I am well aware of all these things, and they are one of the main reasons to not print the cartoons.

Look, I am not going to beat the same horses all over again. I asked you to consider the simple case of yourself and your values being the target of the media in your own country, but if you can't think of such a scenario then so be it. If you are fine with those cartoons, then keep participating. Free speech, an eye for an eye, and all that, I suppose. I've drawn my own conclusions for this issue, and those only reinforced the view of Europe that I've already had based on its treatment of my own country over the years.



Because Muhhamed starting riots is an obvious lie, since he's been dead for an awfully long time.



The article reporting on an upcoming event and giving a background for this event doesn't have to disprove every point it mentions, actually it shouldn't do that. Good journalism means reliable description of facts, accurate desription of opinions, and sufficient background for both. A conference is a fact, the Holocaust being a myth is a conference organizer's opinion, this opinion yielding international outrage is a background, as well as expert opinions that organizer's opinion is just a lie aimed at securing domestic support for himself.

Umm, I see things in the newspaper that offend me all the time... I don't riot about them. I can not begin to tell you the number of emails I get from my synagogue asking me to write a letter to the L.A. times because of the trash they print. I tend to imediatly delete those emails, as I see them am pointless. The L.A. Times isn't going to stop printing its anti-semetic garbage no matter what.

The denial of history such as what Iran is trying to do, should be something that everyone should be offeded by

Ummm, did anybody say that Mohomaed started riots?? NO.. A PICTURE OF MOHAMMED started riots... its been all over the news, or have you not noticed?
Why now is it so wrong to print the images that are the cuase of the riots?

I guess they should remove the whole political cartoon, editorial, and Comics section from newspapers then. Newspapers are not all fact, they tend to be more editorial than fact in almost all papers. Infact, thats why papers were started, to push editorials.

Please explain why standing up for what you believe and removing fear from a community is a reason to NOT print something? You prefer people live in fear and be censored?




Ok, I'm clearly just not understanding you...

Do you mean progessive as in "that order" or do you mean 'progessive as in liberal?' Because according to the time line I read, that the order the events happened in, and the reasons explained in the articles that called for the cartoons, and then the article that was displayed next to the cartoons.



What I find most interesting is that the Riots were not actually caused by any action on the Danish, but from a Palestian Cleric who created his own worse cartoons.


Also, whats up with Iran retaliating against the Danish by insulting Jews? Are there even any Jews in Denmark?

If you don't care enough to protest then obviously those things are not important to you.



Denial of history is not to be tolerated, which is why no European newspapers to my knowledge try to pass along that no Jews were harmed during WW2 and they all were living peacefully in mountain resorts in Switzerland. What nonsense radicals try to pass in their own braindead media has nothing to do with this issue. For example, how can you seriously consider this passage from www.radioislam.org as being anything other than a result of childhood trauma:

"600.000 Jews survived the concentration camps during the war. But then how are we to interpret the theory that Germans were planning a total extermination of Jews?"

Things like that can't possibly be offensive, since anyone in his right mind immediately recognizes them as utter idiocy. The only offensive aspect of them is that they are presented in a serious tone, requiring the reader himself to be a total moron to read them seriously.



Because they are bad enough to start riots maybe?



Political cartoons serve the purpose of illustrating opinions (including editorial ones). The picture of Muhammad had a single purpose of insulting a religion, there was simply no view or opinion to illustrate, except for the view of Islam as a religion of terrorists.



Removing fear from a community is one thing, pitching one part of a community against another is a completely different one. The former is highly commendable, while the latter has a simple name that I've already mentioned before: provocation.



I am not sure, but something tells me that they might've chased them out prior to starting to sort the "Arab issue".

Really? The only protest I have ever gone to was in a foreign country where they were giving out free food. I don't even know what the protest was about.

Protesting is not a sign of caring, its a sign of going to a protest.

Here is a question to ponder... Where did all these poor people which are lacking even basic power and plumbing get all these Danish Flags? Hundreds of Danish flags at that, and quite a few very large ones.

I'm sure they all keep large stocks of country flags in thier basements just incase someone insults them.

I hope your joking...

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/denmark.htm
Read the full page.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/...ategoryId=32515
Read this full page.

Notice the amount of violent acts commited against Arabs.
Then take note of the amount of violent acts taken against Jews BY Arabs.

Who is trying to chase out who?

If you read those two pages, and say that both sides are equally wrong, then I must conclude that in the modern era, Violence is just another method of communication, equateable to Holding a Sign, Sending an Email, or Burning a bra.

