Large prints of the Danish Cartoons

[Renew Deal]

I found this on one site. Can someone host a copy?


Michelle Malkinds site has them. Here's another:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

Were there more cartoons or is this it?

[madrchsod]

1. du search

there`s a list of them posted earlier

[Renew Deal]

5. OK

I did search, but I didn't find them. I have found them outside of DU in a place I didn't expect.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

2. Click the picture in thsi wikipedia page

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

I can get you a link to individual pics if you'd like but I can't find it right now.

[Renew Deal]

3. Thanks

:thumbsup:

[formernaderite]

4. This page loads pretty quickly

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

[Neverarepublican]

6. Here is a link to all of them

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

[radwriter0555]

50. This is HATE SPEECH, it's not "FREE SPEECH". Hitler used the same tools

when demonizing the jews.

This is absolutely unacceptable.

[aikoaiko]

51. I don't recall recall Jews cutting off heads or suicide bombing Germany?

:shrug:

If some people do depraved acts in the name of a religion, it is not wrong to hateful to protest that stance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. I Will Be On Record As Saying Posts Like This Seem To Be In Extremely Poor

taste.

We know for certain these pictures were extremely offensive to some, even on DU. I see nothing productive that comes out of posting them in large format and consider it to be in poor taste and bad judgement.

[Renew Deal]

8. I will be on record saying you're wrong.

I had not seen them before and couldn't find them on DU. Don't I have a right to judge for myself? And being a contributor to DU, can't I bring them up for discussion. I looked for other threads with the actual cartoons and couldn't find them in GD. I understand why you are saying what you are saying and I would even agree that creating these is in poor taste and bad judgment, but discussing them openly when they are the hottest news item of the day is not.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Absolutely Agree. Funny Thing Is You Say I'm Wrong Yet Then Most Of Your

post proves me right LOL

Discussing it is fine, but I think it would've been more tasteful to provide a link, so that DU'ers who find the photos offensive aren't forced to look at them in order to join in the discussion.

[Renew Deal]

11. Sorry, but it's cartoon, not blood and guts

It's not graphic. My post says exactly what it is. If people are offended, they can avoid this post.

[PassingFair]

10. If those cartoon are enough to get them frothing....

SCREW THEM.

I suppose it's peachy keen with you that Salman Rushdie has had to spend a good chunk of his life underground because of their ridiculous fatwas.

I particularly liked the "No more virgins" one.

[Renew Deal]

12. I think it goes to something deeper.

I wonder if they would react this way if things hadn't gotten so bad with the west. Is it an issue of sacredness or repeated insensitivites from the west? Or is it just the findies and crazies flying off the handle again.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. "I particularly liked the 'no more virgins' one"

You mean one of the several that implies Mohammed was a terrorist who encouraged his followers to become suicide bombers? Interesting.

I bet you also suspect Buddha was a black-clad Vietnamese saboteur who liked to torture women and impale soldiers on junji sticks.

No wait... let me guess. You feel strongly that Jesus was an evil fundamentalist RW nutcase with long, blond hair and blue eyes who encouraged his followers to take over the government, bomb the gentiles, and institute a repressive, 1,000 year theocracy.

[PassingFair]

26. Wrong. Wrong. and Wrong.

Mohammed was a man.
"Buddha" was a man.
Jesus may or may not have even existed.

I believe that some followers of Mohammed become suicide bombers.
I believe that some followers of "Jesus" are evil rightwing fundamentalists.

I believe that when you believe in absurdities, you can be led to commit atrocities.

What's YOUR beef?

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. As a radical Christian, I'm sick and tired of freethinkers hiding behind

"Fundamentalist wackos" and using that to attack the historical founders of various religions (most of whom do not remotely share any cultural beliefs you might ascribe to modern-day civilizations like USA or Saudi Arabia)... in an attempt to insult all religious people.

By the way, Jesus did exist. cf. Josephus, Jewish zealot, former rebel, and historian for Emperor Vespasian, for reference to what
the early Christians were up to, 25 years after Jesus' death.

Perhaps if we continue this discussion, the moderators will decide to move threads like these (about the positives and negatives of various anti-religious cartoons) to the religion dungeon... which would be appropriate.

[PassingFair]

34. Believe as you wish to believe.

There is no proof that Jesus ever existed. Or died. Or was resurrected.
None.

Your faith is your business.

If you are sick of freethinkers, stay away from DU.

I am NOT sick of believers.

If you are so easily insulted, perhaps you should keep your nose in your bible.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. "If you are sick of freethinkers, stay away from DU."

Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

I am sick of freethinkers who choose to engage in inflammatory, nasty remarks out of some sort of superiority complex on the assumption they should be congratulated for it because (drumroll) they are DEMOCRATS on a board entitled DEMOCRATIC underground!

As for the Bible, I rarely pick it up. Why do you make such ridiculous assumptions? MOST Americans are Christian. Does that make them Bible thumpers, too?

Why do so many people on the left want to prove that America must reject religion before it can embrace "progressive thought"? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Maybe while we're at it we should also require that all Americans live on farms, ride bikes, and join a union before they can be called genuine progressives. Maybe only people in traditional manufacturing jobs can form unions. Yeah that's the way to save the manufacturing sector. (Hint: the position of many freethinkers who equate Atheism with Democratic ideals is a similar absurdity).

[PassingFair]

40. You seriously need to take a pill or something.

Your defensive posture is what is "inflammatory".

I have no belief in your god. Deal with it.
Or not.
I don't care.

You have a problem with cartoons.
Not me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. I don't see what anti-muslim cartoons has to do with atheism, but for

some reason, "defiantly secular" progressives keep bringing up secularism as a reason to embrace these cartoons and republish them.

So I merely pointed out that threads making inflammatory remarks about religion don't get moved to the religion forum perhaps as often as they should be, if we're going to be fair. And threads titled "Check out these rather offensive cartoons, they were published by anti-immigrant conservatives in Denmark" should probably get treated the same as, say, threads titled "I saw this on FreeRepublic". i.e. depends on intent.

If someone on DU posted a whole thread full of, say, Mallard Fillmore and B.C. cartoons without clarifying intent, it would be an interesting Denmark-style experiment.

Not that I am suggesting that a moderated bulletin board should have unfettered free speech. Then again Denmark doesn't have free speech either, so what were they thinking? I don't see them petitioning the EU to include a 1st Amendment to the EU constitution. That would be more productive than say, burning people in effigy to prove that laws against hate speech are wrong.

Admittedly, the fundies who like to burn people in effigy and kill people and write anti-semitic cartoons honestly don't believe in free speech... they only believe in "right" speech and "wrong" speech.

And there's alot of crude racial stereotyping in both European and Arabic political cartoons. What do you expect in monocultural societies? They don't have to worry about racism, it's not their problem!

They can pretend they are just being secular while claiming that it is possible to identify a Muslim on looks alone.

[NMDemDist2]

13. agreed. these pics have caused international incidences

no need to re-print them here

[Renew Deal]

15. Why?

Are they not worth discussion? How many people have seen them? I certainly had not.

[NMDemDist2]

16. discussion is one thing, posting pictures that are offensive to Muslims

is something else.

if you REALLY wanted to see them, you could google them yourself. I don't think it's necessary to repost them over and over when we KNOW some find them offensive.

I'm not saying that we can't discuss them, or that they should be taken off the internets, but this is a moderated board for a reason. and that reason is to try and keep some semblance of civility.

how would you feel if this board freely allowed gay bashing or race baiting or blatant sexism? Seems to me it's the same thing. We're pretty tough on religions around here as it is, but forsaking any attempts at compassion and empathy just isn't OK in my book.

when the chit hit the fan about these, I went and looked them up for myself so I could discuss it rationally should I have a mind too, but I didn't run back and say "LOOK at these religiously divisive cartoons!!!!" any more than I would post a lynching or a picture of Matthew Shepard hanging on a barbed wire fence. It's in poor taste and not necessary IMO

You, however, are free to form your own opinion. but since you asked.......

[Renew Deal]

17. I did google them

Just after I searched DU for them. I didn't see them here, so I posted them. It doesn't matter if they are offensive or not. They are the hottest news item right now and they are worth discussion. I have not said or done anything uncivil. The mods can pull this thread if they see fit, but it should not be pulled just to be PC. I wouldn't like it if the board allowed the things you mentioned and it doesn't. But if the story of the day is a burning cross or a burning church (which it has been recently), then that is worth discussion. It is also worth it for others discussing the same story to see exactly what is being discussed. I understand what you are saying. The reason I posted them is that I had not seen them posted. It doesn't mean that they should be censored just because some people find them offensive when they are the story.

[NMDemDist2]

18. well that's the first time I've ever been called a "PC whiner"

thanks for that huh?

[Renew Deal]

19. I changed it.

I was hoping you didn't read that. Sorry, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but I knew it was bad. :spank:

[NMDemDist2]

20. LOL! See? that's exactly my point and why I love DU and DUers

:hug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. "We're pretty tough on religion as it is" -- and that is wrong.

