation League supported that appointment. Why they did, you have to ask ADL. But they did.

[Wordie]

26. Kierkegaard once said...

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

I tend to be a strong supporter of free speech, but having a right doesn't mean we should necessarily feel compelled in every case to use that right.

[Andromeda]

8. And it goes on and on...

They use threats and intimidation instead of reason and rational thought.

Their violence will be met with violence and nothing will be accomplished. Their own lives mean nothing to them and that's why they're so willing to die for their cause. In their minds, the only rewards worth getting are those received after death.

Have any Jihadists ever come back to tell of their experiences in that supreme afterlife?

Other people's lives mean nothing to them either. I find this extremely sad.

[pelsar]

9. the summary:

Today we know that Islamic fundamentalists, who won't be changed by logical argument, will use any excuse to stir their supporters to encourage the view that Christian nations vilify and degrade Muslims. Thus the fundamentalists gain new recruits. If terrorism is to be overcome we need to make it much harder for the fundamentalists to use arguments, however superficial, that attract potential suicide bombers.

because "they are irrational" we must not get them angry...and tread on "egg shells" so as not to rile them up....and at the sametime we must revise our culture of freespeach....

and just for the records, those cartoons, the movie previous to that, the ice cream top were nothing extreme..just normal expressions of freespeach found every where in the west. Start runnng scrared and the only thing your going to do is keep on running....

the problem is not the mobs...its the educators and instigators......they're the ones that are stirring up the "islamic masses"

[Violet_Crumble]

13. "They" are the non-fundamentalist Muslims...

What the author of the article was saying was that nothing will change the view of the Islamic fundamentalists, but by acting in a way which gives the impression that *we* think that Muslims are shit, *we* give the fundamentalists all the tools they need to gain their new recruits. Pelsar, Muslims aren't irrational, and that most definately wasn't what Malcolm Fraser said. He said we should make it harder to get them angry so that they won't fall prey to the fundamentalists...

Violet...

[pelsar]

18. what does this translate to?

He said we should make it harder to get them angry so that they won't fall prey to the fundamentalists...

it means "dont give them any excuse to get mad at us...it means dont draw something that might look like the word allah when held up to a mirror when its upside down...its means dont name your sex dolls allah..moshes ok though or even yossi.....it means WERE guilty if they get mad.

I dont buy shit like that, i'm not guilty of anything more than poor taste if i draw a cartoon of mahamud with bomb on his head, and thats only because i'm a poor drawer.

The guilty people are those that are leading the "angry young men" around by their noses and organizing them...and those people arent mad, their manipulating the masses...and the masses are a bunch of idiotes for letting them do so.
______________

me?, I'm pissed..i 'm pissed at people who can threaten to take away the free speach of the freeworld and there are those who are more than willing to actually give it away...let the islamic angry young men and women, grow up and learn that tolerence of the other is an essential part of living in the free world. Thats the job of the imans and other leaders of the islamic states..except they are actually feeding the fires-thats where the problem lies.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. This translates into: People get pissed off when they're treated like shit

It's a pretty easy and universal concept, and I'm sorry that you call it 'shit'...

Is there any likelihood that yr going to stop labelling Muslims as idiots any time soon? btw, it's spelt 'idiot' not 'idiote', just thought that particular one was worth pointing out, though I usually overlook spelling errors :)

People getting offended is NOT threatening to take away free speech. Can you point out how it works that people being offended and not being violent is trying to take away free speech? And as you did read Malcolm Fraser's article and you are such a champion of free speech, why aren't you outraged about the violence that closed down the Piss Christ exhibit and lamenting the way Christians were and still are threatening to take away free speech?

btw, pelsar. Approximately how many people were involved in those violent protests? The way some folk are carrying on, it's like they're trying to make everyone believe it was a sizeable portion of the world's Muslim population...

Violet...

[pelsar]

22. idiotes...

are people who request tolerence and sensitivity...by burning down embassies, calling for killing those offeneded them etc....doesnt it strike you as just a bit ironic how their protesting?

I agree people getting offended is not threatening free speach, quite the opposite that is what is precisly all about.....people threatening to kill others, people who burn down embassies....people who acutally DO kill others because of their freespeach...now thats a problem....and it exists in denmark today....ask the ministers who no longer ride their bikes to work for security reasons, ask the people who are now making the continuation of the movie about women in islam (no names, no credits, secret locations....)

I wasnt too excited about the museum exhibit that celebrated the palestenains suiicide bomber....as far as the Piss Christ exhibit goes, i would rather it stay up, HOWEVER, it wasnt closed down because the museum was threatened with destruction....public pressure is fine, within the boundries of democracy and reason. er and that doesnt include threatening to kill.....

I dont know the numbers...i do know that the leaders of the arab world have not done anything to "calm down their citizens. Nor have i heard much from other muslim leaders....they're the ones that should be teaching their comrads that tolerence is important in this world....

btw....just out of curiosity...any other social religious groups go on the rampage because of some drawings?...all across the globe and burn down embassies, effigies of a pm?...you can say its only a small minority and I'm sure it is, but that small minority is now threatening the western worlds freedom of the press...

______________________________________

YOUR TURN:

We've now seen three things that insult jews/israelis, christians and muslims:
the museum exhibit of the palestenain suicided bomber, the cartoons and the Piss christ..


so should all of them be "exhibited, none or some.....
(I'm guessing but you were probably for having the exibit of the suicide bomber stay up as a matter of free speach....)

