Kuwaitis call for boycott of Danish goods

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Imagine the day when the loons with the full strength crazy (writing letters down wells, executing teenage girls, declaring to wipe out Israel and crush anglo-saxon culture and launching boycotts) get nuclear bombs. The Iranian government is practcally putting economic sanctions on itself with the boycots I don't think that they have any long term plans in the pipeline :( .
 
U2Man said:
Danish consulate in Beirut ablaze

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/cartoon.protests/index.html

_41296356_beirut_203body.jpg


722303-8ec45b230503aeb484ab8093ef6d.jpg


Holy s:censored:t. I didn't see that earlier. Disgusting. :madspit: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
yolland said:
The chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said the protesters "did not represent British Muslims".

Unfortunately, British Muslims are only a small percentage of all Muslims. This religion is facing a major crisis on the world stage, and if changes aren't seen soon, I'm afraid of what their future holds.
 
i haven't bothered reading all the comments in this thread, so if this has been said already, i apologize.

there's two things worth noting:

1) freedom of speach means you should be allowed to say anything. but by the same token, it doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to provoke anger, hatrid and violence. that's irresponsibile, and the editorial pictures did NOTHING but incite anger. at the end of the day, WHAT was the point?

2) the violent protesters fell right into the hands of the editors who published those cartoons in the first place. isn't that more than a little ironic?

"you're calling our god and our religion violent?!?!?!?! that's absurd!!!! i'm going to torch your buildings, and threaten to kidnap and kill you!!!!!"

um, ok then. thanks for that, guys, but for the love of shit SETTLE THE FUCK DOWN.

both sides look absolutely stupid in this conflict.
 
Zoomerang96 said:


2) the violent protesters fell right into the hands of the editors who published those cartoons in the first place. isn't that more than a little ironic?

"you're calling our god and our religion violent?!?!?!?! that's absurd!!!! i'm going to torch your buildings, and threaten to kidnap and kill you!!!!!"

um, ok then. thanks for that, guys, but for the love of shit SETTLE THE FUCK DOWN.

both sides look absolutely stupid in this conflict.

:up:
 
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men - Abraham Lincoln

The artistic merit of these cartoons is non-existent, but in principle what difference does it make if they are trying to ban these cartoons, The Satanic Versus or Piglet?

We only now how free we are by our margins, there is nothing stupid about illustrating how much closer those margins are today - and that extends right up to Nazi hate speech and holocaust denial.
 
Last edited:
The case for mocking religion.
By Christopher Hitchens

As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.
"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."
Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable?" That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party), and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.

Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.

Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." ( By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs, and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.
link

:yes:

Read the whole bit.
 
Arab-European League has decided to protest by publishing cartoons with taboo subjects, holocaust deial etc.

1139228401animalmarriage.JPG



Now they really should have had a naked men marrying a male horse, that would breaking taboo barriers.

200602051139183647L.jpg


Yeah wow, the holocaust requires a leap of faith and is implausible argument, so cutting edge, plu-ese Islamists have been pulling that one for decades and their cartoons have the whole Die Ewige Juden motif, this one is tame by comparison.

May not support the content of these cartoons but dammit I see nothing wrong with them being published on their private website or paper for the world to see.

Also free the fuckwit anti-semite David Irving.
 
Last edited:
stammer476 said:
Unfortunately, British Muslims are only a small percentage of all Muslims. This religion is facing a major crisis on the world stage, and if changes aren't seen soon, I'm afraid of what their future holds.
The protesters he was criticizing WERE British Muslims--namely, the small band of Omar Bakri Muhammad followers whose ugly signs were misleadingly presented by the media as the face of the London protest.

Do you mean to suggest that the violent actions of a few hundred conclusively speak to the sentiments of Muslims worldwide? You are talking about 1.4 billion people. There have been THOUSANDS of protests in countries across the world now, and the overwhelming majority of them have been peaceful. Of course these are not the ones which grab the headlines.