The moderators on this board skew decidedly to one side when it comes to tombstoning people who post anti-religious stuff on DU (versus moving any and all discussions of leftism in Christianity to the religion dungeon.)

I await with bated breath to see numerous anti-religious threads (usually describing anything religious in nature as "fundie nutcases invading our secular culture") get locked for "flamebait".

I don't think posting cartoons is flamebait, if the intent is to start a discussion. But it suggests something about the peoples' opinions toward muslims when almost nobody bothers to criticise them and many die-hard "liberalism=secularism" folks actually use it as an opportunity to jump all over Muslims.

Interestingly, one of the more conservative sites that had the cartoons on the web to support freedom of speech has taken them down "out of respect for the large number of dead in the recent Egyptian ferry disaster."

I guess they discovered they had free speech after all, and the real reason no one had bothered to do this before was because it was likely to offend people in an unproductive fashion.

Any time one has to take down their own inflammatory speech or apologize for hateful opinions of respect for a tragedy on the other side of the debate, it suggests that maybe that speech wasn't very helpful in the first place.

(I saw this with the demonstrations that happened post 9-11. Alot of lefties I met didn't seem to sympathize all that much with what had happened, then found themselves having to justify shifting gears "out of respect", suggesting that their pre-9-11 approach was perhaps uselessly divisive to begin with.)

[NMDemDist2]

28. as an ex moderator, I can tell you that DU doesn't take to ANY

type of intolerance well and they don't "skew" over religion any more than they "skew" over racism or civil rights intolerance.

as for the religious "dungeon" it is a pleasure not to have religious flamefests all over GD anymore.

Religion and Politics are difficult subjects at best, I think DU is one of the most even handed sites on the web (within our progressive stance) and if you don't agree you are welcome to go slug it out on one of the thousands of less well moderated boards on the internet.

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. Thanks for the advice.

Racism and civil rights intolerance usually cuts in one direction only.

Are you suggesting the same is true of religious intolerance on DU?

And for the record I've been coming to this site since early 2004.

On Edit: off by ten.

[NMDemDist2]

31. ROFL that's funny

considering this site debuted on January 2001 (Bush's first inauguration)

and since I'm totally non religious, I certainly can't be any judge of the tolerance (or lack thereof) for religious beliefs on a website that has over 20 million posts from 80 thousand plus members. I expect you could make a case for almost any point of view you'd like to "prove"

but DU goes as the Democratic Party goes, IOW it's like trying to herd cats around here :rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Edited to say 2004. I had no idea what you were laughing about till I read

The previous post.

As for religious... I simply think what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I don't see alot of religious people coming on DU and constantly making asides about how ridiculous bourgeois cosmopolitan atheist urban dwellers (B.A.U.D.?) beliefs are.

That would be pretty defensive and paranoid, wouldn't it? I see a lot of the reverse, though.

And those posts are fine, so long as they can (and do) cuts both ways. Why can't the folks who are doing that live and let live? How would they feel if someone in the US did a series of cartoons about stereotypical leftist atheists tying them to controversial "anti-American" behavior" say, smashing windows or blocking traffic during a demo? Free speech, sure. Hell, the targets of those cartoons would feel pretty isolated when the publisher said he was doing it to prove that "atheism is a threat to our society" and to prove that "the liberal elite will attack us for publishing these cartoons, thus proving that free speech is in danger!"

But entire threads devoted to flaming entire religions rarely get locked, in the manner that flamebait threads about other topics get locked.

It leads to stuff like this, where well-meaning folks in US and places like France are using "the importance of secularism" as a smokescreen for Christian conseratives in europe who are seeking to highlight deeply hostile cultural divisions in order to "prove" that dark-skinned Muslims don't belong in Europe. Karl Rove wouldn't have it any other way. The Clash of Civilizations is what's important for the neocon crowd.

[NMDemDist2]

38. i dunno how the atheists would feel either

but I do remember the skeptic wars in the Spirituality/Astrology forums before the groups got started

seems to me that believing means you know it to be true and whatever someone else thinks shouldn't matter. I know that my "knowing" was never shaken no matter what the skeptics brought to the fight

what saddens me is intolerance in any form. religious, sexual, skin color whatever

I believe in free speech, and I will defend at the top of my lungs your right to say what I would spend my lifetime fighting against, but hey, I just try to live a spiritual life, what do I know? I would strive to be Christlike long before I'd claim to be Christian. too bad more folks don't try it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. Thanks for your thoughts :-)

I don't have a problem with atheism. I wish so many people in life would cool their jets sometimes and not assume the worst in other people. I got no problem with people who choose to be superior to entire groups of people but it can have consequences when they fail to see injustice happening because "those folks are so misguided anyway".

