Muhammed drawings and free speech

[ughaibu]

Tormod: That seems to be the difference between you and the islamic terrorists.

[C1ay]

Here is the difference here. When heads are being chopped off of civilians, and trains are bing blown up, and other continuing acts of terror, I can count on one hand the number of protests against these acts in the Islamic community.

Protests? I remember the Islamic community dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers were attacked. That makes it a lot harder now to accept any of their protests as genuinely sincere.

[TheBigDog]

Protests? I remember the Islamic community dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers were attacked. That makes it a lot harder now to accept any of their protests as genuinely sincere.

I remember that all too well. I am trying very hard to give people an opportunity to meet me in some middle ground of debate. I get really steamed by moral relativism and people who would hang me by their inability to see good from evil.

 

Bill

[Qfwfq]

This discussion seems to be degenerating into hatred without distinction between Muslims and terrorists, between religious difference and political controvesy or that among nations. C1ay, you are going from the matter of free speach to the rejoicing of some people after 911 but the nexus chain is long, some of the links are a shade on the weak side. Why were those people rejoicing?

 

I keep asking myself... "What year is this again? Is it 2006 or 1006?" There seems (to me) such a sense of arrogance and ignorance.

I don't understand your reply in relation to what you had quoted. Which arrogance and ignorance? And who's?

 

Okay... you said something that I disagree with and that I take offense to. I will naturally feel the need to defend my position. The issue is, how do I choose to do that? With RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) or by spreading a larger viewpoint and educating people why a broader viewpoint will cure many of the ails of the world?

There's a difference between "something that I disagree with" and something very offensive.

 

If you don't see this difference then, since I disagree with you I'll feel highly offended and, since you uphold free speac, I'll have no restraint in answering... No, on second thoughts, if I say what I was thinking the free speach enthusiast Tormod would ban me from this liberal free-speach outfit! :hihi:

 

If I tell my neighbor, "Hey, I don't think you tend to your lawn very well," I shouldn't have to apologize to him to prevent him from shooting me in the face. The response should be proportional to the offense.

I'd sure hope he wouldn't even think of shooting for a bit of criticism.

 

or the interested, here is an article in Al Jazeera about it. Reading the comments is both frightening and enlightening.

I can't read quite all the comments Tormod but I'm curious to know which you found the most frightening.

[C1ay]

This discussion seems to be degenerating into hatred without distinction between Muslims and terrorists, between religious difference and political controvesy or that among nations. C1ay, you are going from the matter of free speach to the rejoicing of some people after 911 but the nexus chain is long, some of the links are a shade on the weak side. Why were those people rejoicing?

Is there a difference between the terrorists and those Muslims that celebrate their actions? I realize it is not all Muslims that rejoice but those that wish to celebrate terrorist acts show that they harbor the same hatred as the terrorists themselves. Those dancing over the Twin Towers were rejoicing over the success of the attacks on American citizens, not soldiers. Media outlets like Al Jazeera promoted such events over the attacks themselves without even denouncing the attacks. Those images and their promotion were hateful speech but America did not call for terrorist acts against muslims the way muslims are carrying on about some cartoons in some newspapers. This all makes it very hard to segregate those which do not tacitly condone terrorism and those that do.

[Qfwfq]

Is there a difference between the terrorists and those Muslims that celebrate their actions? I realize it is not all Muslims that rejoice but those that wish to celebrate terrorist acts show that they harbor the same hatred as the terrorists themselves.

There is a slight difference.

 

Those dancing over the Twin Towers were rejoicing over the success of the attacks on American citizens, not soldiers.

That answers what they were rejoicing over, not why they were.

 

Media outlets like Al Jazeera promoted such events over the attacks themselves without even denouncing the attacks.

I wasn't following Al Jazeera at the time so I can't comment objectively.

 

Those images and their promotion were hateful speech but America did not call for terrorist acts against muslims the way muslims are carrying on about some cartoons in some newspapers. This all makes it very hard to segregate those which do not tacitly condone terrorism and those that do.

Think about how endless family feuds start. What comes to mind is how Huck Finn is told the story of the one between the family that he was a guest of and their neighbours. Of course, in the Palestinian case there are more than two countries involved.