The reduction of violent extremism and the nurturing of electoral democracy in the Muslim world are worthy and reasonable goals to work towards. Expecting scores of countries to embrace Western ideals of civic liberalism and free speech en masse,when they lack all cultural or historic precedent for it, is not. Are we willing to accept this reality and work for peace and compromise that does not demand everyone else to see things our way or be dismissed as unworthy of dialogue? If we are too shortsighted to do this, then I am afraid of what our future holds. Violence and destruction are always to be condemned, but boycotts and strenuous protest are a basic right which should never be denied, nor used as evidence of anyone's unfitness to participate in negotiations.
The intially spontaneous protests against the cartoons are now being instrumentalized by extremists...It makes no sense to smash things blindly, without a specific goal. We shouldn't regard Western countries as the enemy.
--editorial in the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq Al-Aswat


Why do we want more than [apologies]? Do we want Denmark to convert into a Muslim country? Do you want to conquer Denmark? Do you want the terrorists to attack innocent people and kill them?
--editorial, Cairo weekly Soutelomma


Setting fire to embassies and destroying them is wrong. The solution lies in diplomacy, not in guns...We shall all be the losers if we fail to immediately defuse this situation, which can only leave a trail of mistrust and misunderstanding between both sides in its wake.
--Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan

We do not approve of these wrong and distressing incidents. Extreme reactions exceeding the limits of peaceful democratic actions are dangerous and damage the Muslim world's efforts to defend a legitimate case.
--Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Sec. Gen. of the Organization of Islamic Conferences


God instructs us to forgive. Therefore, we--as much as we condemn it strongly--must stay above this dispute and not bring ourselves ... to equating ourselves to those who have published the cartoons.
--Afghan President Hamid Karzai


Misguided and oppressive segments of the Muslim community...are projecting a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood. They have exploited this ... to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms.
--Iraq's Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani


The world has come to believe that Islam is what is practiced by Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, and others who have presented a distorted image of Islam. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are the reason for these drawings.
--editorial in Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates


Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere?
--editorial by former Jordanian senator Momeni in Shihan


Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, issued an edict banning violence, saying it "harms Islam and Prophet Muhammad the same as the others (the publishers of the cartoons) did."

Muslim clerics denounced the violence, with some wading into the mobs trying to stop them. "Regretfully, the march did more harm to the prophet than it did good," said Sunni Sheik Ibrahim Ibrahim, who was in the crowd. He said he and others tried to stop the mob, but "we got stones and insults."

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told private Future television: "This has nothing to do with Islam at all. Destabilising security and vandalism gives a wrong image of Islam. The Prophet Mohammad cannot be defended this way."
--source: Associated Press


Why are we so excitable anyway? Why even care what a newspaper thinks? The cartoons, horrendous though they may be, need not affect a Muslim's impression of the Prophet, for our tradition clearly shows him to be a man imbued with dignity, morality and goodness. The Prophet was ridiculed from the moment he started receiving revelation in Mecca more than 1400 years ago...A few cartoons will do little to harm him - or us.

The over-the-top reaction just shows me how much excess energy and strength the ummah retains worldwide. Frankly I wonder if Muslims are not doing a greater disservice to the Prophet when we close our eyes to the suffering and oppression in the rest of the world...Now, if we could only put our efforts to better purposes...
--editorial from the Muslim news portal altmuslim.com

This and other similar actions do not help anything! It detracts from valid criticisms and merely proves "their" point. When the issue blows over, it won't be Indonesians, Palestinians or Saudis who will carry the can, but Danish Muslims...If Muslims are asking for Danes and others to show understanding about Islam, then I don't see why Muslims can't show understanding about Danish and wider European society. There is nothing the Danish Prime Minister could have done to the newspaper or its editors or its journalists or the cartoonists. Can this point be appreciated by Muslims who don't live in Europe? None of this detracts from the Muslims being allowed protest or Danish Muslims making petitions to their government...

Secondly, the principle that people "on the other side" should really be defending isn't some empty platitude about "freedom of expression" but that of a press free from state intrusion. This is a real and practical freedom (right) that I do defend (and something many Muslim living in oppressive states would agree with, I think).
--the Muslim blog underprogress
 
^^ I think you're taking my comment to be much further reaching than I intended. My point was that while I'm sure that these pictures aren't representative of British Muslims, it's not British Muslims that I'm concerned for.

