NationStates Jolt Archive

The editor of Jyllands-Posten shares his opinion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Excerpt:Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

But the cartoon story is different.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.

This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
...
Continued...

Well said, Flemming Rose. I am in complete agreement.

And yet they self censored some cartoons on Christ because it might offend......

And yet they self censored some cartoons on Christ because it might offend......
Three years ago. Flamming Rose clarified that it was, in fact because they were bad cartoons. (They must have really sucked if even these ones were good enough for him.)

Seriously, why bring this up? Can't you ever be happy that he's supporting free speech or are you just unable to resist agreeing with the demands of all minorites? Liberal my ass.

He really doesn't sound like he has a problem with offending Christians any more than Muslims.

Well said, Flemming Rose. I am in complete agreement.
As am I. Kudos to him!

Seriously, why bring this up? Can't you ever be happy that he's supporting free speech or are you just unable to resist agreeing with the demands of all minorites? Liberal my ass.
Heh! I've had so-called "liberals" tell me that sensitivity is more important than free speech. Honest! Yet some of these same self-styled "liberals" have no problem being insensitive in the extreme when dealing with Christians. What, pray tell, is wrong with this picture?

Three years ago. Flamming Rose clarified that it was, in fact because they were bad cartoons. (They must have really sucked if even these ones were good enough for him.)

Seriously, why bring this up? Can't you ever be happy that he's supporting free speech or are you just unable to resist agreeing with the demands of all minorites? Liberal my ass.

He really doesn't sound like he has a problem with offending Christians any more than Muslims.

Oh I have been defending the free speech side of it.

The problem is that we have to take him on his word they were bad. For that matter why were they bad? Because they would offend?

The Muslims ones were pretty lame. The only remotely funny was the virgin one.

So far the only paper that really practices free speech is that French one that sued to print them. They go after everybody.....

Heh! I've had so-called "liberals" tell me that sensitivity is more important than free speech. Honest! Yet some of these same self-styled "liberals" have no problem being unsisitive in the extreme when dealing with Christians. What, pray tell, is wrong with this picture?

So speaks the conservative that claims to be a centrist.

Fact remains. The paper cried free speech on the Muslim issue and yet censored a a series on Christ because it might offend.

He may have a point about needing to have a look at how we will live together in the future.

I still don't think publishing the cartoons were the right way to do it.

And I especially don't understand why "Freedom of Speech" has to come into it again. No government told anyone what to do, right?
Indeed, it was individuals who decided not to do various things, for whatever reasons. You can go to these individuals and condemn them, but this is neither a problem of the government, nor the Muslim community. It's a problem with people to whom Islam is so foreign that they would shut themselves up rather than go on with their lives.

JP's cartoons did not fall into that category though. They were made in response to a perceived clash of cultures. Had there not been a perceived controversy, they would not have been made.

So speaks the conservative that claims to be a centrist.

Fact remains. The paper cried free speech on the Muslim issue and yet censored a a series on Christ because it might offend.
Because as we all know this was about a pissing contest between religions and not having the open, if course, dialogue that free and open societies so commonly have. Oh wait.... That's right. People already were saying whatever the hell the wanted about Christianity (as it should be), desecrating holy symbols, whatever. But they were keeping their thoughts to themselves, and refusing to join the discussion on Islam out of something OTHER than disinterest. Christianity accepts its critics, not always willingly, it doesn't have any choice. Islam doesn't. Until it does, Muhammed, empoverished savage that he is needs the screws put to him.

If Islam wants to extort empathy through fear, it is a doomed quest. It can change or accept its doom.

So speaks the conservative that claims to be a centrist.
You know something? I'm getting really, really tired of that nonsense. Just because YOU have some sort of problem with what I choose to call myself when you compare it with your own demented definitions, does not mean that I am anything other than what I claim to be. What's the matter? Can't take the heat? Can't stand it when a legitimate, bona fide centrist doesn't conform to what YOU think he should? Well, guess what? Take all your cute little definitions, roll them up into one big, smelly ball, and stuff them up your snobbish nose, Mr. Holier-than-thou. :D

That Somali-Dutch person is...I think...Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

You know something? I'm getting really, really tired of that nonsense. Just because YOU have some sort of problem with what I choose to call myself when you compare it with your own demented definitions, does not mean that I am anything other than what I claim to be. What's the matter? Can't take the heat? Can't stand it when a legitimate, bona fide centrist doesn't conform to what YOU think he should? Well, guess what? Take all your cute little definitions, roll them up into one big, smelly ball, and stuff them up your snobbish nose, Mr. Holier-than-thou. :D

Well you see the problem is that you claim to be a bonafide centrist and yet 95% of your digs are against Demos and Liberals. So where do you fall?

You are a little too old to be using new math ;)

Well you see the problem is that you claim to be a bonafide centrist and yet 95% of your digs are against Demos and Liberals. So where do you fall?

You are a little too old to be using new math ;)
You are far too young to have an understanding of reality, so I guess your ignorance, though glaring, can be forgiven.

That Somali-Dutch person is...I think...Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Yep. And she's one of those "Islam is barbaric" types. Probably because she wouldn't have to fight. It's always those types that push for confrontation the hardest.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,399263,00.html

You know something? I'm getting really, really tired of that nonsense...
Seriously though - do you have any positions that are not consistent with Conservatism?

Because as we all know this was about a pissing contest between religions and not having the open, if course, dialogue that free and open societies so commonly have. Oh wait.... That's right. People already were saying whatever the hell the wanted about Christianity (as it should be), desecrating holy symbols, whatever. But they were keeping their thoughts to themselves, and refusing to join the discussion on Islam out of something OTHER than disinterest. Christianity accepts its critics, not always willingly, it doesn't have any choice. Islam doesn't. Until it does, Muhammed, empoverished savage that he is needs the screws put to him.

If Islam wants to extort empathy through fear, it is a doomed quest. It can change or accept its doom.

Can you find anywhere where I suggested the cartoons should not have been printed?

Again. The paper claims free speech and yet censored Cartoons about Christ.

You are far too young to have an understanding of reality, so I guess your ignorance, though glaring, can be forgiven.

I am a tad older then you think my good man.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility for the consequences.

No one has the right to cry "fire" falsely in a crowded theater.

To be clear, I do support the right of J-P and any other paper to publish the cartoons and I condemn wholeheartedly the violence in response to the cartoons. But that J-P had a right does not make it right.

Flamming Rose has had a long time to come up with a justification of its actions. That it must scrape the barrel with anecdotes of "instances of self-censorship" that are as pathetic as a kids book illustrates the weakness of his position.

Rose makes clear he would not say or print anything. He applies his own subjective views to what should be printed. As has been pointed out, he self-censored some cartoons on Christ because it might offend.

Rose pointedly defends exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste, and then claims that one should not be criticized for failure to exercise such restraint.

Finally, Rose makes clear that this was deliberate trolling. Although he says "this was a legitimate news story to cover," it makes it clear that they sought to push the boundaries of what was said publicly about Islam. They knew in advance they were being deliberately offensive.

I will defend to my death Rose's right to say what he said by publishing those cartoons, but I will not defend what he said.

EDIT: It must be noted that Rose does not defend the cartoons on any ground other than freedom of speech. He does not argue they had any serious independent literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. They are merely claimed to be good because they offend and thereby stretch the boundaries of free speech.

You know something? I'm getting really, really tired of that nonsense. Just because YOU have some sort of problem with what I choose to call myself when you compare it with your own demented definitions, does not mean that I am anything other than what I claim to be. What's the matter? Can't take the heat? Can't stand it when a legitimate, bona fide centrist doesn't conform to what YOU think he should? Well, guess what? Take all your cute little definitions, roll them up into one big, smelly ball, and stuff them up your snobbish nose, Mr. Holier-than-thou. :D

You started it with your own "Holier-than-thou" claims of centrism.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Seriously though - do you have any positions that are not consistent with Conservatism?
:rolleyes:

List all the "liberal" positions and I'll tell you which I support, although you should have been able to figure out by now which of my positions are usually considered "liberal."

You started it with your own "Holier-than-thou" claims of centrism.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Do you see me leaving?

:rolleyes:

List all the "liberal" positions and I'll tell you which I support, although you should have been able to figure out by now which of my positions are usually considered "liberal."


Honestly, Eut, it is difficult for me to think of an issue on which you take a liberal position. Perhaps you should list some if you are going to insist they exist. To be centrist, wouldn't you have to take the liberal side of the issue a good portion of the time. (With the exception of compromise positions that are neither liberal nor conservative, shouldn't your positions be nearly 50% liberal.)

EDIT: Here is Eut's NS Player Information (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9662718&postcount=12). Some of those positions are vaguely liberal, such as environmentalism.

Because as we all know this was about a pissing contest between religions and not having the open, if course, dialogue that free and open societies so commonly have. Oh wait.... That's right. People already were saying whatever the hell the wanted about Christianity (as it should be), desecrating holy symbols, whatever. But they were keeping their thoughts to themselves, and refusing to join the discussion on Islam out of something OTHER than disinterest. Christianity accepts its critics, not always willingly, it doesn't have any choice. Islam doesn't. Until it does, Muhammed, empoverished savage that he is needs the screws put to him.

If Islam wants to extort empathy through fear, it is a doomed quest. It can change or accept its doom.

Good points.

I question, however, whether you can point to similar acts by national newspapers desecrating Christian holy symbols. Particularly in the U.S.

:rolleyes:

List all the "liberal" positions and I'll tell you which I support, although you should have been able to figure out by now which of my positions are usually considered "liberal."

Well in my ignorance I am having a hard time of thinking about your many liberal stances? To be a centrist you do have to swing to the left a few times. Issues that really don't fall into one ideolgoical camp don't count.

I get the idea that it would be easier to list your lefty defenses then your righty defenses....

Flamming Rose has had a long time to come up with a justification of its actions. That it must scrape the barrel with anecdotes of "instances of self-censorship" that are as pathetic as a kids book illustrates the weakness of his position.This statement contradicts the facts.

1. The article in which the cartoons were first printed, explicitly gave the exact same reasons.
2. The evening before the article first saw print, the biggest television station in Denmark had an hour-long debate about self-censorship for fear of Islamofascist reprisals.

Obviously F. Rose was not the only one who felt this was a legitimate & important issue in Denmark, at the time. Incidentially, it wasn't the first time the issue got media attention. It has happened several times over the past several years.Rose makes clear he would not say or print anything. He applies his own subjective views to what should be printed. As has been pointed out, he self-censored some cartoons on Christ because it might offend.

Rose pointedly defends exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste, and then claims that one should not be criticized for failure to exercise such restraint.Though I'm not 100% certain, I believe Rose was JPs Russia corrospondent when the Jesus shite was rejected.

That said, I have personally seen satirical depictions of both Jesus, the pope & the Virgin Mary in JP in the past. The rejected material was not commisioned by JP, and I suspect the real reason they declined to print it, was because they already had what material they needed.Finally, Rose makes clear that this was deliberate trolling. Although he says "this was a legitimate news story to cover," it makes it clear that they sought to push the boundaries of what was said publicly about Islam. They knew in advance they were being deliberately offensive.

I will defend to my death Rose's right to say what he said by publishing those cartoons, but I will not defend what he said.Flemming Rose has spend a great deal of his life trying to fight against state oppression. Consensus amongst his collegues is that he's still fighting the cold war, but has replaced Russia with Sharia.

It is self-evident the man views Islam as an oppressive political ideology, and not as a religion - exactly like a great many other opponents & proponents of Islam. I say self-evident, because it is clearly apparent in almost all his work over the past two years, and even more apparent when considering the people he associate with.

Flemming Rose is also a die-hard liberal (which has nothing to do with American-style liberalism), with all that entails. He's a man with a mission, and given his background & (in denmark) famous uncompromising behaviour, it should be no surprise that he will use any means to place his enemy in a bad light.

JP knew this when they hired him for the job. They wanted a man who would fight for certain values (Danish-style liberalism), and fight hard. Flemming Rose was - and presumably is - that man. Words like unrelenting, ideologue & confrontation-seeking are often used to describe him.
Since he became Cultural Ed. for JP, several of his staff have been booted, allegedly because they were too 'soft' for Flemming Rose. Rumour has it he runs his little corner of the newspaper like a mad dictator (note that I never worked there).

So.. You should keep those things in mind when you debate this topic. There is no question that the story itself was warrented & indeed a pressing news item. Another Danish newspaper (at the opposite end of the political spectrum) ran a full page article about fear of Islamofascism & self-censorship as well, they just didn't try to provoke death threats.

Nor can there be any doubt that this was the work of one bloodyminded ideologue, who really, really wanted to recieve death threats for the article. A troll out flame-baiting other trolls, so to speak.

EDIT: I keep seeing these "It's a pissing contest between religious fundies" claims. That is simply not true. Flemming Rose's religious pursuasion has nothing to do with this at all. The man has previously hammered the national clergy for poking their noses in politics - and I do mean hammered.
I seriously doubt the guy even contemplated religious feelings when he thought up the article. Like I said, it's doubtful he's ever considered Islam a religion.

Again. The paper claims free speech and yet censored Cartoons about Christ.

But it has published cartoons of jesus on other occasions.

Are you saying it has to publish every jesus cartoon it comes across, in order to avoid a double standard?

But it has published cartoons of jesus on other occasions.

Are you saying it has to publish every jesus cartoon it comes across, in order to avoid a double standard?

There isn't a religious standard against images of Jesus.

Have they specifically published blasphemous images of Jesus?

There isn't a religious standard against images of Jesus.

Have they specifically published blasphemous images of Jesus?If you mean images ridiculing Jesus and/or presenting him in embarrasing situations, or as the embodied voice of abortion-clinic burning, gay-hating American fundies, then the answer is yes.

But then, it's Denmark you're talking about. Things are generally made fun of as rudely as possible.

I am a tad older then you think my good man.
Chronologically, perhaps.

Chronologically, perhaps.


Awww and I thought you loved me?

I think I will go out and kill myself now.....

*boohooohooohooohoooohoooohoooohoooohooo*

As you like to use: :rolleyes:

Chronologically, perhaps.

Why must you resort to flaming (however mild)?

If you can't do better, you should leave the kitchen.

There isn't a religious standard against images of Jesus.

Have they specifically published blasphemous images of Jesus?

Are we discussing blasphemy, or self-censorship?

For that matter, nor is there apparently a religious standard against images of muhammed either.

You know, if he'd published that explanation when he first published the cartoons, he might have gotten me to believe him. Even if he'd published that within 24-48 hours after the uproar started, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt.

But this smells like pure, uncut ass-covering now.

Well in my ignorance I am having a hard time of thinking about your many liberal stances? To be a centrist you do have to swing to the left a few times. Issues that really don't fall into one ideolgoical camp don't count.

