NationStates Jolt Archive

People protesting the infamous cartoons have decided to aim their protests at the US despite the fact that US newspapers, to my knowledge, haven't run the cartoons. Here's why.

The U.S. base was targeted because the United States "is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-02092006-610153.html

Yes, that was silly of him.

But my favorite so far is still the Iranian governments official position that the cartoons drawn and published by Danes working for an independent newspaper are really the product of a Zionist plot to discredit Muslims, and Iran in particular.

Ol' dude needs a geography course.

Ol' dude needs a geography course.

Note carefully the old man's attitude, which is ingrained in him by Islam.

"They" are Muslims. Everyone else outside of the country is an "infidel". And, as always, something must be done about the infidel problem.

You see, it's acceptable for Muslims to have an overriding and deep sense of cultural imperialism, and call us names like "infidel" as a group, but it's never ok for anyone else to do it.

Note carefully the old man's attitude, which is ingrained in him by Islam.

"They" are Muslims. Everyone else outside of the country is an "infidel". And, as always, something must be done about the infidel problem.

You see, it's acceptable for Muslims to have an overriding and deep sense of cultural imperialism, and call us names like "infidel" as a group, but it's never ok for anyone else to do it.

LOL! You're probably right, Kimchi. To him, all non-Muslim nations are probably one unified land mass of moral destruction. North America, Europe, what's the difference?

Better described at Stratfor

Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is a prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed. There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by these cartoons.

It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.

The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his resignation.)

In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants.

These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics.

In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims -- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against European states.

People protesting the infamous cartoons have decided to aim their protests at the US despite the fact that US newspapers, to my knowledge, haven't run the cartoons. Here's why.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-02092006-610153.html
( shrug ) So what else is new? Everybody takes pot-shots at the US, for whatever reasons they choose. As the biggest kid on the block, that's almost to be expected.

Better described at Stratfor
Excellent exposition! Got a link for that site?

Excellent exposition! Got a link for that site?
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=261960

People protesting the infamous cartoons have decided to aim their protests at the US despite the fact that US newspapers, to my knowledge, haven't run the cartoons.

Seems at least one US newspapers have printed them, the Philadelphia Inquirer...
The Inquirer intends no disrespect to the religious beliefs of any of its readers. But when a use of religious imagery that many find offensive becomes a major news story, we believe it is important for readers to be able to judge the content of the image for themselves, as with the 1987 photograph by Andres Serrano of a crucifix in urine. On that basis we reprint this cartoon.
...and the New York Daily Sun has supposedly published at least two of the pictures - but I doubt that the protesters really cares about such details in this case.

Seems at least one US newspapers have printed them, the Philadelphia Inquirer...

...and the New York Daily Sun has supposedly published at least two of the pictures - but I doubt that the protesters really cares about such details in this case.
Ok, I didn't know that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Muhammad in a weekly comic strip similar to Peanuts only with more angry bearded religious characters.

Ok, I didn't know that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Muhammad in a weekly comic strip similar to Peanuts only with more angry bearded religious characters.
Now you know what your next career will be.

Stratfor: The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.

I agree that this is their view. That is unfortunate. They will never be taken as seriously as they wish, or treated with as much respect as they would like to be, until they are willing to extend the same to others. Period. There is no getting around this. "But... I'm right and they're not!" is no defense.

Stratfor: The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to frame the question as a matter of free speech.

Again, no one is willing to dig down deep about where these militant Muslims are coming from, because of the way they are behaving.

Stratfor: It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his resignation.)


You are right. God knows the cartoons were tasteless. But no amount of scribbling justifies the violence. These are people who defame others on a regular basis, and think it's OK! It's pure unadulterated hypocrisy. No wonder the European papers are republishing the cartoons. Their readers want to see for themselves what all the flame-throwing is about.

Stratfor: There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants.

Amen.


Stratfor: These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics.