Regardless of what percentage of Muslims worldwide would endorse this behavior, the fact still remains that Islam in general has faced a public relations crisis in the last 5-10 years. What I fear is not Muslim extremists holding up signs, but what the counter-reaction will be; essentially, if things like this begin to escalate. I'm not concerned with reality, but perception.
 
verte76 said:
I have practiced "self-censorship" of my art because I thought some of my work was needlessly offensive to certain parties. I don't like the idea of putting a bomb on the head of any religious figure, let alone Mohammed. OK, we don't have to follow the rules about not making any images of Mohammed. I'm not a Muslim, therefore that rule doesn't apply to me. But putting a bomb on his head? This disturbs me. This is portraying him as a terrorist, and I'm pretty damned uncomfortable with that. Most Muslims are decent people who mind their own business, not terrorists. I've used Muslim symbols in my art, including the crescent and star and mosques. I don't want to deliberately do nothing in a piece besides piss off my Muslim friends. That being said I'll still buy the Danish cheese.

Thank You.

I wonder what Bono's point of view would be in all of this.
 
Last edited:
An Arab-American Muslim student of mine brought this statement from the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR), the US' largest Muslim civil liberties group, to our discussion section for Intro to International Relations today. Since they all just wrote papers on freedom of information in international law, it was quite germane to the topic.

The student privately confided to me afterwards that she feels loath in spite of herself to get into a discussion with non-Muslim students about the cartoons and the global response because "I feel like whatever I say will be heard as proving some stereotype or another, rather than what I think. Either I must secretly support this violence because You Muslims always stick together, or else I'm some nice Americanized Muslim who believes all the right things, but can't admit that other Muslims might not be so good." I winced in recognition, because this is precisely the reluctance American Jews so often feel to join in discussions about Israel.
What Would Muhammad Do?

“You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

That description of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad is a summary of how he reacted to personal attacks and abuse.

Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so.

These traditions are particularly important as we witness outrage in the Islamic world over cartoons, initially published in a Danish newspaper, that were viewed as intentional attacks on the prophet.

Peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests have occurred from Gaza to Indonesia. Boycotts have targeted companies based in Denmark and in other nations that reprinted the offensive caricatures.

We all, Muslims and people of other faiths, seem to be locked into a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility based on self-perpetuating stereotypes.

As Muslims, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, “What would the Prophet Muhammad do?”

Muslims are taught the tradition of the woman who would regularly throw trash on the prophet as he walked down a particular path. The prophet never responded in kind to the woman’s abuse. Instead, when she one day failed to attack him, he went to her home to inquire about her condition.

In another tradition, the prophet was offered the opportunity to have God punish the people of a town near Mecca who refused the message of Islam and attacked him with stones. Again, the prophet did not choose to respond in kind to the abuse.

A companion of the prophet noted his forgiving disposition. He said: “I served the prophet for ten years, and he never said ‘uf’ (a word indicating impatience) to me and never blamed me by saying, ‘Why did you do so or why didn't you do so?’” (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

Even when the prophet was in a position of power, he chose the path of kindness and reconciliation.

When he returned to Mecca after years of exile and personal attacks, he did not take revenge on the people of the city, but instead offered a general amnesty.

In the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, God states: “When (the righteous) hear vain talk, they withdraw from it saying: ‘Our deeds are for us and yours for you; peace be on to you. We do not desire the way of the ignorant’. . .O Prophet (Muhammad), you cannot give guidance to whom you wish, it is God Who gives guidance to whom He pleases, and He is quite aware of those who are guided.” (28:55-56)

The Quran also says: “Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knows best who have strayed from His Path and who receive guidance.” (16:125)

Another verse tells the prophet to “show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

These are the examples that Muslims should follow as they express justifiable concern at the publication of the cartoons.

This unfortunate episode can be used as a learning opportunity for people of all faiths who sincerely wish to know more about Islam and Muslims. It can also be viewed as a “teaching moment” for Muslims who want to exemplify the prophet’s teachings through the example of their good character and dignified behavior in the face of provocation and abuse.

As the Quran states: “It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds.” (60:7)
 
Last edited:
stammer476 said:
Regardless of what percentage of Muslims worldwide would endorse this behavior, the fact still remains that Islam in general has faced a public relations crisis in the last 5-10 years.
This is true, but the West is facing its own public relations crisis in the Islamic world as well. We may look from our perspective at the chain of events thus far and reason: Well, really it's mostly right-wing papers that have been reprinting these cartoons; and the US has actually been quite sympathetic to Muslims in its responses; and look, Rasmussen did apologize for the offense they caused, etc. etc. But the perception in much of the Muslim world is: Now look at this, the Europeans--they with their draconian immigration laws and hateful nationalist politicians--they are closing ranks and forming a united front against us, contriving to find us unworthy of a place at the table, and how can it be coincidence that this comes at the same time as mounting sabre-rattling over Iran and continued military interference in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, as always, continued unswaying support for Israel)?