[Violet_Crumble]

24. You called Muslim masses (ie all Muslims) idiotEs...

By yr own words you didn't limit it to the few among them who resort to violence.

i do know that the leaders of the arab world have not done anything to "calm down their citizens. Nor have i heard much from other muslim leaders.

Arab and Muslim are NOT the same thing, though it's a mistake made a lot in some circles. The only Arab state where the state didn't take measures to stop rioting was Syria. How exactly do you manage to translate that into the entire Arab/Muslim world??

Personally I think it's a bit on the hypocritical side to be demanding tolerance and respect from Muslim leaders (and fyi Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out against violence, though I expect some refuse to see what they don't want to see and will still claim they don't see it), while giving out a message that is completely intolerant...

Violet...

[pelsar]

27. ignorning a cultural trait?

i define protests that throw rocks, that carry signs that say "kill" on it as violent.....and there a quite a few more than a single one. I wonder why i even have to mention it, its was one the news continuallly for a week.

Yes i am very aware of the differences between muslim and arab and even more aware of how the cultural context of those two cultures overlap and influence one another....and I 'm also aware that Iran a persian state which i now a facist theorcratic islamic state also had violent protests.....

I'm also aware of the hypocrasy of the anti semetic cartoons that are a staple (I really shouldnt have to waste my time to find them.....its tooo easy) and the "insult" to islam which was mild in comparison.

and the "tolerent message" sure got drowded out by that small loud minority....you may want to pretend that nothing has changed...but ask those in denmark, because something has, whatever you want to call it....perahaps you would like to define it in your own words. Mine seem to be to general, perhaps because the whole thing disgusts me. (a very tolerent "country cowering becuase of some threats....)
_________________________________________________
also since freedom of speach IS the heart of the matter, i believe you mentioned that the cartoons shouldnt have been shown (correct me if i am wrong)...so...you skipped over the REAL question:

the differences between the Piss jesus, cartoons and the museum exhibit of the female suicide bomber?.....which ones do not represnt NOT freedom of the press and which ones do?

and obviously all insulted, yet just one cause a distinct cultural group to get out on the streets all across the globe to protest....why did that happen in your opinon?

[pelsar]

10. this is getting rather absurd...PC gone mad

now its a doll that is insulting the muslims in Britan....a blow-up male doll called Mustafa Shag.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=10631

seems the list is getting longer and longer that includes;
nike gym shoes, ice cream tops, dolls, cartoons.....any idea where this is going to stop?

i do believe this is what happens when one starts playing to much with the rules of freedom of speach-any guesses as to whats next?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

12. So now Muslims aren't even allowed to be offended??

Okay, want to explain why ONLY Muslims aren't allowed to be offended by anything anymore? I have a problem with people using offense as an excuse to be violent, but in this particular case there's nothing violent at all. How does this 'freedom of speech' thing work? I would have thought anyone who really cherishes freedom of speech so much would be falling all over themselves to defend peoples rights to say they're offended by something. Obviously I was wrong...

Violet...

[pelsar]

16. let them be offended....

i'm always offended by the crap that comes out of iran, egypt, jordan, syrian, etc....but i have yet to have the urge to burn down any embassies...nor do i go around and what it appears to be "looking for items and products to offend me"

a sex doll?....let them dress them up in a hassidic custom and call it moishe..if thats what turns people on.

its not being offended that bothers me, its what comes next....will the doll now have to be "circumsized" and have its name changed (couldnt resist....).

If its just yelling i'm offended, and boycotting all sex toys...no problem, if we find a protest complete with rocks and death threats, which seems to be in style presently...then there is a very very serious problem...and thats putting it mildly.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. But the article you posted didn't mention violence at all...

The article was attacked because someone was offended, not because there was any violence. If yr trying to claim that if someone is a Muslim and they get offended by something, it's a safe assumption that violence will follow, any discussion between you and I is well and truly over, as there's a pretty ugly name for beliefs like that...

Violet...

[pelsar]

23. what violence?

neither the article nor do i when i posted it.....i mentioned that PC was getting out of hand...and thats what i meant. If a sex doll cant have a nice arabian name to fit the fantasies of some girl then we are limiting free speach.

as far as protests go.....violent ones.....its been all over the news recently...muslims being insulted...and this doll has insulted them...so there is a line of thought which wonders...will this also cause rioting?

maybe its temporary, maybe its long term...but two things seem to be happening: muslims have been insulted, and certain muslims have been burning down embassies and threatening to kill people all over the world..now it may be a tiny minority, but they sure are loud and are drowning out the voice of reason that i m having trouble hearing from the more responsable muslims (saw on on TV last night, from Britian...and hes receive death threats....)

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Read yr post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x115880#116162

There was no violence. Yet you had a huge problem with the fact that a Muslim was offended by something, and managed to trot out the worn-out and abused 'freedom of speech' accusation...

so there is a line of thought which wonders...will this also cause rioting?

That line of though would only be adhered to by Islamophobes. This is exactly the same line of thought as that used by anti-Semites who believe that Jews own the media coz there are some Jewish media moguls. Not sure why you care what those sort of bigots think, coz the word 'thought' is a bit of an oxymoron when it comes to them :)

Violet...

[rayofreason]

19. How do you say...

...Wile E. Coyote in Arabic?

[Lithos]

28. Locking

The discussion seems stuck in an unproductive manner.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator