Mostly because the reporters value their lives way too much.

But I have actually seen footage of raids and suchforth. Let's not get too 'Wag the Dog'-ish now.

I mean, seriously, if this war were created by the government, don't you think it would be going slightly better? Or has the US government executed a thousand of its own soldiers just to perpetuate a myth?

The Muslims are exploding into a fury because some Danish guy with good art skills and an opinion decided to put these two aforementioned things to use. Meanwhile, the Middle East proves to be a hot spot for consumers in need of such works as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Hippocrits.

I'm trying really hard to see why that point is wrong Neph but I'm failing.

I suppose my thought process is that both the cartooning and the promotion of the Protocols is wrong but that doesn't mean that they can't protest anyway. Moderate Muslims were also pretty pissed off about the cartoons, after all.

Not really, Bush is a puppet to business. And the higher powers in this country are BIG business people. Huge companies ahve benfited economically form this war, oil companies, weapon companies, all sorts.

Oh, I'd have no beef with them if they were merely pissed off, but they bombed an embassy, and have caused numerous deaths at the hands of protesters. That's why I think they're being losers right now. And again, this is merely a cartoon, as opposed to the Protocols which have been proven fake at least twice, but continue to be sold and proclaimed as the latest and greatest amongst anti-Semites. Yet do we see the Jewsish people rising up in violent protest? No. Muslim newspapers print anti-Semitic cartoons and articles every day, and still no explosions.

See what I'm hitting at?

Yeah, I gotcha. It's just that, ignoring their unjustified retaliation, I find it insulting that people can't even acknowledge that the Muslim community has been wronged. And perhaps the reason I sympathise with them is as a member of a minority that has, at times, been treated badly ourselves.

But how would any of that justify making up a war that doesn't exist? Or making a war that did exist look worse than it really was?

Wronged? Pardon my seemingly cliche' statement, but it's just one cartoon. Forgive me if I seem to be beating the matter to death, but Jews and Christians have been publicly defiled in far worse matters, and much more often, and yet neither groups rise en masse to cause wanton destruction. Protest? Yes, and the Muslims have the right to protest, and they should protest...but preferably under non-flammable terms.

They certainly have been wronged, yes, and they certainly have a right to be angry, but they are also certainly WAAAAAY over-reacting, especially comparatively speaking.

Besides, the more chaotic they grow, aren't they even more so justifying the cartoonist's opinion?

What I wonder about is why this cartoon provokes a huge outrage, yet many far worse events have transpired without so much as a peep from the same community. We're not talking about reaction from Jews or Christians here, we're talking about the SAME muslims who didn't react to far worse in the past yet chose this insignificant cartoon to get all riled up over. Maybe it's the straw that broke the camels back, but I doubt it.

No.

It's a series of 12.

And they've been printed more than once in multiple papers each time.

The muslim community has a right to be damn pissed off, but not to break the law.

More than one? Thank you for alerting me to my error.

Okay, reread my last post Neph. I acknowledge that the way that some people have hit back against the cartoon is excessive and wrong. I just object to people who claim that the Muslim community have no reason at all to be insulted.

Dino, I'd say you're right about the camel-hair thing. Take a look at Muslim communities across the world over the last few years and you will see that they have become increasingly isolated, sensitive and aggressive. Which is understandable given the way they have generally been perceived and treated globally since 9-11.

So do I. They have a perfectly justifiable reason to be insulted...just not a justifiable reason behind their methods of "Expressing their anger."

You think? I suppose that would make sense... like I said, the current climate has been getting worse and worse, which has been gradually making people more and more edgey. These muslims must now feel like they're totally under seige.

Still, seems a bit unlikely that a mere cartoon would be that last straw. But hey, stranger things have happened. Like for instance two planes flying into the two tallest buildings in the USA, causing them to collapse in such a controlled way that it had conspiracy theorists tripping over themselves to be the first to shout "hoax! staged! rah!".

