• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cartoon madness

Status
Not open for further replies.

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
As some of you may have read, the Islamic world is supposedly in an uproar over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper which portray Muhammed. Certainly the Salafist and Wahhabi Jihadist are making hay from this. On the other hand, here is a link to the sorts of cartoons running in Arab language press EVERY DAY. Why anyone is supposed to have sympathy for these people is beyond me.....

Note: this is very vile stuff, be warned before you link:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
 
And they wonder why no one wants peace with them...
 
It's kind of strange that this is just becoming an issue now, 4 months after the fact. I admit to having a evil curiosity as to what exactly the cartoons were about. Apparently it all relates even farther back to a Danish writer who wanted to publish a book on the life of Muhammad, but couldn't find any artists to the pictures for the book. Here's some interesting articles (including the comics!  >:D) from Wikipedia about it all.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A5re_Bluitgen

Cheers.
 
I try to be sensitive to others in all respects however, no mullah or imam seemed to be too put out with the video of the beheading of the American Nicholas Berg.

I think perhaps to quote Hamlet and Queen Gertrude, "Doth protest too much!"  :salute:

 
Although we see many different portrayals of religiouse icons in shamefull pictures, I think it goes hand in hand with the freedom of expression.

A burning cross or even the "jesus" character on familly guy may not be tops in Jerry Fallwells books but generally we are all mature enough to see that it isn't done (in most cases) as an act against all christians.

IMHO this incident is more about "hate the non islam" than try to have understanding. Honestly I never knew it was "bad" to depict Mohammed but we all know that there are those in society that would do it just because someone doesnt like it.

Maybee a peacefull, unarmed protest would have garnered an apology but to threaten hostility is only going to put peoples backs against the wall.

Just an idea.
 
Muslim anger over Muhammad cartoons grows

CTV.ca News

A controversial cartoon, first published in a Danish newspaper, continues to fuel protests by Muslims around the world, including large rallies in the Gaza Strip and Iraq and raucous demonstrations outside the Danish embassies in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia.

One of the cartoons depicts the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a burning fuse. In another, a Soviet star and crescent moon are superimposed over his face.

Droves of Muslims marched through Palestinian cities on Friday burning the Danish flag and threatening repercussions for the European countries where the cartoons were published.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protestors in Ramallah shouted, Associated Press reported.

An imam at a Gaza City mosque told all 9,000 worshippers that the people behind the cartoons should all have their heads cut off.

The Palestinian legislature was taken over by Hamas gunmen as 10,000 demonstrators chanted "Down, down Denmark," AP reported.

Thousands protested in other Palestinian cities including Nablus and Jenin where Danish flags and product imports were burned.

After weekly prayer services in Iraq, about 4,500 people held a rally in Basra while hundreds in Baghdad demonstrated outside of a mosque, AP reported. The protestors burned the Danish flag and threw Danish-made products into the flames.

Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the cartoon depictions in a posting on his website Jan. 31.

"We strongly denounce and condemn this horrific action," al-Sistani said.

However, the cleric did not encourage any protests and he even placed some responsibility on militant Muslims for the negative way that Islam is depicted, AP reported.

He said some segments of the Muslim community were "misguided and oppressive" and that their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

At the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, more than 150 protestors pushed passed security into the building's lobby demanding an apology for the cartoons.

They were unable to get up to the embassy on the 25th floor but they did tear the Danish flag down and set it on fire. They also pelted the embassy with eggs.

"We are not terrorists, we are not anarchists, but we are against those people who blaspheme Islam," one protestor shouted, AP said.

In Islamabad, Pakistan, about 800 people shouted "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France" while around 1,200 people demonstrated in the southern city of Karachi.

The country's parliament condemned the drawings as "vicious" in a unanimous vote.

In Turkey, hundreds protested in Istanbul, with many making their way to the Danish consulate.

"Hands that reach Islam must be broken," a group of muslims chanted outside of an Istanbul mosque, AP reported.

At Islam's third holiest site, Jerusalem's Al Aqsa Mosque, Israel banned access to Palestinians aged 45 and under.

About 100 men did protest outside Jerusalem's Old City on Friday chanting Islamic slogans and carrying Hamas flags. Israeli police broke up the protest along with another one at Damascus Gate using tear gas and stun grenades, AP reported.

The caricatures of the Prophet were first published by Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, in September. They were republished in papers in France, Norway, Germany, Switzerland and Hungary this week, causing tension that quickly spread around the Muslim world.

On Friday, Belgium, Italy and Spain's leading newspaper, El Pais, became the latest papers to run the images.

"What shame, Europe gives into Islam and apologizes for the satire of Allah," Libero, an Italian right-wing paper, wrote in a Friday headline.