Bull. Muslims are instructed by their faith, as are Christians, to be kind to others EVEN when those others do not deserve it. All they have to do is follow their own damn laws.

Stratfor: What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against European states.

Stupid indeed. Europe has been, in many ways, a much needed buffer for the lunacy between US and the Muslim world. Here they go attacking all of Europe (and the US too, they're not picky) for the actions of a handful of publishers and artists.

If they really wanted to marginalize this cartoon, they would have ignored it. No one would ever even have heard of it outside a handful of people in Denmark. Now as a result of their riots, everyone from Seattle to St. Petersburg is clamoring to see the "blasphemy" for themselves, and see if it really is worth taking people's lives over. Guess what? It ain't. All they've done is hurt themselves. Again.

These poor people need to get some strategic thinkers on their team.

Ok, I didn't know that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Muhammad in a weekly comic strip similar to Peanuts only with more angry bearded religious characters.
I wish I had found some way to publish that stupid cartoon series I made in High School about Muhammed, Genghis Kahn, and Alexander the Great (they were all resurrected and running for the US Presidency). It wasn't all that funny, or well drawn, but with all this controversy, I'd be famous and set for life by now.

Ok, I didn't know that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Muhammad in a weekly comic strip similar to Peanuts only with more angry bearded religious characters.
Great idea! Go for it! :)

EDIT: How about modelling it after South Park? That would be even funnier! :D

Get this; a british paper published one of the cartoons today. Some rag called 'The Liberal' put one on its front page. I have no idea what paper that is, or ehat its circulation is, but we may soon be getting attacked/criticised as well.

I wish I had found some way to publish that stupid cartoon series I made in High School about Muhammed, Genghis Kahn, and Alexander the Great (they were all resurrected and running for the US Presidency). It wasn't all that funny, or well drawn, but with all this controversy, I'd be famous and set for life by now.

You should dig them out and send them to france. They'll publish anything about muhammed at the moment.

Several newspapers have run them, I think for the story about them though.

Note carefully the old man's attitude, which is ingrained in him by Islam.

"They" are Muslims. Everyone else outside of the country is an "infidel". And, as always, something must be done about the infidel problem.

You see, it's acceptable for Muslims to have an overriding and deep sense of cultural imperialism, and call us names like "infidel" as a group, but it's never ok for anyone else to do it.

I agree. Now, what would happen if we suddenly adopted their attutude?

"We" would be morally obligated to do something about the "muslim infadels", and, in the words of one of their leaders, "wipe them off the map".

But I couldn't say that without being a flaming hatemonger. However, people defend their right to say it.

I agree. Now, what would happen if we suddenly adopted their attutude?

"We" would be morally obligated to do something about the "muslim infadels", and, in the words of one of their leaders, "wipe them off the map".

But I couldn't say that without being a flaming hatemonger. However, people defend their right to say it.

No, the difference for me is that if they actually end up attacking us, I'll be ready to kick them down.

Until then, they can riot all they like in their own countries, and talk about how offended they are.

Completely apart from the freedom of speech "was it right to print the cartoons" business, and separate from the unacceptable nature of much of the anger felt in the Muslim world, I can't help but feel sorry for the poor guy that made his statement that got it wrong about whether America and Europe are the same. He's probably had a minimal education, and in what geography classes he had he was learning about his own home area. I study at the University of Oxford, but at least half of my friends here wouldn't be able to place Syria or Iran on a unlabelled map, while I expect that he could probably place them both. Leave the poor guy alone.

Ok, I didn't know that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Muhammad in a weekly comic strip similar to Peanuts only with more angry bearded religious characters.
Ahhh yeah. The prophet blows himself up in almost every strip. And has a sidekick that says, "his pieces be upon you."

Ahhh yeah. The prophet blows himself up in almost every strip. And has a sidekick that says, "his pieces be upon you."
ROFLMFAO!!!!