I get the idea that it would be easier to list your lefty defenses then your righty defenses....
Let me refer you to the same place (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9662718&postcount=12) to which Cat_Tribe has so graciously made reference. Although very short and somewhat abrupt due to space limitations, you should be able to get a fairly good idea. I'll be happy to answer any questions about any of the positions listed, or any others you may want to know about.

Why must you resort to flaming (however mild)?

If you can't do better, you should leave the kitchen.
LOL! But ... but, it's so much phun! ;)

Besides, I try to give as good as I get in that department.

Seriously though - do you have any positions that are not consistent with Conservatism?

Eutrusca is pretty socially liberal. Gay rights, women's rights, etc. He's on board with us pinko-commies every time.

Economically, Eut's solidly to the right and politically quite Libertarian.

I'd say he's proven himself a Centrist. You have to look at *all* of his posts/threads, not just the few that capture your attention.

When looking at trees, remember that there's a forest there too.

Eutrusca is pretty socially liberal. Gay rights, women's rights, etc. He's on board with us pinko-commies every time.

Economically, Eut's solidly to the right and politically quite Libertarian.

I'd say he's proven himself a Centrist. You have to look at *all* of his posts/threads, not just the few that capture your attention.

When looking at trees, remember that there's a forest there too.
Wow! Talk about assistance from an unexpected quarter! Thank you! :D

Wow! Talk about assistance from an unexpected quarter! Thank you! :D

As the occasional victim of those who look at 10-20 posts to determine who I am, I can stand in solidarity. :D Not to mention the way I defend Islam when confronted with the constant barrages of mass media coverage showing only one side to the issue - the terrorist side.

Opening one's eyes about things works on global as well as individual levels.

You know, if he'd published that explanation when he first published the cartoons, he might have gotten me to believe him. Even if he'd published that within 24-48 hours after the uproar started, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt.

But this smells like pure, uncut ass-covering now.

I can't say for sure, but I believe this to be the same explanation he's had all along - but this is the first time I've come across him speaking directly on the subject.

I can't say for sure, but I believe this to be the same explanation he's had all along - but this is the first time I've come across him speaking directly on the subject.I can say for sure. Through the initial article that went along with the cartoons, wasn't quite as long as what's linked to by the OP, it said exactly the same things.

Some of you here would clearly benefit from actually getting to know what's been going on, instead of basing your opinion on 3rd party opinion-pieces.

Wow! Talk about assistance from an unexpected quarter! Thank you! :D
I'm wondering when he'll notice that I'm also on his side too. :(

I can say for sure. Through the initial article that went along with the cartoons, wasn't quite as long as what's linked to by the OP, it said exactly the same things.

Some of you here would clearly benefit from actually getting to know what's been going on, instead of basing your opinion on 3rd party opinion-pieces.If that's the case (and I reserve judgment until I read the article posted along with the cartoons--link, anyone?) then I'll gladly retract my above comment.

If that's the case (and I reserve judgment until I read the article posted along with the cartoons--link, anyone?) then I'll gladly retract my above comment.It's been linked to before on this forum, but here. (http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3293102:fid=11146/)

I don't suppose you read Danish? I'd translate it for you, but I'm hoping someone more able will, because.. Well.. Danish is fucking brutal. I've noticed that a couple of Danes haunt NSG, so you should at least be able to verify the article does indeed say what I claim. Other than that, you'll have to settle for my word, the date & author.

EDIT: By the way, I don't approve of neither man nor article (or the newspaper, for that matter). But if you think the guy is back-pedalling, you have a completely & utterly wrong impression of what's going on. He is as unwavering as he's always been & haven't changed his reasons or reasoning an inch since.. The 1970s or so.

Like others have said before me, there are definitely "blasphemous" depictions of things Christian. Yet, you don't see us going and firebombing places do you(no, we got most of our fanatiscism out in past centuries)?
Personally, I want to be able to control Europe, so I'll go create a radical Christian terrorist group, say that it represents all Christians everywhere and lead a Crusade against... the Czech Republic. It has obviously become a hotbed of heretiscism(sp?) and it must be purged. With my new power, I will outlaw Family Guy, the Simpsons, and any other shows that mention Jesus or God in even a slightly negative way. Oh, and if anyone that makes fun of the Church of the Slightly Roman Catholic, they will be threatened with rude gestures from a man in Kyrgyzstan.

Anyone care to join me in my quest for total domination through guilt?

I'm wondering when he'll notice that I'm also on his side too. :(
I've noticed you there from time to time, but today was ... interesting. :p

Well you see the problem is that you claim to be a bonafide centrist and yet 95% of your digs are against Demos and Liberals. So where do you fall?

You are a little too old to be using new math ;)
I think the problem rests with what Eut thinks is "centrist" ideology? :eek:

But you are right about your observations.

I have been doing a lot of research regarding Flemming Rose and after reading several articles, I have come across some interesting talking points. The most interesting is an interconnection with Daniel Pipes.

Please remember that these are just talking points:

Flemming Rose is a "liberal" Zionist.

[Flemming Rose interview:] The Threat of Islamism (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3362)

by Flemming Rose
Jyllands-Posten
October 29, 2004

Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker? (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/05/we_420_01.html)

Daniel Pipes says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. So why has President Bush nominated him to the board of the government's leading peace think-tank?

On September 30, 2005 Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's art editor, decided to publish a page of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad to provoke debate.

From the Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html):

If Rose's aim was indeed to provoke debate, he succeeded. The initial publication of the cartoons brought no response other than some angry letters. But when in mid-October two of the artists received death threats, the menaces were widely reported and rekindled debate, prompting vicious, anti-Muslim comments on Danish talk shows.

It doesn't end there. In January 2006, some countries started re-publishing the cartoons and on Feb. 4, 2006, the first attack on a Danish embassy:

Denmark, Norway condemn Syria after embassy attacks (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/04/cartoon-controversy060204.html)

Then on Feb. 5, 2006, there is the attack on the second Danish embassy:

Cartoon row: Danish embassy ablaze (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/syria.cartoon.ap/)

For a little of the Muslim perspective I added this:

Flemming Rose Cartoons: Faking an Islamic-Christian Conflict to Fuel the Permanent War Strategy (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/12%20o/Flemming%20Rose%20Cartoons%20Faking%20an%20Islamic-Christian%20Conflict%20to%20Fuel%20the%20Permanent%20War%20Strategy%20An%20Interactive%20Dialog%20Be tween%20Hassan%20El-Najjar%20and%20Patti%20Leslie.htm)

This is an Al-Jazeerah article (an excellent read), but before anyone gets bent out of shape, here is the first two paragraphs:

Why is it OK to strap a bomb to oneself and blow up a bus filled with women and children, but when a cartoonist in another country makes fun of it, it's also appropriate to burn buildings and riot?

I don't understand the mentality of the Muslim community, nor do I think I want to. But where in polite society is it acceptable to hurt innocent people who were trying to find humor?

If anyone can add anything of interest please do.

I have been doing a lot of research regarding Flemming Rose and after reading several articles, I have come across some interesting talking points. The most interesting is an interconnection with Daniel Pipes.

Please remember that these are just talking points:

Flemming Rose is a "liberal" Zionist.What makes Flemming Rose a Zionist, I wonder?

Unless you're American (which I somehow doubt, given your NS name), there's no need to put liberal in "'s. He most definitly is liberal, and very vocal about it.
I don't get the Zionism bit though. I've never known the man to advocate Israeli occupation tactics or anything of the sort. And err.. I had no idea the guy was Jewish. In fact, I'm fairly sure the guy is a non-practicing Christian.

A most interesting set of articles:

European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist Ideology of Clash of Civilization (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/European%20Media%20Provokes%20Muslims%20to%20Inflame%20Zionist%20Ideology%20of%20Clash%20of%20Civili zation%20By%20Christopher%20Bollyn.htm)

Under the guise of free speech, a leading Danish newspaper published a dozen provocative anti-Islamic cartoons clearly designed to offend Muslims. The predictable result has greatly increased the possibility of violence and left Denmark in a costly and dangerous predicament.

Four months after Jyllands-Posten (JP), Denmark's most widely read morning paper, published 12 anti-Islamic cartoons, Danes woke up to the fact that there is a very high price to be paid for promoting the "clash of civilizations."

The fact that the editors behind the anti-Islamic images claim to be exercising free speech while refusing to address Europe's strict censorship laws regarding discussion of the Holocaust and the ongoing imprisonment of historical revisionists reveals the existence of a more sinister agenda behind the provocative cartoons.

"Agents of certain persuasion" are behind the egregious affront to Islam in order to provoke Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen told the BBC. The key "agent" is Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of JP, who commissioned cartoonists to produce the blasphemous images and then published them in Denmark's leading morning paper last September.

The International Herald Tribune, which reported on the offensive cartoons on January 1, noted that even the liberalism of Rose had its limits when it came to criticism of Zionist leaders and their crimes. Rose also has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons behind the "war on terror."

Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'"

Asked why he was protecting Sharon, a known war criminal, while abusing Muslims and their Prophet in the name of free speech, Rose told American Free Press that he had been "misquoted" in the Times article.

Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.

....

However, when it comes to discussion of the Holocaust, media monitors like Ménard accept without question the government-imposed censorship laws and imprisonment of historical revisionists. At least 4 well known historians are currently in prison in Germany and Austria for writing and speaking about the Holocaust.

There is clearly a more sinister reason why the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to issue a formal apology as demanded by Arab and Muslim governments. The hard-line position taken by Rasmussen, an ally in the "war on terror," has more to do with advancing the "clash of civilizations" than defending free speech in Europe.

It is well known that Islam is an aniconic religion which prohibits depictions of the Prophet in the same way that the Second Commandment prohibits "graven images." The European editors are certainly aware of the fact that Islam prohibits the use of icons or visual images to depict living creatures and that it is blasphemous to publish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Yet, they have recklessly and intentionally insulted millions of Muslims and are unwilling to apologize.

"The Danish paper set out to offend and provoke outrage in the Muslim community," a Muslim in Britain wrote to the BBC. "Muslims are able to distinguish between those who wish to debate and those who wish to insult. Trying to camouflage insults under the guise of debate or free speech fools nobody."

There is a deeper reason behind the publication of the offensive cartoons. Given the unapologetic position taken by the Danish government and the editors it appears very likely that tension with Islamic nations will increase and the international crisis will deepen. This is, after all, exactly what the global planners behind the "clash of civilizations" want

....

A month ago, when I first became aware of the provocative anti-Muslim cartoons published in JP, I immediately contacted the editors and asked why they had allowed their newspaper to be dragged into such a ridiculous and provocative situation.

With Europe already involved in two Middle Eastern wars and with the political tension with Iran increasing daily, I asked the editors, "Do you truly wish to antagonize Muslims?"

"I support freedom of speech and am against self-censorship," Rose, who commissioned the cartoons, wrote in response. It was, however, clearly not simply to exercise Denmark's non-existent freedom of speech that Rose commissioned the anti-Muslim cartoons. The more sinister motive of advancing the "clash of civilizations" among Europeans was evidently behind the offensive images.

"If the issue is really one of free speech, would you publish cartoons making fun of the Jewish Holocaust?" I asked Rose and the editors. "If not, do you at least support the right of newspapers and individuals to raise historical questions about the Holocaust?"

Yet after a month of correspondence with Rose and the editors, they have completely avoided answering my questions about the Holocaust and the right of free speech for historical revisionists in Europe.


Flemming Rose: How Zionists Fuel Hostility to Muslims (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/Flemming%20Rose%20How%20Zionists%20Fuel%20Hostility%20to%20Muslims%20By%20Christopher%20Bollyn.htm)
The Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/The%20Cartoons%20of%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20By%20Enver%20Masud.htm)

The Prophet Mohammad Cartoons: It takes two to avoid a clash of civilizations (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/The%20Prophet%20Mohammad%20Cartoons%20It%20takes%20two%20to%20avoid%20a%20clash%20of%20civilizations %20By%20Jonathan%20Power.htm)
The Prophet Muhammad Caricatures: Freedom of Suppression (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/The%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20Caricatures%20Freedom%20of%20Suppression%20By%20Jan%20Oberg.htm)

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility for the consequences.

No one has the right to cry "fire" falsely in a crowded theater.

To be clear, I do support the right of J-P and any other paper to publish the cartoons and I condemn wholeheartedly the violence in response to the cartoons. But that J-P had a right does not make it right.

Flamming Rose has had a long time to come up with a justification of its actions. That it must scrape the barrel with anecdotes of "instances of self-censorship" that are as pathetic as a kids book illustrates the weakness of his position.

Rose makes clear he would not say or print anything. He applies his own subjective views to what should be printed. As has been pointed out, he self-censored some cartoons on Christ because it might offend.

Rose pointedly defends exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste, and then claims that one should not be criticized for failure to exercise such restraint.

Finally, Rose makes clear that this was deliberate trolling. Although he says "this was a legitimate news story to cover," it makes it clear that they sought to push the boundaries of what was said publicly about Islam. They knew in advance they were being deliberately offensive.

I will defend to my death Rose's right to say what he said by publishing those cartoons, but I will not defend what he said.

EDIT: It must be noted that Rose does not defend the cartoons on any ground other than freedom of speech. He does not argue they had any serious independent literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. They are merely claimed to be good because they offend and thereby stretch the boundaries of free speech.


Greetings


"Quote"
Flamming Rose has had a long time to come up with a justification of its actions. That it must scrape the barrel with anecdotes of "instances of self-censorship" that are as pathetic as a kids book illustrates the weakness of his position."unQuote"


That is a cheap statement as you dont know anything about the debate here in Denmark. The fact is that people are afraid of saying anything that might offend muslims in any way!. Not a healty sign in a small democratic land ( 5.5 million ) where EVERYTHING usually is topic for a debate. When the public dont dare debating a specific issue, in fear of the reaction of a minority, i´d say there is a problem, and ignoring problems never made good results.

I have seen cartoons in ME papers, before the M-cartoons, about US people, Jewish people and western people that, in my mind, were much more offensive than the M-cartoons, but nobody forces me to look at them.

Double standard? Twice the joy!

Who gives a damn? Except muslims. They take the mick out of evryone else, but they don't like it back.

DON'T DISH IT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT

What makes Flemming Rose a Zionist, I wonder?

Unless you're American (which I somehow doubt, given your NS name), there's no need to put liberal in "'s. He most definitly is liberal, and very vocal about it.
I don't get the Zionism bit though. I've never known the man to advocate Israeli occupation tactics or anything of the sort. And err.. I had no idea the guy was Jewish. In fact, I'm fairly sure the guy is a non-practicing Christian.
Just a simple question:

What makes you "fairly sure the guy is a non-practicing Christian"?

Three years ago. Flamming Rose clarified that it was, in fact because they were bad cartoons. (They must have really sucked if even these ones were good enough for him.)

In his defence that comparison is not entirely fair. There are plenty of cartoons mocking Jesus - so one can set quality standards. The current controversy spawns from the fact that there aren't that many cartoons mocking mohammed; and if you can only choose from a few your quality standards will have to be lower.

Greetings

"Quote"
Flamming Rose has had a long time to come up with a justification of its actions. That it must scrape the barrel with anecdotes of "instances of self-censorship" that are as pathetic as a kids book illustrates the weakness of his position."unQuote"

That is a cheap statement as you dont know anything about the debate here in Denmark. The fact is that people are afraid of saying anything that might offend muslims in any way!. Not a healty sign in a small democratic land ( 5.5 million ) where EVERYTHING usually is topic for a debate. When the public dont dare debating a specific issue, in fear of the reaction of a minority, i´d say there is a problem, and ignoring problems never made good results.

I have seen cartoons in ME papers, before the M-cartoons, about US people, Jewish people and western people that, in my mind, were much more offensive than the M-cartoons, but nobody forces me to look at them.

Double standard? Twice the joy!
Why does Danish law allow "anything that might offend muslims", considering the recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia?

Why would Denmark permit "hate proaganda" in light of the following?

European tradition has outlawed speech that has defamed state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England, and has also outlawed speech denying the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

What IS the debate in Denmark regarding this topic?

A most interesting set of articles:

European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist Ideology of Clash of Civilization (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/European%20Media%20Provokes%20Muslims%20to%20Inflame%20Zionist%20Ideology%20of%20Clash%20of%20Civili zation%20By%20Christopher%20Bollyn.htm)

Flemming Rose: How Zionists Fuel Hostility to Muslims (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/Flemming%20Rose%20How%20Zionists%20Fuel%20Hostility%20to%20Muslims%20By%20Christopher%20Bollyn.htm)
The Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/The%20Cartoons%20of%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20By%20Enver%20Masud.htm)

The Prophet Mohammad Cartoons: It takes two to avoid a clash of civilizations (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/The%20Prophet%20Mohammad%20Cartoons%20It%20takes%20two%20to%20avoid%20a%20clash%20of%20civilizations %20By%20Jonathan%20Power.htm)
The Prophet Muhammad Caricatures: Freedom of Suppression (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/10%20o/The%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20Caricatures%20Freedom%20of%20Suppression%20By%20Jan%20Oberg.htm)
I especially enjoyed the article by the Dane who fairly critiqued his own country.

Just a simple question:

What makes you "fairly sure the guy is a non-practicing Christian"?I don't have it from the horses mouth, if that's what you're asking.

What gave you the idea the guy is Jewish, let alone a Zionist?Why does Danish law allow "anything that might offend muslims", considering the recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia?If you encourage people to kill eachother or threaten to kill people yourself, you've gone too far.

It's not a case of allowing things that offends Muslims. It's that everything is, in general, fair game in Denmark.

Why would Denmark permit "hate proaganda" in light of the following?

European tradition has outlawed speech that has defamed state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England, and has also outlawed speech denying the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

What IS the debate in Denmark regarding this topic?European tradition, heh.

Europe, and EU for that matter, is comprised of a bunch of completely soverign nations. Though the forms of government are generally similar, they don't have a hell of a lot in common.

In general, the only limitation on free speech in Denmark, is the obvious one; if it puts people in harms way, it's not allowed.
Unintentionally starting a crisis in the ME region is not a violation of free speech. Distributing folders after Muslim seremon, urging people to kill all Jews, is illegal (it's happened) - as is distributing material encouraging genocide on Palestinians (also happened). But it's perfectly possible to recieve state funding to producing a porn movie starring Jesus (happened as well), or Zionist/Jihadist/Neo-Nazi propaganda (happens daily).

Finally, it's worth considering that Denmark is tiny. The population is smaller than a medium-sized American city. Issues that might seem wholly irrelevant in other countries, will often become a major national crisis because of the small size & isolationist mentality.
This, combined with a non-existing Muslim community, goes a long way towards explaining how a country that 20 years ago was one of the most open in the world, have suddenly become one of the worlds most isolated nations.

My personal hope, is that the cartoon idiocy will result in permanent participation from the Muslim minority. And it looks like it might happen. If it does, then it's hard for me not to see all this as a good thing.
Right now, popular opinion is extremely hostile towards Islam. 10 years of integration problems & total absense of dialogue, has resulted in nothing but fear, racism & lack of understanding.
Hopefully it'll also result in an authorised Imam education. Other recognised religions have educations. It would no doubt be immensely helpful if the various Imam's spoke Danish, knew a bit about the society & people's rights, and had a central network.

I'm wondering when he'll notice that I'm also on his side too. :(

I notice. But you're more fun to argue with. :D

I don't have it from the horses mouth, if that's what you're asking.
Well then, what made you think that he was "a non-practicing Christian"?

What gave you the idea the guy is Jewish, let alone a Zionist?
From this article:

Danish Paper Cancels anti-Israel Cartoons (http://www.davidduke.com/)

You can also hear the commentary by clicking on the download button.

If you encourage people to kill eachother or threaten to kill people yourself, you've gone too far.

It's not a case of allowing things that offends Muslims. It's that everything is, in general, fair game in Denmark.
According to the above article, everything isn't fair game.

European tradition, heh.

Europe, and EU for that matter, is comprised of a bunch of completely soverign nations. Though the forms of government are generally similar, they don't have a hell of a lot in common.

In general, the only limitation on free speech in Denmark, is the obvious one; if it puts people in harms way, it's not allowed.
Unintentionally starting a crisis in the ME region is not a violation of free speech. Distributing folders after Muslim seremon, urging people to kill all Jews, is illegal (it's happened) - as is distributing material encouraging genocide on Palestinians (also happened). But it's perfectly possible to recieve state funding to producing a porn movie starring Jesus (happened as well), or Zionist/Jihadist/Neo-Nazi propaganda (happens daily).

Finally, it's worth considering that Denmark is tiny. The population is smaller than a medium-sized American city. Issues that might seem wholly irrelevant in other countries, will often become a major national crisis because of the small size & isolationist mentality.

This, combined with a non-existing Muslim community, goes a long way towards explaining how a country that 20 years ago was one of the most open in the world, have suddenly become one of the worlds most isolated nations.

My personal hope, is that the cartoon idiocy will result in permanent participation from the Muslim minority. And it looks like it might happen. If it does, then it's hard for me not to see all this as a good thing.

Right now, popular opinion is extremely hostile towards Islam. 10 years of integration problems & total absense of dialogue, has resulted in nothing but fear, racism & lack of understanding.

Hopefully it'll also result in an authorised Imam education. Other recognised religions have educations. It would no doubt be immensely helpful if the various Imam's spoke Danish, knew a bit about the society & people's rights, and had a central network.
As far as trying to promote Muslim integration in the Danish community, it appears that the government that was elected in 2001 was in response to a tightening of regulations regarding immigrants and a lessening of personal freedoms.[/quote]

I found this article an interesting read:

Denmark: Progressive or Xenophobic? (http://www.sprog.aau.dk/ecsp/news_mar02/immi_buf.htm)

The New Immigration and Refugee Policies

The comments by Danes at the bottom are particularly informative.

Because as we all know this was about a pissing contest between religions and not having the open, if course, dialogue that free and open societies so commonly have. Oh wait.... That's right. People already were saying whatever the hell the wanted about Christianity (as it should be), desecrating holy symbols, whatever. But they were keeping their thoughts to themselves, and refusing to join the discussion on Islam out of something OTHER than disinterest. Christianity accepts its critics, not always willingly, it doesn't have any choice. Islam doesn't. Until it does, Muhammed, empoverished savage that he is needs the screws put to him.

If Islam wants to extort empathy through fear, it is a doomed quest. It can change or accept its doom.


Agreed. The Danes have an irrevocable right to free speech; that is not up for debate. By the same principle, Muslims have an irrevocable right to practise their religion - and to take offence at whomever they please; HOWEVER, civil chaos, murder, and savagery are never justified. It is well within their rights as a people to peacefully protest - as some are - ask for an apology/retraction on the grounds of offence, or otherwise ask for reconciliation. The brutal and sadistic reactions shown are appalling, to say the least. They have no problem sending blasphemous imagery of Judaism and Christianity out upon the world or starting wars on Jewish holy days. But GOD FORBID that we say ANYTHING negative about their damn prophet.

Oh I have been defending the free speech side of it.

The problem is that we have to take him on his word they were bad. For that matter why were they bad? Because they would offend?

The Muslims ones were pretty lame. The only remotely funny was the virgin one.
Why shouldn't we accept his word that they were bad? (I also agree on the general lameness of the Mohammed cartoons.)

So speaks the conservative that claims to be a centrist.

Fact remains. The paper cried free speech on the Muslim issue and yet censored a a series on Christ because it might offend.
I agree with Eutrusca's post and I'm a leftist. A real leftist, that is, who never takes the side of a conservative just because they're Muslim.

That's an assumption you're making. Did Rose decide not to publish the Jesus cartoons because they were offensive (do you honestly believe that Rose would be more sensitive about Christians?) or because they were bad?

Well you see the problem is that you claim to be a bonafide centrist and yet 95% of your digs are against Demos and Liberals. So where do you fall?

You are a little too old to be using new math ;)
Please stop derailing the thread. My opinion is that Eutrusca is ideologically centrist but at the same time overly partisan on the Republican side.

Again. The paper claims free speech and yet censored Cartoons about Christ.
It is not practical to publish everything that they receive. I think that it may sometimes be necessary to provoke religions (especially ones that people usually avoid provoking) just to get them used to the idea that they don't have a right not to be offended.

Seriously though - do you have any positions that are not consistent with Conservatism?
Eutrusca is pro-choice on abortion and is generally liberal on social issues. I've never seen him come out with the usual conservative ranting on welfare queens or saying that "there should be no taxes", and so on.

From this article:

Danish Paper Cancels anti-Israel Cartoons (http://www.davidduke.com/)

You can also hear the commentary by clicking on the download button.


According to the above article, everything isn't fair game.I must admit that I don't know the particulars of the revisionist's case. Until I do, there isn't a whole lot I can say about it - other than I very seriously doubt his imprisonment has anything to do with his holocaust crap.

I wouldn't mind a reputable source on that, as well as on Flemming Rose's religious pursuasion. I'm fairly confident that article is nothing but spin & lies. Sorry.As far as trying to promote Muslim integration in the Danish community, it appears that the government that was elected in 2001 was in response to a tightening of regulations regarding immigrants and a lessening of personal freedoms.

I found this article an interesting read:

Denmark: Progressive or Xenophobic? (http://www.sprog.aau.dk/ecsp/news_mar02/immi_buf.htm)

The New Immigration and Refugee Policies

The comments by Danes at the bottom are particularly informative.The Danes have now twice elected a government of people with a view that closely matches what JP presents. Mainly, it's been because of the scary evil forigners (tm).

Do not assume I share the dread, or think electing an elitist, racist government with a neo-Nazi supporting party, is a good idea. Crazy shit like this, is why I dislike democrazy & corporate media (especially when these 'corporates' are the government, which happens to be the case).

However, you should be highly critical of the articles posted in this thread. The most accurate ones are the Al-Jazeera articles. The rest are all extremely heavy on baseless diversification & misrepresentation of facts (as well as a couple of utterly barmy claims).


Edit: I'm wondering about something.. How many of you have ever baited someone to prove a point?
Because when the dust settles, that's what JP did. Nothing more, nothing less. And hey.. Why the hell would/should Muhammed/the Qu'ran be sacred to non-believers?

Why does Danish law allow "anything that might offend muslims", considering the recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia?

Why would Denmark permit "hate proaganda" in light of the following?

European tradition has outlawed speech that has defamed state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England, and has also outlawed speech denying the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

What IS the debate in Denmark regarding this topic?


One could get the idea that you and not I, lives in Denmark, since you are so vellinformed about everyday life here!

"Quote"
Why does Danish law allow "anything that might offend muslims", considering the recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia?
"unquote"

Thank you for taking a line out of the contekst, very clever!

If you knew anything about Denmark you would have known that we have anti-racism laws and anti-blasphemy laws, we do NOT allow racism nor blasphemy, regardless off whom it might be intended to offend.
A case can be taken before a jugde to settle if one wishes it.

When it comes to the recent genocide in bosnia, Denmark had a large contigent of soldiers and tanks to protect the muslims.
The Danish soldiers engaged and destroyed a Serb tank division, when they tried to attack defenceless muslims in a smalll village. No one else engaged in battlle with the Serbs on the ground, so dont pull that sh.. on me.

"quote"
Why would Denmark permit "hate proaganda" in light of the following?

European tradition has outlawed speech that has defamed state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England, and has also outlawed speech denying the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.[/i]
"unquote"

Read my last post and the above standing, and to be added, I believe that there is a HUGE difference between the cartoons and lying about a welldocumented genocide.


"quote"
What IS the debate in Denmark regarding this topic?[/QUOTE]
"unquote"

Try to actually read my posts in this and other threads, that might enlighten you on the subject.


Greetings

Why shouldn't we accept his word that they were bad? (I also agree on the general lameness of the Mohammed cartoons.)


Answered later.


I agree with Eutrusca's post and I'm a leftist. A real leftist, that is, who never takes the side of a conservative just because they're Muslim.

Comment was aimed at his usual dig at demos and libs.


That's an assumption you're making. Did Rose decide not to publish the Jesus cartoons because they were offensive (do you honestly believe that Rose would be more sensitive about Christians?) or because they were bad?

It all depends on the history of the paper. If they censor cartoons that make fun of Christ then yes. The claim of freedom of speech and the press is called to question of intent.

As one poster has already pointed out they have in the past so the claim of self censorship is not really valid.

Finally, nothing wrong with assumptions as long as you change your arguments when shown proof they are wrong ;)


Please stop derailing the thread. My opinion is that Eutrusca is ideologically centrist but at the same time overly partisan on the Republican side.

Isn't that what you are doing? ;) Eut's a big boy and can defend himself.


It is not practical to publish everything that they receive. I think that it may sometimes be necessary to provoke religions (especially ones that people usually avoid provoking) just to get them used to the idea that they don't have a right not to be offended.

But is it right to only provoke one religion? If you provoke one then you should also provoke all when it's warrented. However, this is a non argument as it was commented the paper has printed "questionable" things about Christianity.


Eutrusca is pro-choice on abortion and is generally liberal on social issues. I've never seen him come out with the usual conservative ranting on welfare queens or saying that "there should be no taxes", and so on.

Can you find anywhere where I suggested the cartoons should not have been printed?

Again. The paper claims free speech and yet censored Cartoons about Christ.
The paper didn't censor anything they declined to print non-news. The fact is the reaction from all quarters has vindicated them. They were correct in both their estimation that people weren't engaging in a dialogue everyone wanted to have and what would provoke it. They just didn't anticipate how much pressure had been built up behind the dam. Which isn't their fault at all. They neither built the dam nor filled in the resivior of discontent behind it.

