What if I was to say that, what Hitlor did to jew was great and I understand where he was coming from when he killed these people.. Would you call this a freedom of speach I am just merely expressing myself. I dare you if any of the western government or media to questioned jews no matter how worng they are to speak against them. NOW TELL ME WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF SPEACH GOES THEN??? Freedom of speach is to express onself without insulting anyone. No civilise person can insult anyone but those ignorant...

Quote:Original post by Yosh
These Danish cartoonists aren't harming anyone by doing this, and I'm sure it's not in bad taste

The first part is debatable... Depends on what you mean by "harm".
It's not *directly* causing anyone physical harm, no, but it has sparked plenty of that indirectly.
And it has been a pretty nasty insult to a lot of people, who might see that as harm too.
And the second is just plain wrong. It is in bad taste, it was an attempt at legitimising something that is bad taste, and nothing else. It was done *because* it was bad taste.

Quote:Original post by rohde

Quote:Original post by Frank Henry
Dunno how true it is but in a recent tv-show one person who seemed to know what he was talking about said the reason why this thing took so long was because no one initally cared and that the danish newspaper then rubbed the cartoons unter peoples noses taking the issue to a completely different level.

No that is not what happened. The cartoons were published in september last year and spawned some normal debate in Danish TV and papers. Nothing serious, just normal debate. It eventually died down. That is untill January when some Danish Imams travelled to the middle east to show the cartoons to muslims there together with some false ones. Basically they just spread some lies to arouse the muslims.

Nah, it's not one or the other. You're both exactly right.
When the cartoons originally were published, nothing serious happened, that's right. And then some imams decided to "spread the word" (and add a few made-up words too), that's also right.
But that doesn't mean the paper didn't "rub the cartoons unter peoples noses taking the issue to a completely different level".
They definitely did that too. They refused to acknowledge that what they did was in bad taste, or even impolite, or that people might be offended. Or that there's anything wrong with insulting people for no particular reason. They got some wonderful assistance from our government too, who *still* hasn't done anything to even hint that they don't fully support it.

Both the government and the paper then fueled the fires by refusing to even listen to those who criticised it, much less acknowledge that they might have a point, or that "We shouldn't piss muslims off needlessly". (Everyone seem to accept that these would be sensible things to do normally), but the way they've handled this episode clearly shows that such common courtesies do not neccesarily extend to muslims. And that definitely helped piss more people off.

So here's a slightly more comprehensive listing of the events:

Quote:
1. Pictures get published in danish newspaper in September. Some muslims are offended, but life goes on.

2. During october/november, a group of 12 ambassadors from muslim countries seek to arrange a meeting with our government to discuss the matter, but are refused. (I wonder what they said when they got home. "Oh, they were so nice, and listened to our complaint, and discussed the issue with us openly, and we can now see that they're right in doing what they did!". I somehow doubt that was the impression we gave them).

3: A group of danish muslims decide to take the 12 images (and 3 unrelated, but offensive ones) and a bunch of false rumors, on a tour to the middle east, to draw attention to the issue.

4. Various newspapers all over the world picks up on the story and reposts the cartoons. Some apologize the day after, some results in the editor getting fired, and some manage to do it without getting into trouble.

5: Public demonstrations and protests start popping up in most of the middle east, fueled by, in no particular order:
- The Danish stance (as invented by the newspaper, and then picked up by the government) that "We have a right, nay, duty, to insult you. And if you're offended, we don't even want to hear about it."
- The group of imams from Denmark who spread false cartoons and rumors
- The political and religious leaders in the middle east, who decide to start boycotting danish products, arrange demonstrations and "spread the news"
- And a lot of historical background. People in the middle east have plenty of reason generally speaking to hate the West, and to feel that they and their religion are treated unfairly.
(Two things to note at this point. First, no violence is *yet* involved, and second, both sides were part of the reason it got this far)

5: A few middle-eastern idiots think violence is the solution, and storms one or two embassies.

6: A few western idiots who think violence is the solution shoot and kill a handful of people demonstrating in front of some (What was it? US? American) base. (Can't remember, maybe they tried to get into the base, but so what? They still got killed)

7: We get terribly offended that they dare to burn our flag, forgetting for a moment that we were just a moment ago claiming that insulting symbols others care about in the name of free speech was a Good Thing(tm).