Ahhh yeah. The prophet blows himself up in almost every strip. And has a sidekick that says, "his pieces be upon you."
I was thinking more along the lines of the prophet goes to kick a (American) football and a Jewish character yanks it away causing him to fall on his ass. He then gets his friend Linus to blow her up with his specially made explosive suicide blanket.

Better described at Stratfor
That's what I've been tryiing to say! That essay was perfect! :)

Great idea! Go for it! :)

EDIT: How about modelling it after South Park? That would be even funnier! :D
Bevius and Butthead? Rehn and Stimpy? Spongebob Squarepants?

Ok, I didn't know that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Muhammad in a weekly comic strip similar to Peanuts only with more angry bearded religious characters.

This any good? http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Ahhh yeah. The prophet blows himself up in almost every strip.and more than his name will be spread throughout comicdom

This any good? http://www.jesusandmo.net/
I'm sure you'll get some radical religious folks complaining that Jesus wouldn't hang out with Muhammad others complaining that Muhammad wouldn't hang out in a bar. Might even get some death threats out of it. I kinda like it.

Well, I for one welcome our new American overlords.

*Bows*

But my favorite so far is still the Iranian governments official position that the cartoons drawn and published by Danes working for an independent newspaper are really the product of a Zionist plot to discredit Muslims, and Iran in particular.

Oh yeah ... that has me in stitches as well. Fundies are hilarious. Comedy Central really should be airing a lot of this stuff.

I wonder how they'd react if they saw the world laughing at them.

People protesting the infamous cartoons have decided to aim their protests at the US despite the fact that US newspapers, to my knowledge, haven't run the cartoons. Here's why.



http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-02092006-610153.html


that is awesome. in a bad sort of way.
Muslim world:
YOU GOT PUNK'D!

If they really wanted to marginalize this cartoon, they would have ignored it. No one would ever even have heard of it outside a handful of people in Denmark. Now as a result of their riots, everyone from Seattle to St. Petersburg is clamoring to see the "blasphemy" for themselves, and see if it really is worth taking people's lives over. Guess what? It ain't. All they've done is hurt themselves. Again.

These poor people need to get some strategic thinkers on their team.

This is what their strategic thinkers want. Why do you think there's suddenly an abundance of Danish flags in Iran? Iran is one of the few Muslim countries that don't kowtow to western powers. Fueling public dissent against western powers plays right into where Islamist governments and organizations want things to be. Al Qaeda's long term goal is pan-Islamic solidarity, and about removing western influence from the middle east. The worst of these riots are happening in places that are NOT ruled by dictators fueled with Western money.

I think their strategic thinkers know exactly what they're doing.

Get this; a british paper published one of the cartoons today. Some rag called 'The Liberal' put one on its front page. I have no idea what paper that is, or ehat its circulation is, but we may soon be getting attacked/criticised as well.
Yes, but there's no danger of a Muslim fundamentalist seeing it because, having never learned the word "Liberal", they wouldn't know how to ask for a copy of the paper!

Oh yeah ... that has me in stitches as well. Fundies are hilarious. Comedy Central really should be airing a lot of this stuff.

I wonder how they'd react if they saw the world laughing at them.

I don't think they are too happy about their world image.

Part of the problem, I'm convinced, is that many (not all) Muslims in poorer countries see Islam as "under attack" from Western countries.

Just the way that Western people live, work, vote, worship (or not), and speak freely is anathema to their interpretation of Islam (which seems to be more common overseas than whatever you've got, Keru).

They see us rich, happy, laughing at them, and doing all the things that they are forbidden to do. And it pisses them all off to no end, because they have no ability to do anything about it.

And yes, the US plays a large role in it, but the US is not the only Western country. Israel, in essence, is a creation of the West - one of their first humiliations, and an enduring one (especially if you see Islam as an extension of Arab identity, which many Arabs do). Then the whole oil thing, fighting in Afghanistan, etc.

They are humiliated by the successful "infidels".

