Danish embassy invaded - Part II

[Nostromo]

"Freedom of expression has to be fought for and defended, in every European generation. But freedom should not be defended by a "'neocon" doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "

?????????

That one also made me roll my eyes

[Az]

My main problem with the article:

In short, both these ancient societies are struggling through a crisis of identity. And to assert that identity, marshalled round its supposed core value of tolerance, it has seemed necessary to show intolerance to others who are different. But is this anxiety really about Islam, its dislike of criticism or resistance to Enlightenment liberalism? Or is it, at root, no more than the hostility of a tightly-knit community to strangers who have arrived to share the family home? Jyllands-Posten suggests that its main concern has been for freedom and democracy. I doubt that. It has certainly damaged both of them.

MAYBE THEY ARE TEH RACIOUST AFTER ALL!

again, the same ****. you can't say anything, lest you be branded racist. Ok, new rule - don't say anything bad about Israel, or be branded antisemite.

[Pekka]

laurentius, damn, you know you're right. I would have never guessed they were such sluts under pressure. Vilen, the plagiator himself is in the national coalition party.. what a sad day.

This has some serious implications to the future, I hope everyone realizes it, I think they don't. This is not the only website with those pics in Finland. The papers showed their gutless true self, because it's now #1 news, so it actually is a case to print them, it's not 'offend do not' it's 'number 1 news, print it'. They self-censorshipped themselves, and now the leadership is force censorshipping independents, and websites too?

What about offending Jesus. I'm SURE I can find some of that going on in the local website scene. And many others.. do the cops go and investigate those as well? Will my PM get outraged about that? No? Why not?

I know why and you know why. People are blind.

Even if they wanted to apologize, this is way overreatcing with it, they are almost in panic. NO one has threatened anyone in here, still they act as if there were an army outside the border getting in.

You know what that says about our leadership? They are WEAK. Just consider hte scenario were REAL pressure and threat was on. I don't even want to think about that.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"In the same way, rights – like the freedom of the press – inherently offer us the right to decide when to use them. The grounds for that decision include common sense and prudence. I may have the right to throw away a cigarette near a pile of leaky petrol drums, but I will probably choose not to do so, and will be held criminally responsible for a conflagration."

so would the author agree with those who say that publishing the Abu Graib pics was irresponsible?

Is he really arguing that JP should be held criminally responsible for the attacks on the embassies?

Of course the various antisemitic cartoons that appeared in the western press in 2002 arent at issue, as everyone knows that jews dont riot. Not a pile of leaky drums.

If youve got a pile of leaky petrol drums, so much so that doing something legal (is littering legal in Europe?) will set them alight, isnt the first priority to remove the leaky drums? (Im not saying that, of course, since I dont think this speech necessarily leads to conflagration, as the author does - but arguing that folks are so thin skinned that an insult starts rioting is not an arguement for limiting speech, but present a different problem)

I don't agree with everything he says. I agree with the author insofar as the Jyllands-Posten lacked judgment in publishing those cartoons. I'm under the impression that there's a lot of racial tension in Denmark, and publishing those cartoons was a bad idea. If your marriage is in trouble, you don't say to your wife: your ass is huge, you know, you should do something about it. Even if the constitution gives you the right to say it, you shut up, don't you?

I'm not saying that the Jyllands-Posten is directly responsible for all this mess. But they were asking for trouble, and unfortunately they got a lot more than they asked for. They didn't expect that those damn Muslim hate mongers would interfere.

[lord of the mark]

Hows this?

"I agree with the author insofar as the media lacked judgment in publishing those abu graib pics. I'm under the impression that there's a lot of tension in the muslim world, and publishing those pics was a bad idea. If your marriage is in trouble, you don't say to your wife: I cheated on you. Even if the constitution gives you the right to say it, you shut up, don't you? "

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo


I don't agree with everything he says. I agree with the author insofar as the Jyllands-Posten lacked judgment in publishing those cartoons. I'm under the impression that there's a lot of racial tension in Denmark, and publishing those cartoons was a bad idea. If your marriage is in trouble, you don't say to your wife: your ass is huge, you know, you should do something about it. Even if the constitution gives you the right to say it, you shut up, don't you? .

Is JP married to the intolerant portion of the Islamic population? When did the nuptials occur? Is a divorce possible?

I belabor this cause its a metaphor ive seen elsewhere, and IMHO its an inapt one.

[Nostromo]

Now I don't know beans about Islam, but from what I've heard, showing the prophet is profoundly blasphemous and upsetting to a vast majority of Muslims, not just fundamentalists. I know its hard to understand, but its like that. To an American, it would be like burning a TV.

And, from what I've heard, the cartoons were also insulting on another level. Some Muslims, even the tolerant ones, read it as: "you're all ****ing terrorists!"