Your silly attempts to drag Christianity in to Islam's utter failure to accept external criticism without going completely insane, and make peace with a free society are at best a strawman. They are founded on the obviously false assumption that Christianity cannot, and violently refuses to, accept external criticism. Christianity and Islam are not the same in their failings. Rather than a comparision, they are a contrast. The hypocrisy you're looking for is contained, in its entirety, within the practice, if not spirit, of Islam. Contrary to what Islamists and perhaps regular muslims think, their being called on it was long overdue.

Well the, what made you think that he was "a non-practicing Christian"?

What gave you the idea the guy is Jewish, let alone a Zionist?
From this article:

Danish Paper Cancels anti-Israel Cartoons (http://www.davidduke.com/)

You can also hear the commentary by clicking on the download button.


According to the above article, everything isn't fair game.


As far as trying to promote Muslim integration in the Danish community, it appears that the government that was elected in 2001 was in response to a tightening of regulations regarding immigrants and a lessening of personal freedoms.

I found this article an interesting read:

Denmark: Progressive or Xenophobic? (http://www.sprog.aau.dk/ecsp/news_mar02/immi_buf.htm)

The New Immigration and Refugee Policies

The comments by Danes at the bottom are particularly informative.

Im just wondering.... has this Danish paper in question EVER published images against Christian or Jewish faiths in a poor or disrespectful manner ? and if so... then does that not negate the one instance you "claim" self-censorship took place ?

One could get the idea that you and not I, lives in Denmark, since you are so vellinformed about everyday life here!A Dane! Would you mind verifying my claim about the initial article? - There's a link to the text from it in this thread somewhere."Quote"
Why does Danish law allow "anything that might offend muslims", considering the recent genocide of Muslims in Bosnia?
"unquote"

Thank you for taking a line out of the contekst, very clever!

If you knew anything about Denmark you would have known that we have anti-racism laws and anti-blasphemy laws, we do NOT allow racism nor blasphemy, regardless off whom it might be intended to offend.
A case can be taken before a jugde to settle if one wishes it.An example of the Danish anti-racism legislation at work:

4 members of DFs (the government's supporting party, largely comprised of populists & national socialists) youth group, got a 7-day jail sentence in Oct. 2002. They'd made & distributed a poster connecting Danish Muslims with mass rape, GBH, arranged marriages (which are illegal in Denmark), gender discrimination & gang crime.Read my last post and the above standing, and to be added, I believe that there is a HUGE difference between the cartoons and lying about a welldocumented genocide.And your courts seems to agree. JP had a suit filed against it (as well as a police investigation), but the courts dropped it.

It may also be worth keeping in mind that a shockingly large number of Muslims want Denmark to become a Sharia based theocrazy. At least 1/3, but probably around 1/2 of them wants this.

And finally there's the problem of crime. Muslim kids are responsible for surprisingly much of the violent crime & drug trafficing & sale in Denmark. So much so that they've been in an on off war with Danish biker gangs for the last 10 years.

Combine such things with a very old, old fashioned, and tiny population & absense of dialogue, and shit really was bound to happen. What really bugs me about this all, is that it never was about racism, Islamophobia, Islamofascists or freedom of the press.
It's lack of communication. The society failed to accomodate the Muslim minority properly, and the Muslim minority failed to adequately make the society aware of it. The 800 or so Muslims united against the Danish society are one extreme result of this. The 200,000 Danish people united against the Muslim minority is the other. Sad, but hopefully getting better now.

I must admit that I don't know the particulars of the revisionist's case. Until I do, there isn't a whole lot I can say about it - other than I very seriously doubt his imprisonment has anything to do with his holocaust crap.
Who are you suggesting as being the "revisionist" in this case? Since you have doubts, are they based on any kind of facts that you can bring forward?

I wouldn't mind a reputable source on that, as well as on Flemming Rose's religious pursuasion. I'm fairly confident that article is nothing but spin & lies.
You keep challenging Rose's religious persuasion (twice now) but offer nothing to back up your claims. I posted an article that suggests that he is in fact Jewish. What makes you confident that the article is "nothing but spin & lies"? I believe the ball is in your court.

Sorry.The Danes have now twice elected a government of people with a view that closely matches what JP presents. Mainly, it's been because of the scary evil forigners (tm).

Do not assume I share the dread, or think electing an elitist, racist government with a neo-Nazi supporting party, is a good idea. Crazy shit like this, is why I dislike democrazy & corporate media (especially when these 'corporates' are the government, which happens to be the case).

However, you should be highly critical of the articles posted in this thread. The most accurate ones are the Al-Jazeera articles. The rest are all extremely heavy on baseless diversification & misrepresentation of facts (as well as a couple of utterly barmy claims).
Perhaps you can post links that will support your claims that the articles are
"extremely heavy on baseless diversification & misrepresentation of facts".

Edit: I'm wondering about something.. How many of you have ever baited someone to prove a point?
Because when the dust settles, that's what JP did. Nothing more, nothing less. And hey.. Why the hell would/should Muhammed/the Qu'ran be sacred to non-believers?
IMHO if the media baits someone with the intention of inciting violent reaction, then I believe that is a criminal action.

I honestly don't believe that JP is as innocent on this matter as you would have me believe.

I will agre with you one one point: "The most accurate ones are the Al-Jazeera articles."

*SNIP*
Already commented on.


Your silly attempts to drag Christianity in to Islam's utter failure to accept external criticism without going completely insane, and make peace with a free society are at best a strawman.

Try re-reading a few more times. My "dragging" of Christianity into the fight was nothing more then an example of possible censorship. A reader of the paper corrected the claim.


They are founded on the obviously false assumption that Christianity cannot, and violently refuses to, accept external criticism.

Wow. You read a great deal more into my point.


Christianity and Islam are not the same in their failings. Rather than a comparison, they are a contrast. The hypocrisy you're looking for is contained, in its entirety, within the practice, if not spirit, of Islam. Contrary to what Islamists and perhaps regular muslims think, their being called on it was long overdue.

The only hypocrisy that I was calling was on the paper itself. That was shown to be wrong.

Hmmmm are you a christian?

Rather nice of you to dismiss the whole religion by the actions of a bunch of uneducated trogs. Even if you count up all the violent protestors, the numbers are still tiny as to the whole.

Can we label Christianity hypocritical for the actions of Eric Rudolf and Fred Phelps?

Who are you suggesting as being the "revisionist" in this case? Since you have doubts, are they based on any kind of facts that you can bring forward?Sorry, mistook the word Dank for Danish.. Was speed reading the article you linked to.You keep challenging Rose's religious persuasion (twice now) but offer nothing to back up your claims. I posted an article that suggests that he is in fact Jewish. What makes you confident that the article is "nothing but spin & lies"? I believe the ball is in your court.I can't post a source on Flemming Rose's religious pursuasion. But you haven't actually done it either. All you've managed is to post an extremely biased article claiming that he is Jewish (and a Zionist, no less), without any kind of source for that claim.

I suppose I could back up my claims about Danish free speech laws, somehow. But seeing as it's generally hard work to prove a negative, I think it'd be fair if you instead go find the actual laws against holohoaxism. You claim they exist; ligocally you must be able to prove it.Perhaps you can post links that will support your claims that the articles are "extremely heavy on baseless diversification & misrepresentation of facts".Yes. Do you read Danish at all? If so, look up the Danish "Indenrigs Ministeriet" - ministry of internal affairs, "Danks Statestik" - statistical information of anything & everything, and "Institut for Menneskerettigheder" - Center for Human Rights (IMR).

You should also seriously consider having a look at the various Danish newspapers, such as Politiken (lefty, indep), Information (social democratic), Berlingske Tidene (conservative), Jyllands Posten (liberal/neo-lib) & Kristeligt Dagblad (Christian centrist).
IMHO if the media baits someone with the intention of inciting violent reaction, then I believe that is a criminal action.Or you could view this as JP doing what every newspaper does, to all other religions on a regular basis, stating black on white why, and then giving the local Muslim minority a chance to prove them wrong.

Whether you believe it to be criminal to make fun of a religious figure or not, isn't relevant. The Danish courts decides such things, and they have spoken on the issue (long before the riots began). The newspaper likewise apologised before the riots started. In fact, the Danish media distanced themselves from the actions of JP, and apologised unreservedly on behalf of JP - long before the riots started.
So what exactly is it you want?I honestly don't believe that JP is as innocent on this matter as you would have me believe.Depending on how you mean that, there's two answers:
1. Jyllands Posten is innocent in so far as it didn't break any laws.
2. The newspaper is an outlet for hate-mongering, war-loving, right-wing ideologues of the most extreme sort you'll find in Danish politics. It is far from innocent, and there can be no doubt they sought a confrontation. I'm in no way playing the apologetic, I'm simply trying to give you a slightly more accurate & relevant perspective on what happened & happens in Denmark - because most of what you've posted miss the situation by a mile.I will agre with you one one point: "The most accurate ones are the Al-Jazeera articles."Actually, "most accurate" was an understatement. They're fairly dead on. But there's a lot of things going on, and like I said: this really isn't about the drawings. It's the proverbial straw.

Anyway, the double-standard claims are fallacious. There is nothing extraordinary about the cartoons themselves.
The limited free speech claims are fallacious as well. JPs chief editor refused to run the anti-Jewish cartoons, after Flemming Rose had agreed to do it. It is the newspaper's decision. There's nothing illegal about denying holocaust in Denmark, printing hundreds of thousands of books about it, or depicting Anne Frank & Hitler in bed together. Though the latter haven't been done (yet), the two former are done every day of the week & have been for many, many years. Nazism, Fascism, Zionism, Islamofascism.. It's all legal in Denmark, and much of the printed material on these vile things originate from Denmark.

But this smells like pure, uncut ass-covering now.
He doesn't have anything to "cover his ass" about anyway. He did nothing wrong.

I think the problem rests with what Eut thinks is "centrist" ideology?
Centrist by American standards, probably.

But is it right to only provoke one religion? If you provoke one then you should also provoke all when it's warrented. However, this is a non argument as it was commented the paper has printed "questionable" things about Christianity.
According to the Similized World, that newspaper has blasphemed on Christians before. It doesn't really matter to me whether they do or not. IT doesn't really matter whether people make jokes about Jesus because it's so usual. We have to drag Islam to the point where them getting made fun of is as ordinary as Christianity getting made fun of.

As the poster Hard work and freedom, and Flemming Rose pointed out, people are too often afraid to say anything to offend Muslims for fear of unleashing disproportionate anger. Some probably also fear sharing the fate of Theo van Gogh.

Your silly attempts to drag Christianity in to Islam's utter failure to accept external criticism without going completely insane, and make peace with a free society are at best a strawman. They are founded on the obviously false assumption that Christianity cannot, and violently refuses to, accept external criticism.
Yes, I agree with this pretty much. (Not that there are not Muslims who can't maturely accept criticism; there just seem to be more wackos in Islam.)

I'm an atheist, btw.

IMHO if the media baits someone with the intention of inciting violent reaction, then I believe that is a criminal action.
If a violent reaction was to be expected upon publication of these cartoons, I think that says more about the Muslims than about the cartoonists or publishers.

Im just wondering.... has this Danish paper in question EVER published images against Christian or Jewish faiths in a poor or disrespectful manner ? and if so... then does that not negate the one instance you "claim" self-censorship took place ?
I believe that the publisher passed on publishing anti-Semitic type cartoons. As far as self censorship is concerned, that is not my claim. Apparently Rose wanted to publish the Muhammad cartoons because their was too much self censorship going on and he felt that it was not appropriate in a free society, or words to that effect.

A Dane! Would you mind verifying my claim about the initial article? - There's a link to the text from it in this thread somewhere.An example of the Danish anti-racism legislation at work:

4 members of DFs (the government's supporting party, largely comprised of populists & national socialists) youth group, got a 7-day jail sentence in Oct. 2002. They'd made & distributed a poster connecting Danish Muslims with mass rape, GBH, arranged marriages (which are illegal in Denmark), gender discrimination & gang crime.And your courts seems to agree. JP had a suit filed against it (as well as a police investigation), but the courts dropped it.

It may also be worth keeping in mind that a shockingly large number of Muslims want Denmark to become a Sharia based theocrazy. At least 1/3, but probably around 1/2 of them wants this.

And finally there's the problem of crime. Muslim kids are responsible for surprisingly much of the violent crime & drug trafficing & sale in Denmark. So much so that they've been in an on off war with Danish biker gangs for the last 10 years.

Combine such things with a very old, old fashioned, and tiny population & absense of dialogue, and shit really was bound to happen. What really bugs me about this all, is that it never was about racism, Islamophobia, Islamofascists or freedom of the press.
It's lack of communication. The society failed to accomodate the Muslim minority properly, and the Muslim minority failed to adequately make the society aware of it. The 800 or so Muslims united against the Danish society are one extreme result of this. The 200,000 Danish people united against the Muslim minority is the other. Sad, but hopefully getting better now.



Greetings

Your claim about the initial article is hereby verified, and your statement/evaluation about Flemming Rose seems pretty correct to me.

He is a hard line Liberal with NO religios feelings when it comes to politics. free speech, human rights etc. etc.

As I also wrote before, in this and other threads, the cartoons were not printed to offend anyone, but is merely to be seen as a way of starting a discussion about free speech.

When people fear speaking about a specific subject, ignoring the subject is not the answer, if you want to maintain a free society ( in my humble opinion).

BTW: How come you have info, in that scale, about our little country?

And whats with the old fashion thing? :p

None of you guys and gals really knows anything about Denmark and danish society, do you...

Hmmmm are you a christian?

Rather nice of you to dismiss the whole religion by the actions of a bunch of uneducated trogs. Even if you count up all the violent protestors, the numbers are still tiny as to the whole.

Can we label Christianity hypocritical for the actions of Eric Rudolf and Fred Phelps?
Fair enough, I should read other responses before I write my own more often.

I'm an Atheist, and there is a freaking load of hypocrisy in Chrsitianity, particularly in the American evangelical breed. If you want to talk about that, fine, perhaps there should be a thread about it anyway. One thing it does do, is accept critics. It's been left with no choice. But it accepts them none the less.

It isn't even so much the Islamist "protesters" it's that they're so accepted by larger communities. Frequently, enjoying so called "moderates" leaping to their defense. There is a large segment of the muslim world that wants a final reckoning. Is it most of the reformed mulims fortunate to escape to western democracies? No. But it's the kind of problem that has been delt with, successfully, in the past. Granted, the cost is exhorbitant, but so is the cost of living with the problem of those few dedicated to ass-hattery in communities equally dedicated to avoiding a problem that doesn't immediately effect them directly. Ultimately, it's an economic question. And as a general rule, I'm equally comptemptuous of ALL religion dragged in to the public square. If one's small, invisible god can't take a little abuse or survive a little mud on him, well, better keep the little, fragile piece of crap at home or in church, where he can be protected.