You know. India is doing so much better than Pakistan - that's humiliating. They won one in Afghanistan against the godless Soviets, only to have the US come back and humiliate the Taliban. Iraq's army ran and was decimated not once, but twice - and the second time was very humiliating. They sell us oil, and we give them money - but there's no general view that everyone is sharing in the wealth - only a few people who are living a Western lifestyle, befriending the West.

In an Islam that is of the worldview that there are believers and non-believers, the faithful and the infidels, we of the West are the non-believing infidels, and it galls them that we are rich and powerful and can do what we wish and laugh at them whenever we want. Since their beliefs tell them that the world is really run by God, and they are the believers, it's hard to accept the inversion of reality - the constant perception that they're being screwed.

So a battle is fought and they lose. A cartoon is published and we laugh. All they're left with is suicide gestures - because there's never going to be any realistic chance that any of them will catch up enough technologically or economically to match the West.

Ok, maybe this is news to a lot of people, but the idea that US has an extensive amount of power and authority in Europe does not come from a lack of geography. Rather, it comes from an interpretation of history.

The argument has been made that following WW2, only with American support could Europe resist Soviet expansion. Enter NATO. Other than the US, which country has ever held the position of Supreme Commander of NATO forces (or whatever the title is). Give up? Answer: none. The US has quite the strangle hold on NATO, regardless of where the HQ is.

How does NATO hit close to home in the Arab world? Who is in Afghanistan? Ain't the UN, it's NATO. If someone can explain to me how defending Europe is somehow directly synonymous with having a NATO force in Afghanistan, I'd love to hear them. I can see the strategic argument for being there, but it's not exactly consistent with the NATO Charter.

Consider Kosovo: who hit the Serbs to protect the Kosovars? NATO did. But in reality, who carried out the attacks? America. Europe didn't have the forces to carry out the action with American help.

As it stands, Europe has often debated forming an EU army that would be controlled by Europeans. Why? Because NATO, and by extension, most of the armed forces in Europe, are dictated to in large part by America.

This argument is debated for sure, and my stating it doesn't mean I agree with it. However, the quote at the beginning of this thread has more merit than most realise.

Any word on how they are treating our Canadian boys over there? The papers havent said anything lately.

Any word on how they are treating our Canadian boys over there? The papers havent said anything lately.
We've recently taken over the force. And since our diplomat was killed and 3 soldiers were wounded, it has been quiet. But my guess is it won't stay quiet for long. We're probably safe from attacks on our soil since they know we're a moderating voice on American power, but in Afghanistan we're a huge target.

( shrug ) So what else is new? Everybody takes pot-shots at the US, for whatever reasons they choose. As the biggest kid on the block, that's almost to be expected.
I call it the "superpower effect."

I always agree with you based on the posts I've read of yours, which is, rather, strange.

Oh yeah ... that has me in stitches as well. Fundies are hilarious. Comedy Central really should be airing a lot of this stuff.

I wonder how they'd react if they saw the world laughing at them.and now, new on Comedy Central... The FUNDIES...

Mufasa Fundie: Father and Islamic Radical... trying to build the uber bomb in his basement.

Mary Fundie: Wife and Christian Fundie... likes to bake cookies and delivers threatening letter bombs to Abortion clinics.... if she can only get the address right.

Aretha Fundie: Daughter and Athiest... caught between the world of Religious Zelotry and NSync.

Budd Fundie: Son and High Llama... tries to keep the peace in the family... or wants to, if he can figure a way out of his Zen garden without disturbing the pattern of peace and tranquility.

:D

Part of the problem, I'm convinced, is that many (not all) Muslims in poorer countries see Islam as "under attack" from Western countries.
I agree.

Read this interview: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399965,00.html

Muslims like to blame everyhting on the United Spades of Amerika.

Muslims like to blame everyhting on the United Spades.
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9299/spaten.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9299/spaten.jpg
There's only 11 founding colonies in the United States of Spades.