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by nostromo

Now I don't know beans about Islam, but from what I've heard, showing the prophet is profoundly blasphemous and upsetting to a vast majority of Muslims, not just fundamentalists. I know its hard to understand, but its like that.

It not hard to understand that its upsetting. When I said intolerant, i was referring specifically to that subset of muslims (however large) who want the cartoons censored.

And, from what I've heard, the cartoons were also insulting on another level. Some Muslims, even the tolerant ones, read it as: "you're all ****ing terrorists!"

Yup, cartoons have political messages that are insulting. And by their nature they dont use modifiers - they dont make clear whether they are referring to all, most, most, many, or some. But theyre printed every day, nonetheless.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000090.html

[VetLegion]

Pekka that's sad. In here two papers have reprinted the cartoons and everyone was kinda hoping there would be some affair or something but it died within two days and now we're back to the bird flu thing.

World War III started by cartoons

Bird flu

[Nostromo]

Yes, I know about the antisemitic cartoons. They even had an holocaust cartoon contest in Iran, irc. An Australian won. Stupid crap. I didn't say the Muslim hate mongers were better. I heard recently that they still publish the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in some Arab countries.

But you know as well as me that hatred breeds hatred. As children of the enlightnement, we should know better and behave a bit more wisely.

[Pekka]

VetLegion, well starting a war over cartoons is stupid. But it's almost the best reason too, you know.. don't like cartoons? Ready for war over that? I guess we don't fit in this block, so we need to square off..

of course that's not the way it works. If extremists do strikes over it.. well.. I mean that's not the same. If we woujld be delaing with an entity like the official leadership of another nation and they would declare war over this, it would be worth it. Just because it's so stupid.

But that's not the reality, the reality is, terrorists etc are threatning with violence, so .. there's always war against them anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo
Yes, I know about the antisemitic cartoons. They even had an holocaust cartoon contest in Iran, irc. An Australian won. Stupid crap. I didn't say the Muslim hate mongers were better. I heard recently that they still publish the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in some Arab countries.

But you know as well as me that hatred breeds hatred. As children of the enlightnement, we should know better and behave a bit more wisely.

I wasnt thinking so much of the antisemitic cartoons in the arab world, as the one in the Independent.

My point being thats the nature of political cartoons, esp in Europe.

Children of the enlightenment? IIRC Voltaire was pretty disrespectful of religion.

JP insists that they solicited the cartoons because of the difficulty an author of a book on mohammed had getting an illustrator, NOT out of hatred. I dont know why I have to disbelieve them.

And of the cartoons they published, MOST were NOT disrespectful. One at least, mocked JP and its contest.
As for the association of Mohammed with terrorism, thats an association many of the West make, including I think many who wont admit it. Censoring the association wont make it go away, it will only drive it underground.

When people call Israelis baby killers, I see that as an opportunity to disabuse them. The problem is the perception (which is wrong) not the publication of it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo
But you know as well as me that hatred breeds hatred. .

Im not sure thats relevant, as I dont see proof that JP was motivated by hatred.

[Pyrodrew]

If your marriage is in trouble, you don't say to your wife: your ass is huge, you know, you should do something about it. Even if the constitution gives you the right to say it, you shut up, don't you?

If there were only 2 people in the world that might be fine, but there are 6+ billion people in the world. Someone is bound to tell her she has a huge ass at some point. So should we fine/imprision people for telling someone they have a huge ass?

To an American, it would be like burning a TV.

With 6+billion people in the world even a "child of enlightenment" is bound to burn an American TV/flag in another country. In fact, it might have already happened.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I wasnt thinking so much of the antisemitic cartoons in the arab world, as the one in the Independent.

My point being thats the nature of political cartoons, esp in Europe.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure the kind of cartoon you linked are pretty rare. I mean, its the kind of cartoon the Nazis published in Der Sturmer. If a local newspaper would publish a cartoon of Sharon eating children, there would certainly be a public uproar.

Children of the enlightenment? IIRC Voltaire was pretty disrespectful of religion.

Yet he and a lot of enlightenment philosophers, like Locke, wrote about tolerance.

JP insists that they solicited the cartoons because of the difficulty an author of a book on mohammed had getting an illustrator, NOT out of hatred. I dont know why I have to disbelieve them.

And of the cartoons they published, MOST were NOT disrespectful. One at least, mocked JP and its contest.

Yes, that's what they say. Maybe its true.

That's why I believe that the whole affair wouldn't have escaladed to such levels without the help of the Muslim hate mongers. In fact, I believe the whole affair was ingineered in great part by the Muslim hate mongers. The article I quoted states that the Danish Imams brought in Saudi Arabia cartoons that no one in Danemark saw. Add to that false reports of persecution, disaffected Muslim young men and you have a recipe for disaster...