[questor]

it seems a majority of middle easterners possess the personality aberration of thinking they are the ''aggrieved victims''. this mind-set enables them to look upon any small slight as a major insult which entitles them,actually commands them to exact blood revenge. this personality defect runs deep in these people and is imbedded in the minds of even those who do not take up arms. this is why we do not see an overwhelming condemnation of terrorist acts.

deep down, the Muslims believe the infidels are the source of their victimhood and must be destroyed. these people do not believe in the sanctity of life and the peaceful pursuit of happiness. as long as they are victims, they want revenge. if the people we liberated from Saddam had helped us in ferreting out the terrorists in their midst, the Iraq war would have long been finished.

[C1ay]

Of course, in the Palestinian case there are more than two countries involved.

See new thread...

[InfiniteNow]

I keep asking myself... "What year is this again? Is it 2006 or 1006?" There seems (to me) such a sense of arrogance and ignorance.

 

I don't understand your reply in relation to what you had quoted. Which arrogance and ignorance? And who's?

Of reacting to a cartoon in this manner. Do I agree with the content? No. Do I think it was in poor taste? Absolutely. To run an article such as this is a bit arrogant and ignorant, but the thrust of my statement was directed at those reacting. I believe it is both arrogant and ignorant to react with such militantism over a newspaper article. If you disagree with it, don't read it. You don't like what's on TV? Change the channel.

 

 

Okay... you said something that I disagree with and that I take offense to. I will naturally feel the need to defend my position. The issue is, how do I choose to do that? With RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) or by spreading a larger viewpoint and educating people why a broader viewpoint will cure many of the ails of the world?

There's a difference between "something that I disagree with" and something very offensive.

 

If you don't see this difference then, since I disagree with you I'll feel highly offended and, since you uphold free speac, I'll have no restraint in answering... No, on second thoughts, if I say what I was thinking the free speach enthusiast Tormod would ban me from this liberal free-speach outfit! :hihi:

I understand your intention at humor here, Qfwfq. I do understand the difference, but also there exists a very gray area surrounding disagreement and offense. What is offensive to one will not be for another. That's the point. It's the way we as individuals choose to react that is important in matters such as this. Again, I'm not defending the content that was published, just their right to publish it and to do so without fear of violent retribution.

 

If I tell my neighbor, "Hey, I don't think you tend to your lawn very well," I shouldn't have to apologize to him to prevent him from shooting me in the face. The response should be proportional to the offense.

I'd sure hope he wouldn't even think of shooting for a bit of criticism.

Yes, me as well, but the analogy applies all the same.

 

 

Cheers. (unless of course, that's against your beliefs and you think I should die for being so offensive as to suggest it) :hihi:

[Cedars]

My opinion:

 

Whether or not the cartoons were in good taste doesnt matter. There is no denying those cartoons do represent elements of Islam. The paper has a right to display such cartoons as they see fit. Muslims worldwide can make a choice not to purchase the offending paper. Muslims worldwide can purchase the paper and burn it in protest. No muslim has a right to attack the person who created the cartoon, nor do they have a right to destroy any element of the business which provided these pictures. The caving into the threats of violence by some fanatical persons via the sympathy towards these few by people in the government there, gives those same fanatics power to carry out such grievances with actions in the future.

 

I am not a muslim. I am not bound by Islamic tenants regarding pictures of Allah, or any other religions idealisms that conflict with my artistic, entertainment or other personal preferences. And these persons of other religions, whether muslim, christian, jew, or any of the many religions out there must get used to the idea that I dont have to respect their idealisms. I can laugh at their doctrines. And I can speak freely of this different point of view whether they like it or not. I am bound by the same rules they are. I cannot burn down their mosques, churchs or temples, nor can I threaten violence against any of them for their personally held beliefs.

 

But should any of these religious persons advocate violence against me for not adhering to their religious doctrine, I would expect my government to stand up for me and my rights, regardless of anothers religion.

[Qfwfq]

Infinite, I understand your points and I have already agreed against against certain violent attitudes. I think this discussion has become rather circular.

 

The very fact that there are such gray areas, especially knowing that different areas can be gray for different people, should induce caution over things that may be a little gray... or even on the black side. Another line that can be gray is that between the threats of violence by some ME muslims and many an act of "civil protest" by people in our parts of the world. Judgement of these things varies. I don't uphold the actions of the Black Blocs creating TAZs but opinions vary widely about that too. When people have strong motivations and perceive unfairness, sometimes things get out of hand.

 

Cedars, I respect opinions but:

There is no denying those cartoons do represent elements of Islam.

isn't quite an opinion, in my opinion. :lol:

 

AFAIK it's a misconception and terrorism isn't jihad at all; the Qur'an makes presciptions about it that someone who agrees with war "for just causes" could hardly condemn. To avoid misunderstanding, I mean agreement distinct from that with the political motivations of a cause being just. Terrorism certainly doesn't match up with these prescriptions. If you don't trust my opinion... read, read, read!