Muslims worldwide are outraged as Islam strictly forbids any depiction of the revered father of the religion. Even positive images of the Prophet Muhammad are not allowed to prevent idolatry in the religion.

Canadian reaction

Syed Soharwardy, of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, appeared on Canada AM Friday saying that Canadian Muslims were upset but that they were dealing with the situation constructively, by emailing and phoning officials.

"The Muslims in Canada, they are outraged," Soharwardy said. "They are expressing their anger through peaceful means… they are protesting against these horrible cartoons that have offended Muslims around the world."

Soharwardy said he received an email from a Danish media watch group, dated Dec. 14, that outlined peaceful ways that the international Muslim community initially tried to deal with the situation.

"They tried very hard to ask them to withdraw the cartoons and apologize, nothing happened," he said. "They contacted us in December and said that we should do something about it."

Globe and Mail cartoon columnist, Brian Gable, said that the debate lies between freedom of expression and the freedom not to be offended. He said that one taboo area is religious faith, but not how people use their faith.

"If someone of any faith chooses to proceed with a violent act, I feel that's fair game," Gable said.

But Soharwardy said there has to some restrictions.

"The freedom of expression has to have some limits," Soharwardy said. "Would they make fun of any ethic group in Canada? Aboriginal people, South Asians, Chinese community?"

With files from Associated Press

----------------------------------------------

The freedom not to be offended?  Mealy-mouthed liberal apologists offend me.  Can I exercise my freedoms?  Liberalism is a philosophy of comfort for the West as it commits suicide.

The whole issue simply underlines that many people don't understand freedom of speech, the muslim arab majority in particular.  A Danish cartoon comes out satirizing the link between Islam and violence...and their answer is that the people responsible for the cartoon should have their heads cut off.  Sounds like a reasonable, measured response to me...really underlines the peace-loving aspects of the religion they claim has been slighted and shows us all how wrong the cartoonist was....

And they wonder why they aren't widely respected, when "Islamic terrorist" is a word on the nightly news...How much have we heard about Muslim charities lately, beside that they are often fronts for terrorists?  According to their book, they're supposed to be about charity, among other things...yet I don't hear about them helping out the poor or downtrodden (apart from poor and downtrodden Islamic radicals), I hear about bombs and bullets.  Is it ONLY the news outlets? Because the news makes you wonder which people of which book aren't reading their books...as the Prophet has alluded to....
 
I find this truly amazing.

One cartoonist and half a dozen editors have succeeded where George W. Bush failed when backed by the might of the US armed forces and various allies.  The cartoonist and editors managed to get the Arab Street to rise up in righteous indignation against the West.  Film at 11.

The pen is truly mightier than the sword.  ^-^
 
Freedom of the press is now punishable by death. Glad we're all on the same page.

The one where Mohammed complains about running out of virgins was really funny,...Does that make me a bad person, lol

P.S. Don't blame Liberal ideals for this completely. Big business loves this multicultural crap. Look at Google, Microsoft and Cisco caving to China's creepy demands on internet censorship. Money can be made in countries that reject Western values. This different but equal crap has gone to far. Even for al lefty wing nut like me.
 
We are inching closer to a conflict between the West and Islam because of... a dozen freaking cartoons !!!
As mentionned earlier: public beheadings are fine, but the buck stops at cartoons  ???
GROW UP !!!  :rage:
 
This is not about "Growing Up".

This is about the inevitable consequences of "Doing your own thing.  Letting it all hang out" and other equally inane groovy comments from the self-centred 60's.

Common courtesy, politeness, dictate that you don't offer offense.  In the 60's that was all washed away as too constraining, too restrictive of the individual, too hypocritical.

Well your freedom has consequences.  If you walk into a room, find the nearest individual, laugh in his face and call him a f***ing idiot, perhaps you should be prepared to dodge the fist that's coming at your nose.

Freedom.  Liberty. License. There are no allowable absolutes.

With respect to my earlier post, I wasn't suggesting the muslim world has over-reacted.  They are acting as they will, just as the target of the insult above might.   I was expressing amazement (pure and simple) that the punditry had read the mood of people so poorly.  As well I am amazed at the misperceptions over what constitutes the trivial.

I am sure that people of an earlier generation, that venerated symbols of their own, would not have been surprised at the results if they had offered a similar insult.  On the other hand, I don't see them as likely to offer the insult in the first place.
 
While I agree in principle with you Kirkhill, I should point out that it is rank hypocrisy for "them" to be outraged by an offensive cartoon when they offer far more and far worse every day in their media.

In fact our oh so brave and forward thinking MSM also publishes cartoons which can be construed as offensive to various individuals, groups, organizations and so on on a daily basis, knowing they will receive slams in the forms of letters to the editor, cancelled  subscriptions and so on. Most Western media ooutlets are not publishing or even reporting on this because they now have a well founded fear of receiving something a bit *ahem* stronger than a nasty letter from the Jihadis and their allies.

