NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, please forgive me for making yet another thread about this. I hope that this one can take a different angle.

Now, some of you may know my view on the whole issue, namely that:
- Jyllands-Posten (plus all the other papers) were being dumb for doing so, and that the originals were aiming at creating a controversy rather than proving anything or making any particular point.
- Protests calling for, or actually resulting in, violence are even worse than the cartoons.
- Arab governments are using this to deflect anger from their own failures.

I have now found two articles from Der Spiegel which strongly support my thesis concerning the reason Jyllands-Posten started all this.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399840,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399653,00.html

...This all would have been very well if the paper had a long tradition of standing up for fearless artistic expression. But it so happens that three years ago, Jyllands-Posten refused to publish cartoons portraying Jesus, on the grounds that they would offend readers. According to a report in the Guardian, which was provided with a letter from the cartoonist, Christoffer Zieler, the editor explained back then, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." When confronted with the old rejection letter, the editor, Jens Kaiser, said, "It is ridiculous to bring this forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons." But why does it not? Can you offend Muslim readers but not Christian readers? "In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons," Kaiser said. "That's the difference."...

"Can you offend Muslim readers but not Christian readers?"

no. but you can arrange it so that you get more money one way or the other.

Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

I agree the paper that published about the cartoons had a hidden agenda and this proves it.

So what Muslim people and their beliefs are lower than anyone elses?

So, even though I don't like violence, this gives the people a right to protest, and if violence continues it is the fault of the paper as well.

So, the violence should be put on the paper as well as the other papers who have published it afterwards.

Free speech my ass. What a bunch of crap for religious intolerance.

Bump?

Yeah, look, I understand that JP is not the best of publications, and in a way they got exactly what they wanted from this. But that's really not the point is it. A free market of idea's depends upon granting pariahs and undesirables the right to speak as well as those you approve of.

If it had been radical islamists publishing cartoons about jesus in a crusade outfit or something, I would have stood up for their right to do so free from government interference as well. I would have criticized the publication for asshattery, but I would never suggest that they shouldn't have the right to publish.

The thing is, it europe at least, the radical fringe of islam needs to accept that it is okay to slander religion (or at least it should be). And more, at the end of the day, this is about death threats, not cartoons.

Though I am disappointed that its JP that has become the poster boy, and not Salam Rushdie, like it should have been.

Interesting; it seems there is hypocrisy in the air here. I think beyond a doubt that the paper wanted to stir up controversy to achieve some kind of goal; I would say that the paper knew there would be a strong reaction, and it would be violent, so they did it to incite anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe for some reason or another. The invisible hand is present here, to say the least.

Of course, it's also possible that an Islamist element, perhaps working through a middle organization, infiltrated the paper and got the cartoons printed and then proceeded to cause the controversy in response, effectively engineering a timely diversion from the situation in Iran (which is being increasingly percieved as a threat even by other Mideast nations). After all, an attack on Iran is probably the closest thing to a strike directly at the heart of the Islamist movement and they would have to be looking at ways to distract the world.

Having seen the actual editor speak on the issue. He's got a pretty solid case. They commissioned the cartoons as part of a piece they were doing on intolerance for disagreeable in the Islamic communities and the larger world.

The other cartoons were just submitted without any broader context. Were they doing a piece on a rise in anti-semitism, holocaust denial, whatever they might have been appropriate and found a place. Much as I've gone to exhibits on how african americans were portraited in early 20th century art and commerce.

Whatever. Their hunch on what would be an important public debate has obviously been proven far more accurate than they probably ever suspected, as were their ideas on how to spark it. The cartoons themselves are ironic as they've produced a self-fulfilling prophecy. One can hardly agrue with their content in retrospect, they've proven more accurate than they had any right to be.

Of course, it's also possible that an Islamist element, perhaps working through a middle organization, infiltrated the paper and got the cartoons printed and then proceeded to cause the controversy in response, effectively engineering a timely diversion from the situation in Iran which is being increasingly percieved as a threat, even by other Mideast nations.
That sounds an awful lot like a conpiracy theory...

After all, an attack on Iran is probably the closest thing to a strike directly at the heart of the Islamist movement and they would have to be looking at ways to distract the world.
Iran doesn't actually have all that much to do with the Islamism we really have trouble with, which is primarily Sunni-type extremism from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Attacking Iran wouldn't really change anything terrorism-wise.

I'm surprised that they believed it would offend readers. Nordic countries are highly irreligious. They have the lowest church attendance rates in Europe. So who really would have been offended??

Whatever. Their hunch on what would be an important public debate has obviously been proven far more accurate than they probably ever suspected, as were their ideas on how to spark it. The cartoons themselves are ironic as they've produced a self-fulfilling prophecy. One can hardly agrue with their content in retrospect, they've proven more accurate than they had any right to be.

Then why bother reprinting them? Why not just let the issue die back in September? They tried to stir up animosity- sells more of their papers I suppose.

Now it has backfired badly.

That sounds an awful lot like a conpiracy theory...

It is, really. It's pretty much a guess based upon the rather aritificial way in which people reacted to this...it's almost like the anger was nothing more than a performance orchestrated by someone.


Iran doesn't actually have all that much to do with the Islamism we really have trouble with, which is primarily Sunni-type extremism from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.Attacking Iran wouldn't really change anything terrorism-wise.

That's true as well; it could even be orchestrated by a Sunni terror cell to take pressure off of their own efforts in Iraq. IIRC, they are currently suffering problems as the secular resistance turns on them. The possibilities are endless.

Of course, it could just as easily be a militant Christian group, or even have ties to the Vatican for all we know. Or it could just be an obscure paper being hypocritical.

This a link to an interesting turn of events. The cartoons were published in a major Egyptian paper in October.
Here's the link:
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

This a link to an interesting turn of events. The cartoons were published in a major Egyptian paper in October.
Plus, there were no really major protests or even violence in Egypt.

This whole thing about Muslims, and Muslim immigrants and "European Free Speech" and so on is just falling apart now.

The whole thing was a stunt started by right-wing xenophobic bastards at a crap paper, used by extremists as well as oppressive governments to push their agenda, which was in return used by other right-wing xenophobic bastards to push their agenda.

This species sucks.

Then why bother reprinting them? Why not just let the issue die back in September? They tried to stir up animosity- sells more of their papers I suppose.

Now it has backfired badly.
Maybe. Who know's what's in anyone's heart let alone half a world away. It's possible. But now it's part of the public debate, further publication of the images, including the frauds Islamic leaders introduced, is inevitable until the debate wanes. Even periodicals that seek to encapsulate and digest the passage of the fleeting important moments have yet to come, and complete their record, reproducing the images again.

Everyone got what they wanted. The newspaper got its debate, which is being enjoyed and joined by all. The extremists got their slight, and excuse to go bat shit insane. Their religious leaders goaded their patsies into a fight they can only lose. Well except for the reasonable muslims who don't want any part of the public square. They got shafted pretty good. But it's hard to put all of what they suffered on the paper, isn't it?

It stretches the bounds of crediblity to imagine a smallish paper hatching an international plot, to get from underpants to profit.