 

And these persons of other religions, whether muslim, christian, jew, or any of the many religions out there must get used to the idea that I dont have to respect their idealisms. I can laugh at their doctrines.

:hihi:

 

If you want to live in this world, my advice is learn to get along with people, and learn mighty, mighty fast.

[Tormod]

If you want to live in this world, my advice is learn to get along with people, and learn mighty, mighty fast.

 

Yeah, but which people?

 

This just out:

(Aljazeera.net)

Attack threat as cartoon row escalates

 

Two militants groups released a joint statement on Thursday that said: "All nationals and those who work in the diplomatic corps of these countries can be considered targets of the Popular Resistance Committee and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades."

 

Abu Mudjahid, a spokesman for the "joint command" of the two factions, said the threat was serious and extended to the nationals of all countries that had published the caricatures.

 

"We demand that the offices and consulates of the three countries concerned close, otherwise we will not hesitate to destroy them," the statement said.

 

Full story at:

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B656C415-F0B8-488A-8C2B-14014EF1B3A8.htm

 

And for those who hope to see some good news, a Jordanian paper (Al-Shihan) has decided to print the cartoons, and is asking "Muslims of the world" to calm down. I have no link but to quote a Norwegian paper, "What is it that really causes prejudice against Islam? These comics, photos of hostage takers who slit their hostage's throats, or suicide bombers blowing themselves up at a wedding in Amman?" (Quote from Aftenposten).

 

Probably the most intelligent comment I've read in a long time.

[Tormod]

FWIW it means that all Norwegians, Danish and French nationals are targets for these threats (including myself).

[Qfwfq]

It's an alarming escalation, with many pouring fuel on the fire to no purpose.

 

Have you ever read Huck Finn Tormod?

 

I think everyone on this entire planet is as dumb as a jackass.

[CraigD]

it seems a majority of middle easterners possess the personality aberration of thinking they are the ''aggrieved victims''. this mind-set enables them to look upon any small slight as a major insult which entitles them,actually commands them to exact blood revenge.

I conducted a poll of the only 4 Middle Eastern Muslims I can speak with on demand on any given weekday – 2 Iranians and 2 Egyptians – concerning the drawings in question. All 4 had essentially the same opinion – They consider the drawings to be poor examples of political cartoons that don’t make much of a point, but don’t find them deeply offensive, or worthy of a call for retaliation of any kind against the artists or publishers.

 

Of course, well-educated, English-speaking Muslims from Middle Eastern countries working in the US are not a good sample of all citizens of these countries, but I suspect that a well controlled survey of these countries would not find that a majority of this population desires “blood revenge” for these or other perceived insults, any more than the majority of Westerners seek “blood revenge” for the criminal attacks of 9/11/01. Regardless of culture and historic period, I believe the majority of people have and practice a “live and let live” morality, while only a small minority pursue violence. That as many people are engaged in violence against one another is, I believe, due to the human tendency to follow political and religious leaders, especially when economically, legally, or thuggishly coerced.

[Qfwfq]

Reasonable points Craig.

 

Of the many muslims I've known, I'm sure the less practicing as well as the non-religious ones are not seriously offended - personally - but most of them problably think it wrong in any case because others are religious. That's what I call live and let live.

 

One Persian I knew is probably laughing at the whole issue. He was once mocking an African girl, I'd say from around the Horn of Africa by her looks, that was wearing a headscarf because some relatives had come over for a stay. This guy was saying that it was nearly Y2K and that it's silly to go in for these things. A good friend of mine, from Teheran and well acquainted with this guy, not herself giving a damn about religion, stepped in and kept telling him to shut up, be respectful of people's choices and quit making a right *** of himself.

 

I forgot Tormod, you asked "Which people?" I mean those that share the globe with us. A Danish paper is still a very public platform.

[pgrmdave]

The cartoons are offensive, and I am disappointed that a newspaper would print them. I think that the newspaper had every right to print them, but printing them was still wrong, and immoral. The cartoons do nothing but portray Islam as a religion of hate, and destruction. However, two wrongs do not make a right, and the response that the cartoons have gotten is disproportionate. A more appropriate response may have been a boycott of the newspaper, and any media associated with that newspaper until a formal apology was issued.