I think Eric Rudolf is perhaps a better example of hypocrisy than Phelps even though they're both out on the fringe. If only because he's an icon of the right to life movement, and rarely attracts the kind of dissent that Phelps does. Part of me wonders if Phelps isn't just trying to make Christianity in general look as bad as he possibly can. He's a cartoon, and aside from his brood, he's basically all alone. Where Rudolf is actually embraced to some degree by a community though small it may be.

None of you guys and gals really knows anything about Denmark and danish society, do you...

I live here!, that usually quallifies

Greetings

Your claim about the initial article is hereby verified, and your statement/evaluation about Flemming Rose seems pretty correct to me.
"Seems pretty correct to me"? What exactly does that mean?

He is a hard line Liberal with NO religios feelings when it comes to politics. free speech, human rights etc. etc.
Bob Simon of CBS 60 minutes refers to Rose as a "quite a right wing ideologue". Play the video (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/60minutes/main1329944.shtml).

As I also wrote before, in this and other threads, the cartoons were not printed to offend anyone, but is merely to be seen as a way of starting a discussion about free speech.
From the same article that I linked above:

But Rose and the newspaper have their defenders, including the editor of a rival paper, Toger Seidenfaden.

"The way I've put it, and we've been saying in our editorials for some time, is we are defending their right to be stupid. We think that being stupid is part of freedom of speech," says Seidenfaden.

Asked if he thinks Jyllands-Posten realized the fallout the publication of these cartoons might cause, Seidenfaden says, "No, I don't think they had any idea that there would be an international crisis. Certainly not one of this size. But, of course, they were doing it to get a reaction from the local Muslim religious minority. And they said so very explicitly. They explained on their front page that they were doing this, and I quote, 'To teach religious Muslims in Denmark that in our society, they must accept to be scorned, mocked and ridiculed.'"

"They were stirring it up?" Simon asked.

"It was very much stirring it up," Seidenfaden replied.

When people fear speaking about a specific subject, ignoring the subject is not the answer, if you want to maintain a free society ( in my humble opinion).
Speaking of "fear", a further quote from the article:

But that middle is fast disappearing into fantasies of fear. Many Muslims are afraid of being victimized. Many Danes are afraid their culture is under siege. Already, people with foreign values are converging on Denmark’s national symbols.

So what to do? If you ask those Danes responsible for the country’s traditional image of civility and manners, a Dane like former foreign minister and newspaper editor Uffe Elleman, he’ll tell you that a little self-censorship is not always a bad thing.

"When you use the freedom of speech to make jokes of other people's religions and you do it with the single purpose of demonstrating that you have the right to do so, then you are undermining the freedom of speech as I see it," Elleman says.

"Is that what you think the newspaper was doing? Do you think they were deliberately provoking just to show that they had a right to do it?" Simon asked.

"Yes. And I reacted very strongly because Muslims in Denmark -- well, that's a minority, and you don't treat a minority that way. You don’t stamp on other people’s religious feelings. That’s bad taste," Elleman said.

BTW: How come you have info, in that scale, about our little country?
So far, The Similized world has not posted anything to back up his "info".

And as far as "your little country" is concerned, it is not quite so little anymore. The cartoon??? flap has put Denmark clearly in the worldwide spotlight and only time will tell if that is a good thing for Denmark or a bad thing.

The editor of Jyllands-Posten shares his opinion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Excerpt:
Continued...
Well said! :d It was about time that self-censorship stopped.

One could get the idea that you and not I, lives in Denmark, since you are so vellinformed about everyday life here!
I sense your sarcasm and I do admit that I know very little about everyday life in Denmark, but the longer this controversey carries on, I and many people around the world are learning more and more. As I stated before, this might be a good or bad thing for your country, and only time will tell what part Denmark played in the bigger picture.

If you knew anything about Denmark you would have known that we have anti-racism laws and anti-blasphemy laws, we do NOT allow racism nor blasphemy, regardless off whom it might be intended to offend.
If that is true, then the cartoons?? were indeed blasphemous and should not have been published?

Why would Denmark permit "hate proaganda" in light of the following?

European tradition has outlawed speech that has defamed state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England, and has also outlawed speech denying the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

Read my last post and the above standing, and to be added, I believe that there is a HUGE difference between the cartoons and lying about a welldocumented genocide.
If you are such a staunch supporter of freedom of speech, and support the publishing of these anti Muslim cartoons??? then why would it not also be acceptable to publish cartoons??? denying the Holocaust?

I'm from Copenhagen, Denmark, and i feel inclined to comment on the subject, and to clear out on some of the controversies. Just so you know my background; I'm 27, a Psychology student at the University of Copenhagen, part time democracy consultant for youth groups, I have previously worked with integration and treatment of middle-eastern refugee children suffering from war-trauma and worse, and concider myself pretty well-informed on this subject.

I'll start with a few clarifications...


First off, Similized is generally right on all of his claims on Denmark, JP, Rose and his background. How do you have so good intell? Where are you from?

Secondly, http://www.davidduke.com/ is full of bull, Rose is not a "Jewish extremist supporter of Israel", I have in fact never read anything by him that gives me reason to believe that he is religious at all, but he has on occasion critisized Israel.

http://www.sprog.aau.dk/ecsp/news_mar02/immi_buf.htm on the other hand, is dead on, and offers a fairly accurate view on the mentalities of the danes, as I see us, diverse as we are.

I just heard on the radio that the historian on trial in Austria for writing a history book that claims that the holocaust never happened has been sentenced to 3 years in prison. Debates are already sprouting in all medias here on the topic.

It is true that, for the second term in a row, the Danish People's Party, a racist party that bases its politics on a fear of muslim foreigners that they themselves have instilled in people, has been a supporting party for the government. It should allso be mentioned, though, that the anti-racist demonstrations in Denmark, against the Danish People's Party and afilliated hate-groups, by far exceeds in size any anti-Denmark or anti-Mohamed-cartoon demonstration in any muslim country in these recent weeks. Roughly 1/10 of the citizens of Copenhagen were out there demonstating against our participation in the iraqi war. We spend a greater part of our GNP on foreign aid than any other country in the world. Danmark is not a racist, isolationstic or islamophobic country, but some of the citizens here are, and unfortunately they make better news and therefore gets more media-time.

I believe that there are a lot of reasons why this crisis has erupted, and I den't think any of them can be found in either the Bible or the Koran or any other religious scripture. Have any of you wondered how come there are anti-Denmark-demonstrations in countries where the totalitarian governments normally forbid any kinds of demonstrations? How come a 250-person demonstration gets heated to the point where they set embassies on fire, and how come the police is "unable" to do anything obout it? When several of the demonstraters are recognized as police and intelligence officers in disguise by several, otherwise unrelated, reporters, you gotta wonder what it's all about. A lot of this conflict is not at all about hurt feelings over a cartoon, but about governments rattling with their sabers, and about internal politics in certain islamic states.

Another part of the conflict origines from the fact that so many muslim religious figures competes to be "Mr. Islam", to be the imam or mufti that people listen to, because in non-secular states, that brings a LOT of power. Therefore, many of them are trying to be the ONE that stands up against the West, to be the ONE that can empower Islam, the ONE that holds the truth. This is not a tendency inherent to Islam, but inherent to non-secular, pourly-educated societies, not unlike Europe 500 years ago. And in my oppinion, not unlike certain parts of USA (I know I'm gonna get flamed for this).

Some of these "Mr. Islam" candidates are more rabiate than others, and when they speak out to empoverished people, who has lived their entire lives in a refugee camp, who's family members has been killed by invading armies, who has no future for themselves, it stands as no surprise to me that they can be convinced to hate, to demonstrate, to kill. This is not because Islam is violent. And before you flame me, I'm not trying to defend terrorists, or fundamentalists, or saying that anyone deserves to become targets of them.

...and regarding the question of free speach vs. religious feelings, I think Rose says it well: "When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."

I still have a lot on my mind, but I'm gonna take a break now and let ppl respond.

I sense your sarcasm and I do admit that I know very little about everyday life in Denmark, but the longer this controversey carries on, I and many people around the world are learning more and more. As I stated before, this might be a good or bad thing for your country, and only time will tell what part Denmark played in the bigger picture

Well, I am glad you admit not knowing much about Denmark, please let me know how come you are so fund of telling how us Danes are and feel?
Seems, to me, you are labelling an entire nation based on your own opinion and thats somehow not very unlike labelling all muslims based on the behavior of the few.
And yes, only time will show if things works out good or bad.


If that is true, then the cartoons?? were indeed blasphemous and should not have been published?

Again, neither the goverment nor any other official office can intervene
with the press, and if someone feels the content of a paper is offending, blasphemous nor false they can take the case before a jugde and have the thing settled there. That is how the lawsystem works here.


If you are such a staunch supporter of freedom of speech, and support the publishing of these anti Muslim cartoons??? then why would it not also be acceptable to publish cartoons??? denying the Holocaust?
Because there is, in my opinion, a huge difference in offending someone and making fun nor deny the weldocumented death of aprox. 6.5 million people whom mostly were from the minorities in each of their countries.


P.S. Did you get the minority part?

"Seems pretty correct to me"? What exactly does that mean?

That he is right, sorry for being polite

Bob Simon of CBS 60 minutes refers to Rose as a "quite a right wing ideologue". Play the video (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/60minutes/main1329944.shtml).

Thats his opinion, do other people always tell you what to mean?

From the same article that I linked above:

But Rose and the newspaper have their defenders, including the editor of a rival paper, Toger Seidenfaden.

"The way I've put it, and we've been saying in our editorials for some time, is we are defending their right to be stupid. We think that being stupid is part of freedom of speech," says Seidenfaden.

Asked if he thinks Jyllands-Posten realized the fallout the publication of these cartoons might cause, Seidenfaden says, "No, I don't think they had any idea that there would be an international crisis. Certainly not one of this size. But, of course, they were doing it to get a reaction from the local Muslim religious minority. And they said so very explicitly. They explained on their front page that they were doing this, and I quote, 'To teach religious Muslims in Denmark that in our society, they must accept to be scorned, mocked and ridiculed.'"

"They were stirring it up?" Simon asked.

"It was very much stirring it up," Seidenfaden replied.

Another opinion which he is entitled to have, whats the point?

Speaking of "fear", a further quote from the article:

But that middle is fast disappearing into fantasies of fear. Many Muslims are afraid of being victimized. Many Danes are afraid their culture is under siege. Already, people with foreign values are converging on Denmark’s national symbols.

So what to do? If you ask those Danes responsible for the country’s traditional image of civility and manners, a Dane like former foreign minister and newspaper editor Uffe Elleman, he’ll tell you that a little self-censorship is not always a bad thing.

"When you use the freedom of speech to make jokes of other people's religions and you do it with the single purpose of demonstrating that you have the right to do so, then you are undermining the freedom of speech as I see it," Elleman says.

"Is that what you think the newspaper was doing? Do you think they were deliberately provoking just to show that they had a right to do it?" Simon asked.

"Yes. And I reacted very strongly because Muslims in Denmark -- well, that's a minority, and you don't treat a minority that way. You don’t stamp on other people’s religious feelings. That’s bad taste," Elleman said.

A third opinion, thank you very much.

If you keep these opinions coming up you might just find out what it means to have a free debate in a free country with a free press and every people being able to express him/herself:)


So far, The Similized world has not posted anything to back up his "info".

Still want to tell me how things are in Denmark? :(


And as far as "your little country" is concerned, it is not quite so little anymore. The cartoon??? flap has put Denmark clearly in the worldwide spotlight and only time will tell if that is a good thing for Denmark or a bad thing.

Correct, but I was referring to the size when I wrote small:)


Greetings

By the way, read the post made by: Asteroid Opus. He/Her and I both lives in Copenhagen. The post is very well written and pretty much in line with my understanding of the subject, allthough I dont agree with everything written( there I did it again, not been specific enough ).

P.S. thank you for sharing your thoughts and expressing yourself, afterall we are debating and discussing a subject we dont agree on.

Thats what a healthy and free debate is all about!

Better correct myself. I stated in my earlier post that more people are on the streets in Denmark, demonstrating against racism and intollerance, than the largest anti-Denmark demonstration in any muslim country. Sadly, it turns out I was wrong...

Today, more than 200.000 firms in Pakistan were shut down all day, in protest against the Danish Cartoons. The protesters demand that the Danish government appologizes for the cartoons, and that they outlaw any kind of ridicule of Islam, and if not, they demand that the Pakistani government terminate any coorporation with Denmark.

I'm stunned by this. Is it really so difficult to understand that the government can't tell a newspaper what it can and can't write. Actually, I believe it would, according to danish law, take two seperate national referendums with more than 66% participation to pass a law that allows such interaction by the government.

That so many people in Pakistan demands that the actions of a newspaper should have consequences for entire nations, is as hard for me to understand as people who think we should bomb the entire middle east because some of the people there are terrorists.

No matter how much I might offend people, I will never give in to those who try to make me follow their religious taboos under presure, and neither would any of you. And i don't think any of you would give in this kind of religious imperialism if you got the question in NS.

Is it really so difficult to understand that the government can't tell a newspaper what it can and can't write.

Yes, it is difficult, because It (govt telling media what to write) happens there all the time.

Yeah... [Sigh]... I know... it was a retorical question... [Sigh]...

When so many people demonstrate in Pakistan, is it really because believe that they are better off with a press controlled by the government?

When so many people demonstrate in Pakistan, is it really because believe that they are better off with a press controlled by the government?

That would be the last thing on their mind.

Usually it is what to loot, what to destroy, what agenda to be pushed..some protests were directed against the military regime, some against American presence in Pakistan, some against business rivals, some are plain old "I am more islamic than thou..see I can organize a bigger protest with more mayhem than yours" thing.

Yeah... [Sigh]... I know... it was a retorical question... [Sigh]...

When so many people demonstrate in Pakistan, is it really because believe that they are better off with a press controlled by the government?

Greetings

Niks du, det er vist lang tid siden det her holdt op med at handle om tegninger og pressefrihed.

Det ser ud som om hele sagen bliver brugt primært til indenrigspolitiske magtkampe rundt omkring.

God aften

That would be the last thing on their mind.

Usually it is what to loot, what to destroy, what agenda to be pushed..some protests were directed against the military regime, some against American presence in Pakistan, some against business rivals, some are plain old "I am more islamic than thou..see I can organize a bigger protest with more mayhem than yours" thing.


Greetings

I believe that you are quit right there, sadly enough

Usually it is what to loot, what to destroy, what agenda to be pushed..some protests were directed against the military regime, some against American presence in Pakistan, some against business rivals, some are plain old "I am more islamic than thou..see I can organize a bigger protest with more mayhem than yours" thing.