I don't think we should publish those cartoons.

What is important right now is to ensure the riots end, then work to make sure something like this doesn't happen again, beginning by adressing the many issues that make those countries and our relations to them so instable and prone to violence.

Those riots aren't "simply about a cartoon". It's about the picture radical Imams paint of how the western world sees arab countries and Islam, and it is things like those cartoons that allows them to prove their point

Mutual understanding is the key, and as we know that the radical Imams won't work towards that aim, it is ever more important that we do.

It is a very different thing to live in a highly developed, politically stable nation, with powerful economy, a voice in international politics, high living standards, where most major influencial factinons preach tolerance and have been doing so for many decades.

It is not quite like that for most arab worlds, there are many factors that makes them more prone to radical teachings, one of them being the fact that, to my understanding, Islam tends to permeate the daily lives of people much deeper than Christianity does for most, and likewise is the influence of preachers a very different one. I'm not saying something among the lines of, "their faith is the only thing they have", because it isn't, but I do think that their faith may pay a much larger role in how they define themselves and their relation to other nations.

All of this is by far not to suggest that those radical muslims are in any way justified in the atrocities they commit or that they should be excused due to their situation. There's no doubt that what they do is terribly wrong, quite apart from the fact that they're far from being without blame for much worse offenses.

In my opinion, however, the only way to deal with this situation and the issues that fuel it is to act sensibly and do our best to show the kind of moderation these radicals lack. Even if, yes, we'd be perfectly justified to push for our own rights and demonstrate that we won't let ourselves be intimidated.

How far would you be willing to take this?

Are you willing to make it illegal to sell pork in public? (Some muslims are not allowed to play American football because the ball might be made out of pig skin)

Are you willing to make it illegal for women to wear skimpy clothing?

Should the newspapers be forced to print "blessed is his name" after every time they mention the word Mohhamed?

On the flip side.. Are you willing to not write the name of G-d in print? (Thats an affront to Jews)

Are you willing to make all traffic lights and cross walks be rescheduled on Saturdays so that Jews can cross the streat without having to J-walk?

Shall we make it illegal to draw pictures of Calvin pissing on a Cross?

Should it be illegal to suggest that perhaps Scientology is a scam and not a real religion?

No, but I would expect people to try their best and not offend others if it can be avoided.

By for example not doing things like knowingly violating crucial commandments of another faith and degrading its religious figures in an attempt to flaunt my freedom of speech.

There's quite a difference between not adding "blessed be his name" every time you mention him and drawing a picture that shows him as a terrorist.

The question is not how far I am willing to take it. I'm willing to take it as far as needed as long as it can be afforded.

The point being: There are riots in the arab world. They need to stop. We won't stop them by repeating the offense. The end.

I am not so sure that is true.

The drawn cartoons were not nearly as offensive as the fake ones the Imam from Denmark made up with his xerox machine. Ans since western papers and media won't actually show what they are drawing, people can't see the discrepancy between the images.

On another note, people learned in the 60s and 70s that the more you give in to the demads of those who use violence as thier main method of negotiation, the stronger the request and the bigger the violent act is the next time around.

What was it that ended the riots in France and Europe from the poor arabs that spread across the continent last time? (I think it was less than 6 months ago)




If that were true, I would hope that people request that the production of images of Jesus being pissed upon, or bringing up molestation whenver the word Catholic or Priest is mentioned, be stopped.

Jewish law forbids the sale and production of Idols, Idol worship is the worst possible thing. Should we not allow people to sell Hindu idols in public? The very idea that G-d could have an image to be shown is the most degrading thing you can do, where do you make that line?

Some Hindus see Cows as gods. Should we forbid the slaughter of Cows? There is a church in India that sees all rats as possible reincarnations of thier ancestors, do we need to stop the practice of capturing rats?

I agree with Daganev on this issue of free speech. If we allow cartoons defaming other religions, which we do - I admit to often giggling about the ones making fun of the Catholic Church or various Charismatic Christian organisations- then we cannot, with a straight face, say that the cartoons defaming Islam were out of line. They were certainly no worse than others I have seen; in fact I would consider them mild by my standards.

There is a line between free speech and inciting hatred but these cartoons did not cross it, despite all the violence surrounding them. The Islamic community, and other communities which take everything as a personal attack worthy of outrage, need to learn a little temperance and put things in perspective. I understand it was offensive to some people but with 6 or so billion of us out there we aren't always going to agree.

I probably wasn't clear enough in the statement you are refering to, so I'll rephrase it. But before you read what follows be sure to visit here.