8: We all (Westerners in general) think that muslims as a whole deserve no sympathy because of the actions of a few hundred idiots.

9: We all (Westerners in general) think that we (the Danes) deserve a boatload of sympathy because of the actions of a few hundred idiots.

10: The Danish government is still notable for its complete lack of involvement. It still refuses to even meet with muslims, it still refuses to condemn, or in any way criticise the cartoons, and it still refuses to acknowledge that some people have a problem with it.

11: The newspaper issues a semi-apology, managing to spin the words something like this: "We're not sorry for printing the cartoons, but we're sorry people got so offended." (In other words, it's not our fault and we haven't done anything wrong, but of course we're sad that others can't behave)

12: It turns out that the paper flatly refuses to print cartoons making fun of other religions and/or races. (Again, how are muslims supposed to react to this? "Freedom of speech is ok when it's used to insult muslims, because no one cares about them. But don't use it to insult anyone else"

I can't remember the exact order of 5-12, they happened almost simultaneously.

Quote:
The common response is "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" - meaning that if you falsely announce a fire and cause a panic that results in people getting trampled to death, you will be held to account for your speech. But if there really was a fire, the situation changes considerably even if people are trampled in a panic.

At any rate, there is no fire in this situation. These cartoons posed no immediate danger, they don't put people in physical danger.

So it'd be ok to yell fire in a crowded theater if no one got trampled? I don't think so.

Quote:
The people offended by them had plenty of time to consider their response - and unfortunately the radicals responded first and with violence. And that violence has by and large alienated a lot of people in the West that might have otherwise been sympathetic to the complaint.
This controversy has been raging now for a week and today is the first account of moderate protesters that I've read about in the local newspaper.

Oh yes, of course. *No one* reacted during the first four months. But after that, the radicals were there light a flash of lightning, spreading death and destruction, before anyone else did anything.

No, wait. Lots of muslims objected, complained, protested and debated the matter during the first four months. And it has been in papers and tv and everything else the whole time.
Governments complained too, but were dismissed. (How often do you see Western government leaders publicly *refuse* to meet with representatives from another country? How do you think the reaction would have been to such a thing?)

The fact that *you* haven't read about nonviolent protests until today just shows that your knowledge of the whole mess is pretty lacking.
Or that you live in a place that hasn't been involved until the last couple of days. And so, just like you, it took a while for muslims in your area to care enough to arrange protests. Maybe they didn't do it 4 months ago because they were in the wrong country, were not involved, and hadn't even heard about the cartoons? Maybe they didn't do it a week ago because they didn't see the need to get involved?

Quote:
It was good that moderate Muslim groups in England and Europe marched to denounce the cartoons and the violence, but they were late to the game. They let the radicals take the lead and set the agenda and probably most unfortunately, they let the radicals represent Islam.

No. YOU do that. You are the one deciding who to listen to. When you see 1.3 billion people behaving nicely, and 200 being violent, *you* are the one deciding that "those 200 people must represent all 1.3 billion". The remaining
You simply can't blame that on the other 1.3 billion. At least take responsibility for your own preconceptions. If you want to generalize, at least admit that you're the one doing it.
Of course European and English muslims were late to the game. Until it turned violent, they didn't really have much reason to get involved. Until it reached these proportions, it just wasn't relevant for European muslims as a whole, who had barely even heard about the cartoons.

Those who *were* involved have made plenty of nonviolent protests though.
You, not they, are responsible for your preference to listen to the few hundred violent idiots.

You, and so many other people, all of whom now go "We do not talk to people who burn stuff", and use that to sidestep all the muslims who *aren't* burning stuff.