Thinking about it more, I wouldn't say it's a last straw thing. Just that their reactions have become progressively more extreme over the last few years as they have become more disenfranchised from the western world. One example would be the riots in France last year.

The French riots were not caused by any one "group", to my knowledge. It was just teenagers "protesting"

Oh, sorry. Bad example based on faulty memory then. But my point is still valid.

A World of Wrong-Town
 

Danish cartoonists draw cartoons offensive to Muslims,
So Iran sponsors anti-semitic cartoons about the holocaust (because that's a logical connection, of course)
So how do the Jews respond? As usual, they take the "Anything you can do, I can do better" tack. So an Israeli guy has set up a competition for the most disgustingly anti-semitic cartoon drawn by a Jew.
And I have to say, most of them are a damn sight better (in quality) / worse (in offensiveness) than any of the intentionally offensive ones I've seen.

Here's the album index. WARNING: Read only if you possess a high tolerance for irony.
And here are some of my favourites:

http://static.flickr.com/56/106465014_f85a9f4310.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/41/102603403_8d00edf732.jpg

...okay, your source is a blog.

...and while that doesn't completely cancel it out, the main problem with the first 2 groups of cartoons (i.e. Muhammad and Holecost) is that they were designed only to be offensive (at least, that's the way it appears. It's hard to see the 'light' humour in them).

If you're creating cartoons that would be offensive ONLY to show people "we can laugh at ourselves" it's just not the same.

Of course it's not the same... duh. :robot:

And as for the blog thing, I just put that link in because I thought it was more interesting and more succinct than the Reuters article that it links to.

This is ridiculous, muslims and non-muslims have depicted the prophet throughout history and not a peep has been heard from the muslim world; I have personally seen paintings much more insulting to Muhammad than these recent cartoons (anyone read Dante's Inferno?).

Portrayals of Muhammad throughout history

Muhammad actually did feature in a South Park episode once- "Super best friends". I have not seen the episode in question so I can not comment on it.

I don't know why the muslims have been so aggressive over these caricatures (when seeing the cartoons I got the feeling that the artist/s was rather taking the piss out of himself for drawing them and thinking that he would get away with it.) I see nothing of real offence in the drawings but rather it seems more like an European non-muslim's perspective of how Islam is being protrayed by the muslim world. And frankly the muslims are not doing anything to reverse this perception. (But rather aggravate the situation by burning embassies and threatening to attack the countries they live in). Sometimes I do despair for my muslim brothers and sisters.

But what has really gotten me upset is that this situation has made me realise that the vast majority (or at least the vocal proportion) do not adhere to the principles and values set out in the Qur'an.

Firstly there is no ban on depicting the prophet in the Qur'an.

Secondly, even if there was, should such a ban really be extended to non-muslims? The Qur'an forbids the consumption of the meat of swine, however that prohibition does not extend to those who do not believe in the authority of the Qur'an.

Thridly, Muhammad was not the only prophet sent by God, according to the Qur'an, so what really disappoints me is why the muslims make such a fuss over depiction of Muhammad, but say nothing about pictures depicting Jesus, Moses or Abraham.

Fourth, the Qur'an mentions the mocking of the prophet by his opponents during his lifetime yet tells the prophet to ignore their taunts, only say to them "peace" and leave their company. (Muslims these days like doing the opposite of what their book says). I would post verses but I fell that this is not the right place to do so. If any wants references from the text regarding this they can pm me.

Yes! The God of the jews, christians, and muslims is one God, the God of Abraham. (Allah is just the condensed form of the arabic Al (The) Ilah (God), so Allah just simply means The God (i.e. the one and only)).

Sometimes I wish people would focus not on the differences but rather the similarities we have in common. We are after all just one big family.

I am almost completely ignorant of what the Qur'an teaches, but it is my understanding that it has much more leeway regarding personal interpretation than books like the Bible. I've seen a few of the so-called "Sword Verses" (I believe that's what they're known as); is it all possible that the people caring out these violent acts simply have a differing viewpoint of what the Qur'an is telling them to do?