The main reason for me being sarcastic is that I am growing weary of waiting for you to finally realize that you are:

1) using anti-semitism of marginal Islamic propaganda to justify anti-islamism of mainstream Dannish press;

2) claiming that the cartoons are a matter of free speech by stating Dannish islamophobia as the prime reason for them appearing;

3) trying to prove that Islam is a religion of terrorism, and the cartoon is thus not only a matter of free speech, but is also true in its depiction;

4) routinely dismissing anything that mentions Jews in any way except for reinstating the universally accepted facts about anti-semitism as being anti-semitic, thus using the favourite strategy of Islamic radicals of labeling anything that mentions any aspects of Islam except for its universal goodness and inevitable triumph around the globe as anti-islamic bigottry;

5) dextrously dodging all of the points I raise and repeating the same arguments from page 2 over and over again;

6) overusing emphasis in your posts and thus making me disregard many of them as invalid due to being mostly emotional.

I'm not sure how you see me doing that, however, I was just pointing out that There is PHYSICAL abuse against Jews in Denmark perpetrated by Arabas, and there is NO, ZERO, reports of PHYSICAL abuse against Arabs even according to a website who's aim it is to find all slights against Islam.

To me, you can not compare People being injured to people being insulted, its just not even the same plane of issues.

to equate the two is to say that Violence is a form of debate, something you seem to keep "dexterously avoiding"



Thats quite a twist on things... Its not islamophobia to be afraid of people who publicly cry death threats to you, thats .. deathaphobia.



Where did I state that Islam is a religion of terrorism? I don't believe I've argued that point, ever. Don't confuse a religion, with the countries that do things in its name.



Huh? You suggested that Denmark has a habbit of discrimating and pushing people out, however, if you look at any report on discrimation, the discrimination is coming FROM the Arab population, not TO the Arab population... There are no reports of Arabs not getting jobs in Denmark, or Arabs being the targets of attacks in Denmark. However, there are numerous reports of Arabs attacking other people who are "not like them"

To Blame Denmark, for Arabs wishing to harm people is just twisted.


B.S.


What can I say, I'm lazy and don't like to use the Bold and Italics tags.

We keep saying Danish, we keep saying Arab, we keep saying Islamic (did I spell that right..?) and people are getting offended by this. My family was raised Danish, we may not be born in Denmark, we may not even be pure Danes, but we -are- Danish. So, how about this. Why dont we say extremists? Why dont we say people who have taken offence? Why dont we say soandso? Were not supposed to get into personal attacks, but people are beginning to feel that their cultures are being attacked, their beliefs, their religions, their race, their very way of life and in some instances themselves.

So lets stop generalizing by Race/Culture/Belief and just say extremists? Its generally an extremist that incites the others to go farther.

Then again, why do I bother? No ones going to listen to me, and I think that all sides in this arguement are in some form wrong. Maybe I should have saved what tiny bit of energy I put into writing this post.

I am completely ignornat about denmark.. I don't even know if thats the same place as the netherlands or not... whats the proper way to refer to people from that country?

I hate using the word exteremist because it completely ignores the truth of the matter. The Newspaper that is being accused of "provocation" is not an extremist paper. And the people who are claiming to be insulted and thus rioting are not the leaders of Extermist groups. To hear it reported, "the west" has insulted 1 billion muslims, and no muslim has come out and said that they were not insulted, and no Islamic country has come out and said that the countries who rioted were wrong. Not even Iraq, whom themselves did not riot.

Muslims in western countries may very well be insulted and are not rioting, however, Muslims in western countries have also NOT asked the newspapers to not publish those cartoons, only other Islamic Nations have. Only those nations who have a history of funding Terrorism are the ones who are rioting and complaining.

I'd just like to add to this that any sort of argument that implies the cartoons/etc in question shouldn't have been published because they are offensive to certain persons is a scary scary idea. If the message sent is that the "problem" was the failure to censor or refuse to print something offensive, I feel it undermines and attempst to justify the murder of innocent people in many of these cases.

What's next? Someone kills someone over some stupid cartoon, goes to court, and pleads not guilty because: the cartoon made me do it? That's unacceptable.

And yet, some of the arguments in this thread seem to imply it is... wtf?

I pretty much suggested that word because it doesnt imply one certain group, culture, country, etc. There are other words you can use, just keep it general. Or dont bother complaining how your groups sensitivities are being ignored as many are ignoring the other groups sensitivities.