Good point. And I keep reminding myself that, even though a lot of people are protesting, a lot of people are not. I refuse to start generalizing about the Pakistani people, even though it would be OH so much easier to give in to it.

"Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate... leads to Suffering."

And I keep reminding myself that, even though a lot of people are protesting, a lot of people are not. I refuse to start generalizing about the Pakistani people, even though it would be OH so much easier to give in to it.

Pakistan is a complex country. It was quite moderate until the 80s. There was a good mix of barelvis, sufis and shias to balance out the deobandis. Salafism was subdued.

The late president Zia Ul Huq''s islamisation drive in concurrence with the Afghan jihad was the beginning and the Kashmir jihad changed everything.

The problem is with the military regime which has uses for the jihad factory. You cannot tell those people not to be extreme and do jihad only where the regime wants them to do.

Pakistan is a complex country. It was quite moderate until the 80s. There was a good mix of barelvis, sufis and shias to balance out the deobandis. Salafism was subdued.

The late president Zia Ul Huq''s islamisation drive in concurrence with the Afghan jihad was the beginning and the Kashmir jihad changed everything.

The problem is with the military regime which has uses for the jihad factory. You cannot tell those people not to be extreme and do jihad only where the regime wants them to do.


Like in: He might be a bad guy, but he is our bad guy?

Classic story, other goverments/regimes could have learned from the US mistakes there.

Which use do they have for the jihad factory?, asking out of curiosity since I dont know much about Pakistan

If that is true, then the cartoons?? were indeed blasphemous and should not have been published?

If you are such a staunch supporter of freedom of speech, and support the publishing of these anti Muslim cartoons??? then why would it not also be acceptable to publish cartoons??? denying the Holocaust?
For the friggazillionth time: the Danish courts have spoken on this already. The cartoons were not deemed racist, and they cannot be deemed blasphemous, as JP didn't invade Danish Moské's & pinned them on the walls.

And for - hopefully - the last time: it is perfectly legal to publicly deny and/or ridicule the Holocaust and/or the victims of it in Denmark. It happens every single day, as Denmark is one of the very few countries in the world, where such things are legal. Consequently, Denmark is pretty much THE printing press for various European, Middle Eastern & a few American extremist groups.

Go trawl the www for some hate propaganda if you don't believe me.

As I've stated, I can't back up my claims about Flemming Rose. You, however, continously state that he is a Zionist. So prove it. If we could somehow make a wager on it, I'd be game. Unfortunately I can't think of anything.

CBS is right about the man being a right-wing ideologue - as I've stated again and again. I'm very sorry for you, if that conflicts with your idea of what a liberal is. All I can say is that I'm sorry you have to put up with American'esque 'politics'. I know that shit is confusing. Thatcher was a liberal. Flemming Rose is a Thatcher clone.

So, if you wish to maintain that I'm dead wrong, I ask for the following:
1. The relevant Danish law texts. Don't worry, I read Danish.
2. Flemming Rose, or a friend's (a real one) statement about Rose's religious tendencies.

No. 1 shouldn't be too hard, if you read Danish. No. 2 on the other hand, is probably impossible. Rumour has it, though, that he is a member of the Danish church (Christian).

NB: Jeg lever I Danmark for tiden, tak.

NB: Jeg lever I Danmark for tiden, tak.


Greetings

That explains a great deal, its not the country people usually know most about, besides from the fact that Denmark is the capitol in Sweden!

I hope you enjoy your stay here

If it's that important, I have a friend who is political editor on a Danish television show called Go'morgen Danmark (Goodmorning Denmark). He probably knows Rose personally, and will certainly be able to find out what his religious background is.

Which use do they have for the jihad factory?, asking out of curiosity since I dont know much about Pakistan

Simply put, they want Kashmir and they have lost out on all other options they tried. Without the jihadis, India will completely ignore Pakistan's demands.

Reg taliban, if Afghanistan is stabilised under nationalists, they will ask for the renegotiation of Afghan-Pak border due to the expiration of the Durrand treaty. So it is in Pakistan's interests in keeping Afghanistan unstable. Plus many generals of Pak army make a good profit from the heroin trade and hawala.

The Kashmir jihadis and the taliban are tools of the state. That they and the Arab islamist types of Middle east (Osama et al) fused together to form the modern pan-islamist movement is due to the shortsightedness of the US and Pak in formulating the Aghan jihad where all these islamists could come together.

Clickies for more info on Durand line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line
http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19991116/iex19059.html

If it's that important, I have a friend who is political editor on a Danish television show called Go'morgen Danmark (Goodmorning Denmark). He probably knows Rose personally, and will certainly be able to find out what his religious background is.The rumour I refered to comes from a similar source (not the same guy though). I'd love to hear it, but I doubt anyone else would take your word for it. After all, you're not quite as utterly unreliable as David Duke ;)

NB: Thanks for the welcome. I only just moved back here :)

Well, I am glad you admit not knowing much about Denmark, please let me know how come you are so fund of telling how us Danes are and feel?
First off, you don't need to be so defensive. I am not attacking your country, nor am I trying to suggest how you feel or how you are.

What I am trying to figure out is the motives of Flemming Rose and JP for posting the offensive cartoons??? that put Muslims in a bad light. The irresponsible actions of Rose and the newspaper are causing negative reactions around the world, people are dying (mostly protesters) and even Danish businesses are losing out.

Seems, to me, you are labelling an entire nation based on your own opinion and thats somehow not very unlike labelling all muslims based on the behavior of the few.
And yes, only time will show if things works out good or bad.
I am certainly not trying to label the people of Denmark in any way, shape or form (see above), however, the people of the world will formulate their own conclusions based on how the Danish themselves handle and respond to this situation.

Again, neither the goverment nor any other official office can intervene with the press, and if someone feels the content of a paper is offending, blasphemous nor false they can take the case before a jugde and have the thing settled there. That is how the lawsystem works here.
You very well may have laws to cover such circumstances and there may be certain procedures to follow, but it is kind of baffling that your Prime Minister refused to meet with 11 Islamic ambassadors who had a short list of grievances. Diplomacy can go a long way towards defusing potentially dangerous consequences?

Because there is, in my opinion, a huge difference in offending someone and making fun nor deny the weldocumented death of aprox. 6.5 million people whom mostly were from the minorities in each of their countries.
Maybe so, but unless you are a Muslim it would be diffult to understand their feelings on this matter? By making such a statement, you are actually doing exactly what you accused me of?

By portraying Muslims and their Prophet as terrorists and evil people, do you not think that they, the cartoons??? would have a negative impact on the Muslim community, and your country? What can be gained by all of this?

You very well may have laws to cover such circumstances and there may be certain procedures to follow, but it is kind of baffling that your Prime Minister refused to meet with 11 Islamic ambassadors who had a short list of grievances. Diplomacy can go a long way towards defusing potentially dangerous consequences?

I havn't read the ambassadors' grievances, but I have heard the PM's reason for not meeting them.

Basically, he said, the only claim the ambassadors had was that they wanted the government to take action against Jyllands-Posten, and since the Government cannot do that (except, as I've stated above, by changing the Danish law), it was concidered more polite to reject the ambassadors than to invite them to a meeting where they would have abolutely no chance of getting their ways.

Besides, the Danish foreign minister met with several ambassadors and foreign ministers to clarify on the subject. Thats why you have both a foreign minister and a prime minister.

Good points.

I question, however, whether you can point to similar acts by national newspapers desecrating Christian holy symbols. Particularly in the U.S.
Yo're kidding, right? :confused:

For the friggazillionth time: the Danish courts have spoken on this already. The cartoons were not deemed racist, and they cannot be deemed blasphemous, as JP didn't invade Danish Moské's & pinned them on the walls.
The court ruled on the cartoons??? Please provide a link supporting your statement.

And for - hopefully - the last time: it is perfectly legal to publicly deny and/or ridicule the Holocaust and/or the victims of it in Denmark.
Not according to what I have read and certainly your claim is not supported by Hard work and freedom?

If you knew anything about Denmark you would have known that we have anti-racism laws and anti-blasphemy laws, we do NOT allow racism nor blasphemy, regardless off whom it might be intended to offend.

It happens every single day, as Denmark is one of the very few countries in the world, where such things are legal. Consequently, Denmark is pretty much THE printing press for various European, Middle Eastern & a few American extremist groups.

Go trawl the www for some hate propaganda if you don't believe me.
Since you know, then perhaps you could provide some links?

As I've stated, I can't back up my claims about Flemming Rose. You, however, continously state that he is a Zionist. So prove it. If we could somehow make a wager on it, I'd be game. Unfortunately I can't think of anything.
I cannot find anything that states that he is not Jewish, but I have come across a couple that state that he is. Bob Gibson of CBS's 60 Minutes did describe him as "quite a right wing ideologue". That in itself doesn't make him Jewish but it does tend to refute your claim that Flemming Rose is a "liberal", in the classical sense.

The fact remains that Rose commissioned these cartoons??? They were not pre-existing. IMHO, the purpose of the cartoons??? was intended to create controversey and stir up the pot. Well, it appears that he was successful in his goal but the unfortunate results can be seen. I entirely agree with the statement by Uffe Elleman:

"When you use the freedom of speech to make jokes of other people's religions and you do it with the single purpose of demonstrating that you have the right to do so, then you are undermining the freedom of speech as I see it,"

I think that picking a fight with the Muslims just because you can demonstrates a sick sense of arrogance and is a dangerous road to travel.

I havn't read the ambassadors' grievances, but I have heard the PM's reason for not meeting them.

Basically, he said, the only claim the ambassadors had was that they wanted the government to take action against Jyllands-Posten, and since the Government cannot do that (except, as I've stated above, by changing the Danish law), it was concidered more polite to reject the ambassadors than to invite them to a meeting where they would have abolutely no chance of getting their ways.

Besides, the Danish foreign minister met with several ambassadors and foreign ministers to clarify on the subject. Thats why you have both a foreign minister and a prime minister.
I don't know how accurate these grievances are but I pulled them from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons):

The letter mentions four incidents: a hatespeech against Muslims by the right-wing extremist Radio Holger, anti-Muslim statements by MP Louise Frevert (Dansk Folkeparti, the supporting party of the Anders Fogh Rasmussen's government), a declaration of a cultural war against Islam by the Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen and finally the famous Muhammad Cartoons.

Thus, at least some of the problems submitted by the ambassadors were not protected by the freedom of speech article. Furthermore, the text of the letter does not (necessarily) support the interpretation that the ambassadors wanted the prime minister to prosecute Jyllands-Posten. It says: "We deplore these statements and publications and urge Your Excellency’s government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land in the interest of inter-faith harmony, better integration and Denmark's overall relations with the Muslim world". The unidiomatic phrase "to take NN to task under law" probably means "to hold NN responsible within the limits of the law" (Politiken, 19 Februar, 2006).

I know that hindsight is 20/20 but rebuffing these ambassadors was probably not a great idea.

The court ruled on the cartoons??? Please provide a link supporting your statement.No. Notice that I didn't say they'd made any rulings. I said they'd spoken. A spokesperson of the courts dismissed the case as unfounded. If there was a case, I could provide a link - in Danish. Sadly there isn't, and I've yet to see any non-Danish news outlets report this. If you read Danish however, I suggest you go check out any major newspaper's website. They all reported it when it happened.
The Danes here can probably verify, or perhaps post an article, if any of them have a web subscribtion (I don't).Not according to what I have read and certainly your claim is not supported by Hard work and freedom?Again, wrong. HW&F did not support your claims that random European legilsation is applicable in Denmark. He confirmed that Denmark does indeed have what's usually called "Racisme-paragraffen", which is a collection of laws against discrimination (not just racism) & blasphemy.

Nothing in those laws prevents anyone from denying the holocaust happened, making fun of religions or anything else of the sort. Had the cartoons claimed something like "All Muslims are terrorists" then there might have been something to come after. But that just isn't the case.Since you know, then perhaps you could provide some links?Of course. (http://www.retsinfo.dk/index.htm) However, I have no intention of serving this on a platter for you, for a couple of reasons.
1. You claim to know the Danish laws concerning this. Burden of proof lies with you.
2. Finding this shit in English most likely isn't possible.
3. Let me restate: you're the one with a claim. Back it the fuck up. Don't spin this like I have something to prove.I cannot find anything that states that he is not Jewish, but I have come across a couple that state that he is. Bob Gibson of CBS's 60 Minutes did describe him as "quite a right wing ideologue". That in itself doesn't make him Jewish but it does tend to refute your claim that Flemming Rose is a "liberal", in the classical sense. I don't have it from the man himself, and I can't ask him - at least not at this time.

I've stated twice already that I can't provide a source.

If hear-say isn't good enough for you, why would you trust a site that obviously have an agenda, and completely fails to back that claim - despite the overwhelming possibility that this would have spread like wildfire across all media. And again, why don't you back up your claims with a source?

Flemming Rose is a liberal. A classic liberal. Just like Thatcher was it. Get over your Americanised labels already. I know the word has become completely twisted & meaningless over there, but liberals are right-wingers. Sort of like a cross between US libertarians & something even less nice.The fact remains that Rose commissioned these cartoons??? They were not pre-existing. IMHO, the purpose of the cartoons??? was intended to create controversey and stir up the pot. Well, it appears that he was successful in his goal but the unfortunate results can be seen. I entirely agree with the statement by Uffe Elleman: <Snipped>I agree as well, to some degree. But taboos don't belong in a free society. Not if they put people's lives at risk.
That was what the guy tried to challenge, and it is becomming astoundingly clear to me that it needed doing. Funny thing really. Until I began talking to people like you, I thought JP had crossed the line. Now I suddenly find myself agreeing the man had a point.I think that picking a fight with the Muslims just because you can demonstrates a sick sense of arrogance and is a dangerous road to travel.I think this sort of outcry over 1 article in 1 privately owned newspaper, a newspaper that isn't distributed freely, is completely absurd.

Imagine I drew a picture of Muhammed. Imagine I did it in a public forum. Is it reason enough to riot? To issue assasination contracts? To attempt to interfere with the laws of my homeland? Or is it just reason enough to condone such actions & do the lemming speech about 'how justified they are'?

Well... I've actually done it. I did it to prove a point. Not a point about Muslims or religion, but to prove a point about fragile sensibilities & a twisted sense of 'protectionism' of minorities. They don't need protection from having their taboos & traditions challenged. They need protection from people who'll shield them from the societies they live in & reinforce their isolation. They need protection from well-meaning fools, as well as from xenophobic populists & liberals (again: the classic kind, not the US version).