The narratives of distrust on both sides run much deeper than the sensational rhetoric of "fundamentalists" and "infidels."
 
Substitute the word "Muslim" for "Communist" in A_Wanderer's comments in this thread. Then re-read.



"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... "
-Base Commander Ripper
 
financeguy said:
Substitute the word "Muslim" for "Communist" in A_Wanderer's comments in this thread. Then re-read.


"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... "
-Base Commander Ripper
Tried it and the response makes no sense, communist dictators ran cults of personality where their faces where splashed all over the place. If you are trying to infer a sinister anti-Muslim prejudice at play then argue it out point by point and offer a refutation, hell selectively quote to create an image. Just putting it out there with dubious evidence - show which posts are paranoid please, produce the evidence.

Communists don't work, the best fit for replacement I can figure is if I was rallying against the roundheads because puritanism is the closest fit.

Oh I know maybe it is a Straussian neo-con thing like in "The Power of Nightmares" where we groupthink "The Eternal Muslim" to make the case for perpetual war against the "primative".

Heres a set posts of varying degree and taken out of this thread.
But does the existence of a majority of people that don't want to outright kill people negate the existence of groups openly proclaiming this?

We shouldn't generalise and I am not generalising - I have linked to groups that explicity demand this and shown protests that are advocating this (in England). These groups follow an ideology - not all of them are wahhabist - and they pop up all over the world; Palestine to Kashmir, London to Sydney.
See I don't just pile on Islam or even Salafi's, now dealing with Qutbis gets a bit more specific but it is not a Ein Volk, Ein Ummah, Ein Prophet Nazi comparison of the world of Islam which fails on the basis of being too general and having the evidence of a minority encompass a majority that does not fit the totalitarian contention
Well they were just off the top of my head but the point is that it is all so very mockable. These guys are threatening violence, I see nothing wrong with taking their demands to butcher blasphemers literally for humerous purposes. Hell we can write jokes about any number of stupid things that some believers do - like taking sex advice from a septuagenarian virgin who dresses in gender ambiguous vestments, kissing holy stones of various types, engaging in rituals that involve biting the heads off live chickens, beating the shit out of the gay guy out of fear, beating their wives lightly because thats what their leaders tell them to do or those great rare cases where people follow spiritual advice and abandon conventional treatment only to find out that there is nothing to be done when their health problems get critical.

Fuck them all and lets get some saveage mockery to knock all that self-righteous superiority complex of professing believers down the proverbial peg.
Maybe they aren't "true Muslims" but they believe that they are and that anybody that differs is an infidel or apostate.
Now the real question is the cartoon depicting Mohammed with a lit fuse on his explosive headgear art imitating life or is the Islamic worlds response life imitating art.

How comfortable are these people with their faith if they go crazy at a small slight - affirming their faith through violence, perhaps by getting deep into scripture and pronouncements it gives to much intellectual credit to the man who gives his 20 month old a "I *heart* Al Qaeda" bonnet. In societies and social groups where religious freedom exists robust dicussion can take place and people elect their beliefs or at least have a right to - given a societal change towards religious freedom I wonder how many would abandon their faith outright.
"these people" refered specificly to the followers of Omar Bakri Mohammed who were marching through the streets demanding death to those who blaspheme their prophet
there is no right to not be offended. For believers to once again gratify the notion that they are special by getting the idea that they are entitled to live in an innofensive world is wrong. They can turn around and start fighting those who don't agree with that premise but they will only look stupid and we love the fight.

Perhaps there is a bit of an overarching social theory to this? The American Culture Wars are a mono-cultural microcosm of what is happening on a global level.
Belivers versus Unbelievers, people who believe in God have a lot more in common and will take common cause. Atheists and Polytheists rest firmly outside that Abrahamic set and as a result are fucked over by them.
 
Last edited:
Lets quantify this systemic bias shall we?

I will use the word terrorist, as any Islamophobe will surely use statements repleate with terror when discussing Islam.