Im the peaceful sort in many senses, so Im more keen to try and look for a way that would result in less violent ways. Usually means Im going to disagree with some, but thats life. Full of disagreements. Dont like my wording find a better generalization towards people that do create such things and you dont hit on the people of the ones people have been pointing the finger at who have nothing to do with this.

Edit: And Ive generally been taught if Im to refer to people of Denmark they are Danish, like the pastry heh.

This has been the main thrust of your argument so far, it started with an essay by Roberta Seid and Roz Rothstein that you posted, and you were driving that point home ever since. I take back my claim that you are repeating the same argument from page 2, as that turned out to be false on closer inspection and the argument first appeared on page 3. To summarize your argument: Muslims (at least 80% of them, by your calculations) are a part of a plot to take over the world, and thus we must combat their attempts to hinder our right to publish material that they find extremely offensive and use to fuel their evil plot on its way to completion.

Do I need to say that using extremist Islamic yapping as an excuse for anti-islamic publications in mass media is also covered by the first item in my list?



Shifting the focus from the main topic further. This is supposed to be about whether the European newspapers are right or wrong in publishing and re-publishing the cartoons, and not about who does more evil in the world. Desecration of a religion's central symbol in a news source does only good for the cause of those who use that religion for propagating hatred and prejudice. Just as "Muhammad the Bomb" is in no way targetted at or negatively affects Islamic extremism, that argument of yours has very little to do with "Muhammad the Bomb" itself, if only to prove that "Muhammad the Bomb" should've never been published.



Yet more on point 1. Now we are guilty of not killing muslims for the cartoons their mass media publish. Appears that we are almost on the level playing field here.



Point 1 again. To answer the question: because the cartoon in question was not "against Muslims", any of their characteristic traits, or anything they do or don't do. It was "against" the thing they hold most sacred in their religion. Also because there is a strong case in the world about anti-semitism, especially anti-semitism in the Middle East, therefore showing anti-semitic cartoons serves the purpose of fueling that case, keeping it above the radar of public attention, and alerting the public of new developments in this case. There hadn't been such a case with anti-Islamism so far, so showing the cartoons serves no other purpose save for feeding the trolls. And of course, this has nothing to do with the issue, so see point 5. As well as point 4, as this is an implication of anti-semitism where the case is exactly the opposite of it.



Points 1, 4, and 5. Reading that article reveals that there's nothing negative said about Jews whatsoever. Moreover, the article never denies the Holocaust, nor assessment of the Holocaust is given anywhere in that article. Furthermore, the article actually does say that the claim was wrong and a political hoax. Here:



And here:



Needless to say that his strategy was far less effective than the one of European mass media - Iran's voice is now heard all over the region and far beyond.

Daganev, your original point was that us Europeans should stand up and fight for our rights by publishing the cartoons over again. The question wasn't whether we could maybe prove those fake cartoons as fakes by publishing "our" offensive cartoons again so people can compare. Quite obviously, it wouldn't work, because anyone who wants to verify the validity of any cartoons they see can either already do it, or won't be reached by our media anyway, nor are they likely to give much credit to it if they were.

I agree that there's a big rift between what those radical muslims expect from us, and how they're behaving towards us. But that's not the issue right now. The issue right now is that people are out there burning buildings and killing people, because they're being told that the western world pisses on things they value.

So to repeat my initial argument, what needs to be done right now is not making sure nobody tramples on our rights. Making sure the situation doesn't escalate further is. Then we can work to deflate it. Then we can work to reach better understanding on both sides because no, we're not pissing on the values of Islam, or if we are we need to learn not to. That will then also take care of keeping people from trampling on anyone's rights.

---------------------
Regarding what Narsrim said:

I'm not saying that the state should've censored the newspapers. Censorship is bad, because being free to speak your mind is part of the fundament of any democratic society.

Freedom of speech, however, does not mean you should say whatever you want whenever you want, no matter the context or likely effects of your words. It simply means that the state should not restrain you. It does mean that you're in theory allowed to speak your mind any way you want, but it is your duty to know when it is better not to do it.

Human rights like the freedom of speech are not the product of a bunch of hippies who didn't like being restrained by the rules of society. They're the product of the idea that a healthy society can only be based on principles like mutual respect, self-determination and responsibility.

So when I say, "The cartoons shouldn't have been published", I don't mean that the state should've forbidden it. I mean that those journalists should've known better and simply not have published.

A slight correction: The statement was about 'pictures of Mohammed' starting riots, not about cartoons of the Islamic prophet actually starting those riots himself.

Aye, I got confused by that phrase, and Daganev already clarified it.