You're aware the state religion (yes, there is one) in Denmark is Christianity, right? Are you aware that the religion claims we're all decendents of Noah? Are you aware the implication of that is that we've all strayed (all, as in every human on the planet, bar Christians) from the path? Are you aware that means we should be put to death, according to the 10 commandments? Are you aware Christians claim Jesus was the son of God? Are you aware that Islam claim Jesus wasn't the son of God? Are you aware that means Muslims are blasphemers & should be burned at the stake?

Religious crap need to be challenged. We all blaspheme all the time. There is no freedom, unless we can continue to do these things.

The newspaper apologised before the riots started. Both the government & opposition have pretty much apologised as well, though they can't do so explicitly without commiting a criminal offence (check the link). In fact, nearly all media in Denmark have apologised. Spineless fuckers that they are.. But it leaves the question: what is it you want?

Ack.. If I wasn't a forigner, I'd be saying "Bloody forigners" right about now.

A spokesperson of the courts dismissed the case as unfounded.
Since when do "spokespersons of the court" rule on a point of law and summarily "dismiss" a case? Only judges can dismiss a case? I think you are making stuff up.

Again, wrong. HW&F did not support your claims that random European legilsation is applicable in Denmark. He confirmed that Denmark does indeed have what's usually called "Racisme-paragraffen", which is a collection of laws against discrimination (not just racism) & blasphemy.

Originally Posted by Hard work and freedom
If you knew anything about Denmark you would have known that we have anti-racism laws and anti-blasphemy laws, we do NOT allow racism nor blasphemy, regardless off whom it might be intended to offend.

Nothing in those laws prevents anyone from denying the holocaust happened, making fun of religions or anything else of the sort. Had the cartoons claimed something like "All Muslims are terrorists" then there might have been something to come after. But that just isn't the case.
See above.

However, I have no intention of serving this on a platter for you, for a couple of reasons.
You appear to have no intention of backing anything up that you post.

1. You claim to know the Danish laws concerning this. Burden of proof lies with you.
I have never claimed I know Danish laws, and since they are your laws, you should be able to provide a reliable source.

2. Finding this shit in English most likely isn't possible.
Why can't you find it in English, since you made the following claim:

Consequently, Denmark is pretty much THE printing press for various European, Middle Eastern & a few American extremist groups.

3. Let me restate: you're the one with a claim. Back it the fuck up. Don't spin this like I have something to prove.I don't have it from the man himself, and I can't ask him - at least not at this time.
You are the spin artist, and it is frustrating, especially since you have resorted to swearing. I have posted two links to your none. You made a statement that you can't verify. I call that rhetoric.

I've stated twice already that I can't provide a source.
See above.

If hear-say isn't good enough for you, why would you trust a site that obviously have an agenda, and completely fails to back that claim - despite the overwhelming possibility that this would have spread like wildfire across all media. And again, why don't you back up your claims with a source?
What agenda do those sites have? And again, I posted two links to your none.

Flemming Rose is a liberal. A classic liberal. Just like Thatcher was it. Get over your Americanised labels already. I know the word has become completely twisted & meaningless over there, but liberals are right-wingers. Sort of like a cross between US libertarians & something even less nice.I agree as well, to some degree. But taboos don't belong in a free society. Not if they put people's lives at risk.
From Encarta:

liberal:

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Your friend Mr. Rose is definitely not a liberal in any true sense of the above meanings. Perhaps you meant Libertarian? The difference between liberals and libertarians is like night and day.

That was what the guy tried to challenge, and it is becomming astoundingly clear to me that it needed doing.
So you believe in freedom of speech even if it is likely to cause death and destruction?

Funny thing really. Until I began talking to people like you, I thought JP had crossed the line. Now I suddenly find myself agreeing the man had a point.
Wow, I have that much influence over you?

I think this sort of outcry over 1 article in 1 privately owned newspaper, a newspaper that isn't distributed freely, is completely absurd.
This is what happens when irresponsible people with small minds misuse the media to further their own objectives. These cartoons??? were NOT pre-existing. Rose commissioned them and published them to target Muslims in his community. Yup, that is pretty absurd and the reaction although delayed was somewhat predictable.

Imagine I drew a picture of Muhammed. Imagine I did it in a public forum.
You already did, and you gave it (a stickman of Mohammed) to Alantian?

Is it reason enough to riot? To issue assasination contracts? To attempt to interfere with the laws of my homeland? Or is it just reason enough to condone such actions & do the lemming speech about 'how justified they are'?
It is all black and white to you? Just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't. The fact is, that they did riot and there was death and destruction and some of the shit that you threw at the fan is now back in your own face.

Bravo!! Well done!! :rolleyes:

Well... I've actually done it. I did it to prove a point. Not a point about Muslims or religion, but to prove a point about fragile sensibilities & a twisted sense of 'protectionism' of minorities.
So this is all about your wants and your needs and to hell with everyone else?

They don't need protection from having their taboos & traditions challenged. They need protection from people who'll shield them from the societies they live in & reinforce their isolation. They need protection from well-meaning fools, as well as from xenophobic populists & liberals (again: the classic kind, not the US version).
Sounds like they need protection from people like you. Yup, your world is perfect. :rolleyes:

You're aware the state religion (yes, there is one) in Denmark is Christianity, right? Are you aware that the religion claims we're all decendents of Noah? Are you aware the implication of that is that we've all strayed (all, as in every human on the planet, bar Christians) from the path? Are you aware that means we should be put to death, according to the 10 commandments?
Sounds like you don't know much about Christianity either.

Are you aware Christians claim Jesus was the son of God? Are you aware that Islam claim Jesus wasn't the son of God? Are you aware that means Muslims are blasphemers & should be burned at the stake?
So now you want to force your religion on the Muslims? You really are priceless.

Religious crap need to be challenged. We all blaspheme all the time. There is no freedom, unless we can continue to do these things.
You really do have all the answers huh?

But it leaves the question: what is it you want?
You talked about God and you talked about the 10 Commandments, well, that is what I want. I want peace and I think that is God's will for mankind. If you want to be hateful, angry and vengeful be my guest, I doubt you will ever find true "freedom".

First off, you don't need to be so defensive. I am not attacking your country, nor am I trying to suggest how you feel or how you are.

What I am trying to figure out is the motives of Flemming Rose and JP for posting the offensive cartoons??? that put Muslims in a bad light. The irresponsible actions of Rose and the newspaper are causing negative reactions around the world, people are dying (mostly protesters) and even Danish businesses are losing out.


Greetings

Well, sorry if it felt harsh, was not intended to.

The motives of FR seems to me very clear, if you read his statements in the initial post and link. There is no need nor reason for not believing him.
He actuallly stands by his opinions!

In my humble opinion, it was never intended to offence muslims in general, but to start a discussion about a subject people dont dare speak about ( again, remember I live here) namely the radical Islamists living in Denmark and the effect they and other radical religions have on our society.

We have a tradition of free speech about everything, and are not used to be threatened to silence, by a small fraction of a minority.

And ignoring a problem has never been the solution to anything, therefore we debate everything here, also christianity and other religions.
I remember seeing a Danish artist make a huge picture of Jesus on the cross, with a hard on! The Quen and the PM has also been drawed unnumerous times in unflattering ways, the PM is actually showed nearby daily in a certent opposition paper and usually as a caveman with a stoneage club in his hand. So there is, usually, no tabus in our public debate.

Try to see the thing from our perspective, there is a very small group in Denmark that does not want to integrate and be a part of our society, instead they want the rest of the society to follow their rules and ways.
That is not the way things work here, and therefore the subject needed to be taken up, you cant ignore a problem when you see it. Our former goverment ignored to take the discussion about integration, for a 10 year period, and people that talked about problems with integration was basicly referred to as having a racist attitude, not healthy for a free debate to opress the debate, and in my opinion, the no.1 reason for them being in opposition.


Diplomacy can go a long way towards defusing potentially dangerous consequences?

Certainly, but diplomacy doesn´t work with people when they dont respect the rules of diplomacy. And its hard to be diplomatic with people that desires ones death!


I am certainly not trying to label the people of Denmark in any way, shape or form (see above), however, the people of the world will formulate their own conclusions based on how the Danish themselves handle and respond to this situation.

Thank you for that, but your opinions are still shaped by what you believe you know about Denmark. Come visit us, I will gladly show you our small Capitol, and in that way make up your own opinion about us

You very well may have laws to cover such circumstances and there may be certain procedures to follow, but it is kind of baffling that your Prime Minister refused to meet with 11 Islamic ambassadors who had a short list of grievances. Diplomacy can go a long way towards defusing potentially dangerous consequences?


See Asteroid Opus´answer on that, its very clear.


Maybe so, but unless you are a Muslim it would be diffult to understand their feelings on this matter? By making such a statement, you are actually doing exactly what you accused me of?

No, I am just telling you my opinion on the subject, not telling you what to mean, thats up to yourself!
And unless you are a Dane is it diffucult to understand our feelings on this matter, wouldnt you say?

By portraying Muslims and their Prophet as terrorists and evil people, do you not think that they, the cartoons??? would have a negative impact on the Muslim community, and your country? What can be gained by all of this?

Again, it was never ment to put Muslims in a bad light, but to start a debate!

I am sorry to say so, but the reactions to the cartoons are having a negative impact on the Muslim society also in my country.

A free debate can be gained by all of this, and thats what makes a real free population in my humble opinion

Greetings

I've just spend the last hour-and-a-half digging through all Danish articles on the internet I could find on Flemming Rose, and I'm sorry to report that I didn't find a single reference to Flemming Rose's religious background. Not a single claim that Rose is not a Jew. Or that he is a jew. Or christian, or Buddhist, or Satanist, or a follower of Odin or Bob or Cthulhu. I only found a guy who claimed on some forum that he thoght he remembered asking Rose once, and that Rose said he wasn't jew. So I'm sorry to report, KannuchHeaven, that it isn't currently possible to find clear proof on the matter. If is is because he is in fact NOT a jew, or if it's because the Danish government is sencoring all reports on Rose's religious background, noone knows for sure. But I know what I believe.

David Duke, on the other hand, doesn't provide any evidence to support that Rose IS a jewish extremist, so, by your own standarts, he shouldn't have any more credibility than anyone else. Or even less, in fact, since other parts of his article on Rose are outright lies.
Quote from David Duke.
It turns out that in Denmark someone is free to print a cartoon showing the turban of Muhammed to a bomb, but if one displays the symbol of the Jewish state, the Star of David with a fuse attached, one will be censored.

http://www.mideastjournal.com/US_Israel_alliance.gif
This picture has been brought in a danish newspaper a while back. I've found a version vith english text for your convenience.

I wish I could have also found a funny cartoon about the slaughter of several million innocent jews during WW2, but I guess there aren't that many of them around... guess it's hard to make jokes about the subject. I have, though, seen many posters on the streets Copenhagen displaying an Israeli flag and the text "Nazionism". I know one of them has been there for more than a year. So when David Duke claims that this stuff is cencored in Denmark, He's either an ignorant or a liar.

And now a little clarification on the Danish racism laws. It is legal to Say that you fear and hate everyone of a certain race, to say that you wish they weren't here, and to say that you believe they are lesser beings. It is NOT, howerver, legal to discriminate against people of a certain race, for example by refusing to hire them because of the colour of their skin, or to encourage others to do it. Thus, it is legal to draw a picture of a muslim with a bomb in his hat, but it is illegal to reject him at your restaurant because of his race/colour/faith.
As to the Blasphemy law: It is legal to muck and taunt any religion, to eat pork and work seven days of the week, to paint mohamed and the flying saucer people, as long as you do it in the public domain. It is not legal to desecrate a religions Holy sites, relics, symbols, burial grounds etc.
...and a spokesperson of the court certainly can't dismiss anything. It was, of course, the judges that chose not to try the case, and the spokesperson who told the public.
But, alas, I can't find an English version of this, so I guess it isn't admissable.

These cartoons??? were NOT pre-existing. Rose commissioned them and published them to target Muslims in his community.
Remember that Rose told the cartoonists to draw their vission of Mohamed, not a negative vision of mohamed. That resulted in some non-offending cartoons, some humoruos cartoons and some spiteful cartoons. That pretty much reflects on the publict oppinion of the muslims. And keep in mind that this is done to many other groups in Denmark. To make fun of everybody in Denmark except the muslims is to isolate them. And is it surprising that, when Danish journalists feel the boundries of free speech on the matter of the foreigners closing in on them, they try to push those boundries back? Journalists were, with good reason, fearing for their lives when criticising the muslim inside and outside of Denmark. Of course they had to react. Unfortunately, I can't provide any links proving this statment, nor can I provide pictures making fun of every group in Denmark. Bear with me.

But on the other hand, we have got to keep in mind why the Press prints news: To make Money. And bad news make most money. I believe that this is the greatest reason why this crisis is escalating: It is easier for the Media to make money on conflict then on peace, and that also counts for Flemming Rose. In the recent weeks, the front pages have been filled with pictures of burning Danish flags, stories of Imams who comitted some minor atrocity back in 2002, and general mudthrowing, while the stories about muslims working to end the crisis have been hard to find, and stories about all the muslims who don't give a s**t have been nonexcisting.

I don't know how accurate these grievances are but I pulled them from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons):

The letter mentions four incidents: a hatespeech against Muslims by the right-wing extremist Radio Holger, anti-Muslim statements by MP Louise Frevert (Dansk Folkeparti, the supporting party of the Anders Fogh Rasmussen's government), a declaration of a cultural war against Islam by the Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen and finally the famous Muhammad Cartoons.

1) a hatespeech against Muslims by the right-wing extremist Radio Holger

The speaker of Radio Holger was convicted acording to racisme-paragraffen, not more than a week ago. ( He had it coming, cause he really is a flame throwing id..t )
See the law in progress, nice isn´t it?


2) anti-Muslim statements by MP Louise Frevert (Dansk Folkeparti, the supporting party of the Anders Fogh Rasmussen's government)

These statements were not made by MP Louise Frevert, but by her webmaster whom resigned ( or was kicked out ) just after that.
The webmaster is currently under investigation for violating the racismeparagraffen, we still awaits the judgement.

3) a declaration of a cultural war against Islam by the Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen

Taken out of contekst, but it sure sounds good. He was talking about the exact thing these cartoons were all about, our way of living, including free speech, and the pressure from other cultures. Some of the issues were the culturel opressing of women, free spech, religion etc. etc.

But I give you that a cultural war sure sounds better :)


4) and finally the famous Muhammad Cartoons.

Really no more to be said to that, the PM had his hands tied up and were in no position to talk about nor do anything about the cartoons.



Thus, at least some of the problems submitted by the ambassadors were not protected by the freedom of speech article. Furthermore, the text of the letter does not (necessarily) support the interpretation that the ambassadors wanted the prime minister to prosecute Jyllands-Posten. It says: "We deplore these statements and publications and urge Your Excellency’s government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land in the interest of inter-faith harmony, better integration and Denmark's overall relations with the Muslim world". The unidiomatic phrase "to take NN to task under law" probably means "to hold NN responsible within the limits of the law" (Politiken, 19 Februar, 2006).