LessBread wrote

"
Sorry, we've covered that theme already. Free speech includes free speech for Nazis - at least it does in the USA. And as far as questioning Jews goes, it happens, but for the most part only if the particular person being questioned is a leftist. Now, if you want to talk about criticizing Israel, it doesn't happen as frequently as it ought to, in my opinion, because the Israeli lobby is powerful, but the Israeli lobby doesn't exercise it's power by burning things down when they are insulted. It does it by supporting candidates for office that support Israel - and it has been very successful at it. This doesn't mean that people critical of Israel are denied free speech. They are still free to speek, but freedom to speak doesn't guarantee that others will listen. For example, the Nazis have free speech but very few people bother to listen to what they have to say.

See you don't understand: What I was saying, people jump on things even in europe when there is anything said about Jews or Israel, not only in USA but any country of the world, I have nothing against the Jews as long as they are good human being.

As you might have seen on the news today the British forces killed an innocent demonstartor ( was he not allowed to demonstrate, did he not have the freedom to express himself??) and abucted many others.. now dont tell me that people are allow to express their views whenever and however they wish to and that includes West too. There many other examples you can find UN is one such example to say the least.. they implement resolutions where the West deem neccessary ignores others. Why double standards??? Why kill and insult one party and let the other go scot free?? There is a censorship in the news too, BBC is one of the most respected news broadcaster and even they are not allowed to go beyond certain boundaries.
As for jewish lobby not harming anyone?? I am afraid you must be living a cokooland if you think that, there have been so many assinations being carried out by Israel agency "Mossad" in the past and at present. At the end of the day you can cricitices person for his acts and but cannot insult half the world. Especially when you dont have a clue about what Islam is all about. Acts of a few individuals cannot give people right to insult one's religion but they are more than welcome to condemn those who take part in activities which are not allowed by Islam or any other region of the world.

this is a editorial from a melbourne, australia newspaper, the herald sun. if what is said in this editorial is true, then who do we blame for what has happened?


www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18094703%255E25717,00.html

id like to see peoples reactions about this

Im joining into this thread late, sorry if what Im saying has allready been covered.

Spoonbender:

1) I saw the cartoons and I dont think they are so offending, but what do I know, Im not muslim, not religious and not easily offended in general. Still I dont think they are such a great insult- and I believe the majority of westerners think the same, so that may explain the refuse to appologize.
If you believe something you said isnt realy that offensive, would you appologize?

2) I am Israeli jewish and I may be offended by cartoons that will show jews as demons drinking the blood of palestinians. Youd be amazed how many of these cartoons are published in the arab world. But even if a major newspaper in Denemark will publish 20 such cartoons, you can be sure no one will burn the Danish embassy in Israel. There may be protests and great rumble but not torching.

3) You may think its 1.3 billion calm civil peaceful arabs and only a few hundreds of rageful barbaric embassy torching fools. I may be wrong here, but I believe in some areas its more like 80% rageful fools and 20% somewhat civil arabs. Please dont mark me as muslim hater or such. I believe the problem is the extreemist religious education they get in these problematic areas.

4) You complain that we think about the 1.3 billion arabs by the actions of a few hundreds but you dont complain about the fact that the arabs protest against an entire country by the actions of a few artists/editors? Why should the president appologize?? Its not his responsibility, its the editors. Should the president appologize to the entire arab world every time a private citizen insults them?


I think you are overly sympathetic to the Muslims. If someone should be blamed for the escalation of the events its the Muslims, not the Danish president or the Danish editor. There is no excuse or explanation for their actions. This is very similar to the current situation of the Palestinians. Yes, the Isralelies did (and still do) lots of wrongs and should be criticized, but there is no excuse or explanation for the terror acts and the great support the terrorists get. If they calm down and stop using terror Im 100% sure the Israeli occupation can be over in a few months.

These extreemists who flame against Denemark are usually busy flaming 100% of their effort against the Israeli/Jewish people and dont allow a civil end to the conflict. These are not just a few hundreds extreemists, in the recent polls in Palstine 80% (if Im not mistaken) voted to the extreeme terrorist group "Hamas".

The problem can be compared to intellectual cancer, and these days the palestinians are consumed by this cancer. Id admit, the Israeli actions did not help fight this cancer (leaders were more concerend with phyiscal protection of citizens and political benefits from right wingged, and believe me Im very angry at some Israeli actions). Still, if there is one to blame for the current situation is the palestinians themselves.

Iftah.