In all 20 pages the word terrorist or terrorists was used 10 times. 3 of these was inside a quote from an outside source. Of the remaining 7 Verte used it twice on page two (in a post requoted on page 19), Teta040 used it once to state that terrorists are fringe groups on page 17, Achtung Bono used it twice tp say
The newspaper was right in depicting the prophet Muhammed as a terrorist because that is the way most people perceive Muslims as - terrorists and fanatics who commit atrocoties in his name.

I'm sad to say that the reaction in the Arab world to this harmless drawing only serves to purpetuate the myth that all muslims are bloodthirsty terrorists and criminals - which is utterly not true."
And I used it twice once to say that the protestor with feminine hands was a man because they were dressed more like a "Hamas terrorist" than in elegent female clothing on page 14, one on page 10 stating a case where an IDF spokesperson say "terrorist" and the quote is printed in the paper as "millitant".

Now can we quantify the systematic anti-Muslim and anti-Islam bias that I am failing to see or for that matter find objectively. Only two times (in the same quote from AchtungBono) was it announced that people see Mohammed and Muslims as terrorists, and even then the adendum "which is utterly not true" demonstates intent.

Once again you have resorted to attacking my character rather than the validity of arguments, while not at the base level of some previous attempts, it is nontheless troubling.
 
financeguy said:
Substitute the word "Muslim" for "Communist" in A_Wanderer's comments in this thread. Then re-read.



"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... "
-Base Commander Ripper

That quote was on my final exam for an international politics course I took last semester. We had to explain how that could be applied towards governments today.

Sorry side note.
 
I just searched for the word "terrorism" on every page, a single example, on page two Yolland quoted a news article which used the word once.
Nah, guess we're too busy damning those awful bloody Muslims.
Produce the evidence.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5392778-119665,00.html

[q]

7pm update
Danish embassy in Tehran attacked

Staff and agencies
Monday February 6, 2006

Guardian Unlimited
Hundreds of angry protesters threw stones and firebombs at the Danish embassy in Tehran today to protest against the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

Police had encircled the embassy building but were unable to hold back up to 400 demonstrators as they pelted the mission with stones and incendiary devices.

So far the protesters have not breached the police cordon to get inside the structure, but they managed to throw a handful of firebombs over the building's high outer wall. The embassy had already been evacuated.

The Bush administration today condemned the violent protests against the cartoons that have taken place around the world and urged governments to take steps to lower tensions.

"We understand fully why people, why Muslims, find the cartoons offensive, and we've also spoken out about the importance of the right for people to express their views and freedom of speech in society," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said.

"Those who disagree with the views that were expressed certainly have the right to condemn them but they should be peaceful and we urge constructive dialogue about this difficult issue."

The caricatures were first published in Denmark in September and have since been republished in other newspapers in Europe and elsewhere. Muslims consider any images of the prophet to be blasphemous. One of the cartoons featured Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Some 200 Iranian student demonstrators also threw stones at the Austrian embassy in Tehran, breaking some windows and starting small fires. Austria was targeted because it currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU. Members of the Iranian parliament issued a statement warning that those who published the cartoons should remember the case of Salman Rushdie.

The late Iranian leader issued a "fatwa", or religious edict, in 1989 calling for Rushdie's death following the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses, which some Muslims found blasphemous.

Iranian radio and television also reported a series of boycotts of Danish medical equipment and consumer goods, and the suspension of trade negotiations with Denmark.

In Afghanistan, two protesters were shot dead and three other people, including two police officials, were injured in the central city of Mihtarlam when police fired on hundreds of demonstrators, an interior ministry spokesman, Dad Mohammed Rasa, said.

Meanwhile, Syria apologised to Chile after a mob set fire to the Chilean embassy in Damascus on Saturday while attacking the Danish embassy, which is in the same building.

In Romania, the country's main press organisation today urged all media not to publish the cartoons, and in Chechnya, the pro-Russian government banned Danish humanitarian organisations from the war-torn Muslim region in protest against the pictures.

Demonstrators threw stones at EU offices in the Gaza Strip and pulled down the EU flag.

In Yemen, a small newspaper, al-Hurriya, was closed down and its editor arrested for printing the caricatures, while in Warsaw, the editor of Rzeczpospolita - a Polish newspaper that reprinted the images - said that he was sorry if the publication had caused offence to Muslims, but defended it as an act of solidarity.

In Jordan, a majority of parliamentarians demanded that the government cancel agreements with Denmark, Norway, New Zealand and other nations where the drawings were published.