Perhaps the letter does not (necessarily) say that, but that was actually what the ambassadors themselves said, namely the Egyptian ambassador whom was very flaming about the subject.
I, for one, believe that you, especially as an ambassador, is required to make an effort to learn and understand the laws, society and culture in the country that you are stationed in. That certainly wasn´t the case here!

Thats the funny thing about respect, it works both ways.

I would never dream of visiting another country and demand that the people there should follow my culture, religion nor ways of living. I would naturallly respect and adapt nor disapear from the bakery. Your own choice really !!



I know that hindsight is 20/20 but rebuffing these ambassadors was probably not a great idea.

You might be right there, but again, the embassadors put the PM in a mission impossible by their demands, and would have been subject to critisism no matter what he did.

greetings

P.S. I believe that you are being a bit bitchy towards The Similized world, but I cant really figure out why. Just tambering words ?

You might be right there, but again, the embassadors put the PM in a mission impossible by their demands, and would have been subject to critisism no matter what he did.

greetings
Thanks for your input. At least you and Asteroid Opus are willing to debate the issues in a logical fashion.

P.S. I believe that you are being a bit bitchy towards The Similized world, but I cant really figure out why. Just tambering words ?
I wouldn't necessarily call it "bitchy", I would call it asking him to be accountable. I really don't think he is interested in debating the topic in an honest manner. He makes statements that he cannot or refuses to back up, and I find that rather irritating. He is the one that has resorted to using profanity and instead of looking for solutions to the problem, he appears more content with dictating the terms of surrender. I find that unacceptable.

After posting a lengthy reply to his last post, I see no further need to respond to him as long as he is going to have the "my way or the highway" type of mentality.

Simply put, they want Kashmir and they have lost out on all other options they tried. Without the jihadis, India will completely ignore Pakistan's demands.

Reg taliban, if Afghanistan is stabilised under nationalists, they will ask for the renegotiation of Afghan-Pak border due to the expiration of the Durrand treaty. So it is in Pakistan's interests in keeping Afghanistan unstable. Plus many generals of Pak army make a good profit from the heroin trade and hawala.

The Kashmir jihadis and the taliban are tools of the state. That they and the Arab islamist types of Middle east (Osama et al) fused together to form the modern pan-islamist movement is due to the shortsightedness of the US and Pak in formulating the Aghan jihad where all these islamists could come together.

Clickies for more info on Durand line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line
http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19991116/iex19059.html


Thanks for the info, interesting and a bit frightening.

I will have a closer look at the linkys, when the kids a sleep

The US / Pakistan alliance seems very fragile in the light of your info.

The Kashmir thing makes perfectly sense to me, I have seen Kashmir referred to as: the foodchamber of India and Pakistan, is that a correct statement?

Kashmir is also named, in books I have read, as one of the most scenic and beautiful places in the world, is that also correct?

I, for one, would like to visit Kashmire some day, when it gets more peacefull.

Greetings

I have seen Kashmir referred to as: the foodchamber of India and Pakistan, is that a correct statement?

Kashmir is also named, in books I have read, as one of the most scenic and beautiful places in the world, is that also correct?

I, for one, would like to visit Kashmire some day, when it gets more peacefull.


Food chamber would be the Punjab (the land of 5 rivers - Panch is 5 and ab is river). Punjab region was partitioned into Pakistan Punjab and Indian Punjab.

Reg Kashmir, a famous Urdu couplet goes like..

Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast,
Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast.

If there is a paradise on earth,
this is it, this is it, this is it!

Tourism is picking up there due to decreasing violence but as of now it is still dangerous for foreigners because foreigners carry more shock value on their heads.

Food chamber would be the Punjab (the land of 5 rivers - Panch is 5 and ab is river). Punjab region was partitioned into Pakistan Punjab and Indian Punjab.

Reg Kashmir, a famous Urdu couplet goes like..



Tourism is picking up there due to decreasing violence but as of now it is still dangerous for foreigners because foreigners carry more shock value on their heads.



Thanks, I guess I will just have to wait for peace to settle, would concern me to bring my 3 kids there now.


Greetings

P.S. Perhaps I should start a thread on the Pakistan/India issue, interesting and, as you wrote, a complex situation.

Finally caught up with my friend and asked him about Flemming Rose's religious background.

Turns out that, according to my friend, who has met him several times, and who has checked his background thoroughly before inviting him to his tv-news-show "Go'morgen Danmark", he's a non-practicing christian, probably an atheist who just didn't bother to renounce his christianity. He is in no way a Jew, and he doesn't work to help the Israeli in any way. He's a perfectly normal cynical journalist, who knows that fear and hate sells better than good news. But he is no Jew.

But more interestingly, my friend told me that Rose has a bit of a secret agenda anyway. It turns out that he really does hate Muslims deep inside, a hatred origining from his days as an international news correspondent in some small USSR state, where he met his current wife. She, and her family, were apparently victims of some atrocity committed by muslims, and they have both hated muslims ever since. So, beneath all his claims of being an innocent reporter fighting for his freedom of speech and press, he's just another racist. :(

I know that I can't back up any of this with facts, or links to online newspapers, but I believe in my friend, and his inside information has always been accurate.

The fact remains that Rose commissioned these cartoons??? They were not pre-existing. IMHO, the purpose of the cartoons??? was intended to create controversey and stir up the pot. Well, it appears that he was successful in his goal but the unfortunate results can be seen.
You must understand the context. In some parts of Europe some people are afraid to say what they think about Islam because offended Muslims might hurt them. That is not OK is a free society. People should be allowed to say what they want about other religions.

It's not Rose's fault that Middle Eastern people reacted violently, it's their fault.

I entirely agree with the statement by Uffe Elleman:

"When you use the freedom of speech to make jokes of other people's religions and you do it with the single purpose of demonstrating that you have the right to do so, then you are undermining the freedom of speech as I see it,"

I think that picking a fight with the Muslims just because you can demonstrates a sick sense of arrogance and is a dangerous road to travel.
It may be a dangerous road to travel. You could end up like Theo van Gogh, right?

Why does Uffe Elleman give no rational explanation for his opinion?

Finally caught up with my friend and asked him about Flemming Rose's religious background.

Turns out that, according to my friend, who has met him several times, and who has checked his background thoroughly before inviting him to his tv-news-show "Go'morgen Danmark", he's a non-practicing christian, probably an atheist who just didn't bother to renounce his christianity. He is in no way a Jew, and he doesn't work to help the Israeli in any way. He's a perfectly normal cynical journalist, who knows that fear and hate sells better than good news. But he is no Jew.

But more interestingly, my friend told me that Rose has a bit of a secret agenda anyway. It turns out that he really does hate Muslims deep inside, a hatred origining from his days as an international news correspondent in some small USSR state, where he met his current wife. She, and her family, were apparently victims of some atrocity committed by muslims, and they have both hated muslims ever since. So, beneath all his claims of being an innocent reporter fighting for his freedom of speech and press, he's just another racist. :(

I know that I can't back up any of this with facts, or links to online newspapers, but I believe in my friend, and his inside information has always been accurate.
Thanks for the update. It appears that if you scratch at the surface long enough, you will always find the underlying motives. It also clearly demonstrates the power of hatred. :(

You must understand the context. In some parts of Europe some people are afraid to say what they think about Islam because offended Muslims might hurt them. That is not OK is a free society. People should be allowed to say what they want about other religions.
Not if it leads to bigotry, hatred, and violence. Common sense should prevail.

It's not Rose's fault that Middle Eastern people reacted violently, it's their fault.
Oh, it is their fault alright but Rose gave them all the motivation that they required. His apparent hatred for Muslims resulted in grave consequences.

It may be a dangerous road to travel. You could end up like Theo van Gogh, right?
Too simplistic of an answer. I could start a long list of people who were assassinated for their beliefs and none of them murdered by Muslims.

Why does Uffe Elleman give no rational explanation for his opinion?
I think the explanation was self explanatory, and I agree with her comment. I guess if you want further interpretation than you need to do some research?

[quote]From Encarta:

liberal:

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Your friend Mr. Rose is definitely not a liberal in any true sense of the above meanings. Perhaps you meant Libertarian? The difference between liberals and libertarians is like night and day.
Well, first you picked about the most Americanised (Americanized?) source possible, Encarta. Second, libertarian is also a distortion. The word was originally used to describe left-wing anarchist movements in early 20th century Europe.

Anyway, Rose appears to be tolerant of different views (and expects others to be equally tolerant) and supports personal freedom. Liberal enough for me!

So you believe in freedom of speech even if it is likely to cause death and destruction?
Why should a cartoon of Mohammed be considered "likely to cause death and destruction?"

Wow, I have that much influence over you?
We should always take into consideration newly-encountered points of view.

Rose commissioned them and published them to target Muslims in his community. Yup, that is pretty absurd and the reaction although delayed was somewhat predictable.
So we should expect Muslims to throw a tantrum and act like violent children everytime they are offended? Is this somehow treating them equally?

Besides, the Muslims in Denmark never became violent. Only a few in the Middle East.

It is all black and white to you? Just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't.
Big deal, I have a right to offend them anyway. They have a right to offend me back.

So this is all about your wants and your needs and to hell with everyone else?
Not at all. It's about building a sustainable and equal society. You can't have either when people are treated differently by race or religion.

Sounds like they need protection from people like you. Yup, your world is perfect. :rolleyes:
This is getting into being a pointless personal attack because you can't refute his logic.

Sounds like you don't know much about Christianity either.
So now you want to force your religion on the Muslims? You really are priceless.
I can't believe you're being so wilfully ignorant. Similized is obviously not a Christian. He's pointing out what the world would be like if we were not free from Biblical doctrine, and that it would be as bad to be under the rule of Koran doctrine.

You really do have all the answers huh?
This is not even a refutation.

I want peace and I think that is God's will for mankind. If you want to be hateful, angry and vengeful be my guest, I doubt you will ever find true "freedom".
I don't believe in God, but I want peace too. But not peace at any cost. All this business is not about hating Muslims, it's about dragging them into acceptance that nobody has the right not to be offended in a western society. I think that most Muslims living in the west are already accepting of this. It's just the troublesome conservative/extreme element that must be shown that they can't expect us to submit to their religious doctrine outside of the Mosque.

After posting a lengthy reply to his last post, I see no further need to respond to him as long as he is going to have the "my way or the highway" type of mentality.
It is my way or the highway. Freedom of speech, in this case the freedom to offend any religion's scripture, is not negotiable.

Not if it leads to bigotry, hatred, and violence. Common sense should prevail.
I don't support the right to commit violence or the right to say that acts of violence should be committed. (Like that religious leader who said that gays should be thrown off tall buildings, oh he was also Muslim!)

But this cartoon could in no reasonable way be construed as inciting violence. Hatred, maybe, but not violence.

Oh, it is their fault alright but Rose gave them all the motivation that they required. His apparent hatred for Muslims resulted in grave consequences.
They didn't require much motivation at all.

Too simplistic of an answer. I could start a long list of people who were assassinated for their beliefs and none of them murdered by Muslims.

Well, what else did you mean? You bring up a good point that proves that Islam and other religions must be de-politicised.

I think the explanation was self explanatory, and I agree with her comment. I guess if you want further interpretation than you need to do some research?
There's nothing self-explanatory about it. There's nothing anti-freedom of speech when you use that freedom to prove that the freedom exists.

Maybe I should do some research. Was Elleman's statement spoken or in an article of hers?

This is getting into being a pointless personal attack because you can't refute his logic.
You couldn't recognize my sarcasm?

I can't believe you're being so wilfully ignorant. Similized is obviously not a Christian. He's pointing out what the world would be like if we were not free from Biblical doctrine, and that it would be as bad to be under the rule of Koran doctrine.
Speaking of "pointless personal attacks".......

My response was to Similized. The fact that you somehow deem it necessary to issue replies for him, based on your perception of him, somehow loses something in the translation.

I don't believe in God
Okay.

All this business is not about hating Muslims, it's about dragging them into acceptance that nobody has the right not to be offended in a western society. I think that most Muslims living in the west are already accepting of this. It's just the troublesome conservative/extreme element that must be shown that they can't expect us to submit to their religious doctrine outside of the Mosque.
You don't believe in God, yet you want to play God?

It is my way or the highway.
Yes I think you answered my question above.

...and just like the offended muslims, you all insist on seeing everything as a personal attack.

Let me, once again, remind you that when the cartoons were comissioned, they were to be the individual cartoonists' own version of the prophet, they were not asked to draw racist cartoons. And secondly, the cartoons were brought in a time where people were in fact being threatened and killed here for speaking their mind on muslims and islam.

I wouldn't necessarily call it "bitchy", I would call it asking him to be accountable. I really don't think he is interested in debating the topic in an honest manner. He makes statements that he cannot or refuses to back up, and I find that rather irritating. He is the one that has resorted to using profanity and instead of looking for solutions to the problem, he appears more content with dictating the terms of surrender. I find that unacceptable.

After posting a lengthy reply to his last post, I see no further need to respond to him as long as he is going to have the "my way or the highway" type of mentality.Look mate, you reverse-engineered my post, misrepresented what both I and another poster had written, made claims out of thin air & demanded I refute them, and so & & so forth.

I'm so terribly not sorry, if the fuck that slipped in in exasperation pissed you off. You're on a forum without a language filter. Expect swearing.

I abandoned this thread after the last post you directed at me,for the above reasons. It's obvious the two of us can't have a peaceful debate about this topic, and other posters have thankfully taken over where I left off. But seriously, stop giving me grief for not perpetuating the flames. If you have a problem, take it up with the mods. It's half the reason they're there.

Look mate, you reverse-engineered my post, misrepresented what both I and another poster had written, made claims out of thin air & demanded I refute them, and so & & so forth.

I'm so terribly not sorry, if the fuck that slipped in in exasperation pissed you off. You're on a forum without a language filter. Expect swearing.

I abandoned this thread after the last post you directed at me,for the above reasons. It's obvious the two of us can't have a peaceful debate about this topic, and other posters have thankfully taken over where I left off. But seriously, stop giving me grief for not perpetuating the flames. If you have a problem, take it up with the mods. It's half the reason they're there.
I had long forgotten that post and yet Half Hidden felt duty bound to resurrect it for whatever reason. I realized that we have differing points of view in regards to this subject. End of story.

However, I have seen some of your posts on other threads and I like what you have to say. I can see that we don't always disagree. :)

In regards to the swearing, I am not really sensitive to it, but I don't believe that it a valuable debating tool.

As far as reporting anything to the Mods, that is not my style. I have been here two years now and have seen it all, but bothering the Mods with a silly complaint is to me quite unnecessary. The really offensive posters do get sorted out.