WW IV is a battle of ideas, hearts and minds as much as it is a military and political contest. If our craven media refuses to call the Islamic world on its hypocrisy, and allows itself to be intimidated into silence (no, they don't have to show the cartoons as a gratuitous insult, but they could discuss the context of the cartoon and the content of Arab and Islamic media....), then we are operating at a big disadvantage.
 
Iran has decided to impose sanctions on itself. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060204/ts_afp/europeislammedia
 
a_majoor:

At the risk of sounding like something out of a 1930's Basil Rathbone movie, I think I can sum up my position: " There's no need to insult the poor blighters.  Just kill them".

Now before anybody takes me too seriously I am not suggesting that we should go out an slaughter the lot.  I am limiting myself to the notion of killing the individual pointing an RPG in the general direction of your G-Wagen.

More broadly though I am of the opinion that debating is a good thing and that prolonging a debate is more possible by not offering insults.  There is no need to offer offence.  People will find ample opportunity to take offence on their own. 

Islam does need to be challenged.  For that matter the west likewise has a bunch of weak spots where its philosophies are contradictory and subject to challenge.  Debate and discourse are necessary but best conducted in a civil environment.  That is one of the reasons why the Speakers of the Commons and the Senate are so particular about insulting language.  Interestingly they are quite within their rights to use force via the Sergeants-at-arms to enforce civil discourse.

As Edward has succinctly described on other threads what the Danish cartoonists and editor did was offensive.  That they did it out of ignorance, naivete, principle or sheer bloody-mindedness doesn't change the fact that they gave offense.  The correct response, at least in my household, would be to apologize for the offense, and continue the debate as to the values involved.

Those that reacted by continuing to publish the cartoons because they felt challenged, and that was my instinctual reaction after I heard James Zogby suggest that they should not have been published out of fear of the consequences, added nothing to the debate.  The reaction was understandable, but wrong.  If we want to discuss then we need to stop shouting at each other.

Having said all of that I see nothing wrong with concluding a debate by determining that we can't agree.  If we agree to disagree, either by both sides agreeing to co-habit the same space amicably, or by establishing borders to separate the sides then all well and good.  On the other hand if the other side decides that I need to be saved from myself and tries to impose their values on me and mine - then that is the reason I hired you lot in the first place. :)  Unfortunately I suppose the same could be said for the other side.

Cheers.
 
Mod Note - Pic removed


Cannoneer - We removed the photo the first time you posted it also. Sorry you weren't notified. At this time, we don't think it would be prudent to have this photo associated with the site. Thanks.

Army.ca Staff
 
Kirkhill said:
Well your freedom has consequences.  If you walk into a room, find the nearest individual, laugh in his face and call him a f***ing idiot, perhaps you should be prepared to dodge the fist that's coming at your nose.

That is true, however, under our system, wether or not you dodge that fist, you have every right to have the other person charged with assault.

More importantly, your analogy is flawed considering the ammount of insults and attacks that have been hurled at us by the Muslim world over the last several decades.  If you want a more accurate analogy, imagine you're sitting in a bar, trying to enjoy your beer, while some drunk is standing over your table insulting everything from your mother to your pet hamster.  Being the civilized North American individual you are, you politely ignore him and hope he goes away.  Eventualy, you get tired of it, and yell back "your mother wears army boots!".

After which the drunk promptly threatens to do unspeakable things to your wife and kids.  And proceeds to take your hamster hostage.
 
Actually 48th, initial assault occurred  with the verbal challenge and it then becomes debatable whether the victim of the verbal assault is within their rights to respond physically.  Under the circumstances you describe, as well as in my example,  I would agree that the anwer is "Yes".  Others might not.

Regardless, trading insults doesn't do very much to resolve any situation.

Cheers.

 
"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Muslims are going to do. Some of you always seem to think they are suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Muslims are going to do."
 
Kirkhill said:
Actually 48th, initial assault occurred  with the verbal challenge and it then becomes debatable whether the victim of the verbal assault is within their rights to respond physically.  Under the circumstances you describe, as well as in my example,  I would agree that the anwer is "Yes".  Others might not.

What?  An insult is not considered "assault" under any criminal law I've ever seen.  Could you provide a quote from the CC?

Or maybe I misunderstood, I'm having a bit of a problem parsing your first sentence.
 
Cannoneer No. 4 said:
Mod Note - Pic removed


At this time, we don't think it would be prudent to have this photo associated with the site. Thanks.

Army.ca Staff



Y'all let me know when freedom becomes prudent.
 
It's prudent now. You're free to leave and we're free to remove content that we deem unsuitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top