In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, police fired warning shots to stop protesters from ripping a plaque from the wall of the US consulate in Surabaya, the country's second largest city, witnesses said. Hundreds of demonstrators threw rocks at the Danish consulate in the city before moving on to the US consulate.

In India, riot police fired tear gas and water cannons to disperse hundreds of student protesters who burned Danish flags and chanted slogans in New Delhi. Dozens of protesters torched Danish flags, burned tyres and shouted slogans in several parts of Srinagar, Kashmir, police said.

In Bangkok, about 400 members of Thailand's Muslim minority shouted "God is Great" outside Denmark's embassy, and some demonstrators stamped on a Danish flag.

In Malaysia, an editor of a newspaper that ran one of the drawings to accompany an article about the lack of impact of the controversy inside the country resigned, according to a statement seen Monday.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006[/q]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/06/news/islam.php
 
Last edited:
Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

Iran and Syria are both police states who have gotten much closer to each other recently, Lebanon is still freeing itself from the Yolk of the Syrians and the militant Islamists in the country have a history of Syrian backing. There may be a bit more than coincidence that violence against the embassies is allowed to get out of control in these countries (in Indonesia there was action but no firebombings or severe violence).

This business sure is distracting though, the Iran governments have stopped the spot inspections and announced their going to enrich their uranium, and the press is bogged down with this. A whole four months after the cartoons were first published.
 
The source of one of the extra cartoons that were toured around the Arab world has been found, these additional cartoons were said to have been from hate mail after it was pointed out that they were in fact not published in Jyllands-Posten, in fact the cartoon depicting their prophet Mohammed as a pig

bogusmohammedcartoon.jpg


was in fact a picture of Frenchman Jacques Barrot at a pig squealing championship in Trie-sur-Baise

pigsquealcontest.jpg


From the spokesman of the tour Akhmad Akkari the extra "cartoons" were added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Fine.
 
More in the continuous campaign of bigotry and Islamophobia (sarc) portraying all Muslims as orcs in this thread
We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.

Anyone offended by the content of a publication has a vast choice of democratic and respectful methods of seeking redress. The most obvious are not buying the publication, writing letters to the editor or expressing their opinions in other venues. It is also possible to use one’s free choice in a democracy to conduct a boycott of the publication, and even a boycott of firms dealing with it. Yet an indiscriminate boycott of all the country’s firms is simply uncalled for and counter-productive. We would be allowing the extremists on both sides to prevail, while punishing the government and the whole population for the actions of an unrepresentative irresponsible few.

We apologize whole-heartedly to the people of Norway and Denmark for any offense this sorry episode may have caused, to any European who has been harassed or intimidated, to the staff of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Embassies in Syria whose workplace has been destroyed and for any distress this whole affair may have caused to anyone.
link
 
Firstly it is more directed at continental Europe who have laws that ban holocaust denial (laws that incidently are contrary to the concept of unlimited free speech) and there are many who see that as hypocrisy (offending Muslims is alright but offending Jews is illegal - I would agree that such a position is hypocritical - the freedom to offend everybody is truly free).

Secondly the press in the Arab and Persian world is relatively restricted, so we should recognise that the anti-Israel cartoons with blood libels etc are all permitted forms of expression, you do not see the same criticism of the higher ups in the religious structures or the leader for life, as such official public opinion shouldn't be considered representative of the opinion of everybody.

Thirdly the response to these cartoons is not going to be anything like those over the ones of their prophet Mohammed. By trying to be edgy and ilicit a response only to find that they can't then it will definitely make the Iranian government look stupid, the fact that they will not recognise this is what would make it amusing.
 
Last edited:
Fucking hell this is such a dumb thing.

I love how the same editor of the same Danish paper previously refused to run cartoons featuring Christ because he didn't want to offend people.
I love how those Islamic groups have gone mental and thus solidified the stereotype in the minds of many.
I love how there's all this barking over freedom of speech for such an absolutely bullshit reason.
Action. Reaction. 2nd Reaction. All three have been a load of shit and make you seriously wonder about what chance we genuinely have in our lifetimes.
 
And when David Irving opens his mouth on the holocaust he isn't doing it out of a love of free speech but that doesn't make it any less protected.
 
A_W, do you think the Nuremburg judges were wrong to give Julius Streicher the death sentence?
 
Back
Top Bottom