To paraphrase R. Crumb, I've been called paranoid by entire CITIES of assholes... but I know who those people are... and they're on my list!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. That Must've Been Rough. 7 Years Of "Page Not Found". Wow, Now That Is

loyalty! :rofl:


On edit: Awwww, you edited it! It was funnier the other way! lol

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. Before Doc Brown Altered the Space-Time Continuum, DU was a great place

Why can't the mods go back to the future and observe how much better things were when us pre-2001 people were the only ones here??

I particularly miss the GD: 2010 Sports Almanac forum.

[Yollam]

35. I have less of a problem with the toons than the Malkin link.

The toons promote some ugly stereotypes of muslims/arabs in general, but I still believe that in a free society the artist should be able to publish them, and they are no justification for burning anything. And as for the gripe about depicting Mohammed, I really couldn't care less. The toons are obviously not mocking Mohammed himself (although he was a warrior - no peacenik yogi) but rather the tendency of extremist islamic sects to throw bombs. And radical Islam should be fair game for the cartoonist as much as the neocons should be, or even Jesus Christ. If the Muslim fundies cannot handle such cartoons, perhaps they should not live in societies with free expression.

[gatorboy]

46. At the moment though, the cartoonists are requesting that the cartoons

stop being publicized. Should we agree to their wishes, considering they're hiding for their lives at the moment?

[Yollam]

49. I think the terms of their contract should be followed.

If they have the right to withdraw/retract them, they should be free to do so.

Do you think it's right that their lives are being threatened a la Salman Rushdie over some doodles?

Just confirms my belief that fundie Islam (fundie anything for that matter) is not compatible with liberalism, humanism, or reason itself.

[Egalitariat]

14. Clearly, somebody should die for that******

nm

[Mr_Spock]

22. RW wanna be like Coulter - Michelle Malkin?

EEEEEK!!

[Renew Deal]

23. I know.

She has them all. I couldn't find a complete list that was visible. Someone posted the Wikipedia link, but the quality is poor.

[Mr_Spock]

27. I clicked the link because I couldn't believe it

Then I got angry that I gave that page a hit.

Do you know that she specifically criticized one of MY posts here on DU in one of her RW blathers?

I HATE that RW media whore.

[Hardrada]

24. I still don't get it. Explain the Muslim upset., somebody.

Nobody was shipping this stuff to the Islamic world were they? And we have entire movies ridiculing Christianity and poking fun at Judaism and we don't get upset. is it possible we are not FRAMING this discussion correctly??

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. The cartoons portray a historical figure, and by implication all Muslims,

as barbaric savages and suicide bombers.

The ones that simply depict Mohammed as some kind of stereotypical Arab dude are merely pointless. What's the point of "proving" you can get away with caricaturing a guy when you don't know what he looks like, don't know how Arabs dressed or looked in the 7cent., and are just doing it to make fun of an imaginary Arab stereotype, and by implication all Arabs?

[Hardrada]

45. OK , Yeah, best to stay off stereotypes. Especially if they

are insulting.

[winston61]

33. someone help me here,

Are these the folks that Bush believes will embrace western style democracy? In the space of a few short years that we will overcome thousands of years of tribalism and religous separation? Land wars in Asia have always been a really bad idea, ask the Brits, the French they'll tell you.

[fujiyama]

47. Apparently so

In a week Bush's 'other' justification has been completely and absolutely debunked. His WMD and Al Quadeea claims were never evident.

Hamas gets elected and now this. Theh neocons are not only evil, but incredibly fuckin stupid as well.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. Here is a post at DU with all the pics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2086241&mesg_id=2086485

[aikoaiko]

48. Can anyone cite a reference from the Koran explaining

why depicting Muhammed is insulting.

As I understand it, any depiction is insulting, not the political nature or stereotypical features.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

52. Not direct from the Koran, but from a muslim blog

Well, "Islam" is a concept, not a agent. Thus it's not "Islam" that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. And, it's not the "depiction of the religion's founder Muhammad" that is forbidden, but either the depiction of any of God's creatures (but particularly humans) OR the slander of a prophet - be it Muhammad or Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc. Slandering a prophet would, however not fall under something like "slander" or "hate crime", but actually be seen as "kufr", i.e. unbelief/apostasy, as the assertion that a prophet was anything but a noble man . Of course, that only applies to Muslims. There is no provisio in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers. Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.

http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/02/background_stor_1.php

But sadly the nutters are the ones who are being heard.