I am glad that I'm not the only one who believes that we're all worshipping the same God. It's a personal conclusion I came to awhile back.

I very much would like to read a few of the verses you're talking about. I find theology absolutely fascinating. On a completely different note, I've always wondered: is the western spelling of "Koran" at all offensive?

Sword Verses are utterly unconvincing.
The Christian god repeatedly calls himself a god of war and commands genocide. If Christians want to quote verses like that to slag the Koran I ask for their Bible and bust some juicy "Kill everything, men, women, suckling, and livestock, take nothing" passages. The story of Achan is a good start, then I move on to the slaughter at Midion and the cute little sunday school fable of the wall of Jericho. Then I like to work in one of "And the Lord sent the Angel of death and the angel of death killed X thousand people", especially after King David took the census of the army.

10 points to Statikk for perspicasity. As I've said before, no religion can or should be judged by the literal interpretation of their texts. You have to look at the interpretations and which sections are regarded as more important to individuals (which is a better way of looking at things anyway because it lets you analyze and compare the different sects rather than generalising about the religion as a whole).

I have heard of "the Koran" and how it can lead to bloody jihad.

I've also heard about how a jihad should not be violent at all.

Books need to be interpreted.


The image archive Incognito gave (thank you, btw) has a lot of images of Mohammad. However, a lot of them show a figure but not neccesarily a Person. We see a head on fire, not true face. In one case, sleeves too long so that hands do not appear. This is a way of getting around it, and I do not think these would be offensive (you'd need to ask someone who follows the religion. I can't judge).

Also, probably the reason half these images are allowed: "an expert in Iranian Shi'ite customs writes in to say that this particular painting is not forbidden because it depicts a young Mohammed before he was visited by the Angel Gabriel and started receiving his visions, which means that at this stage in his life he is not yet the Prophet. "

If this is widely accepted, then depicting The Prophet is BAD. Depicting Mohammad noticably before he became The Prophet is okay.

Everything based on "Dante's Inferno" I would ignore. Again, this was done to dramatise something else. The author did not portray The Prophet. He simply wrote about him. And I do not believe any of the images based on this were designed to be offensive. When you draw an iconic figure of a religion as a terrorist for no real reason exept to either see what happens or cause offence, you can hardly be justified.

I think these protesters are overreacting. It may be offensive to them, but they don't need to go up in arms about it, causing this fuss. Couldn't they do something more peaceful and constructive, like write a letter to the paper, as this method will just cause problems. I have absolutely nothing against Muslims, nothing at all, but I do think these protesters are taking it too far, offensive or not. My dad knows a guy who's a Muslim, and the Muslim friend has the cartoons on his phone, so obviously not all Muslims find it offensive. I just wish they'd go about their protests more peacefully.

Statikk and nate, are you two talking to me? Because I heard the Sword Verses from a neutral, unchristian source, stating that some sects of Islam use their interpretation of these verses to justify their radical beliefs. I mean, that's they're doing. Interpreting. If the few facts I know about Islam are true, then they have every right to take a strict interpretation like that.

I can't tell if you two are just ranting, like me, or completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

There were complaints the first time these cartoons were published. Simple "Dear Editor, WTF?! Offensive"-style complaints.

The cartoons were published multiple times in multiple papers (i.e. Complaints were ignored).

There are plenty of peaceful/legal protests against this that are "causing a fuss" but are doing it near-legally. There are also extremists who are going "bomb the infedel"-style protests... and I assume that's who you're talking about.

Searex, I was just making a comment on religion in general and those who choose to bash various religions without fully understanding them. Nothing to do with your post at all.

You know, its been my thought that all these violent protestors are just ****heads and it has nothing to do with religion. Some people are just thugs and ****heads and are just looking for an excuse to riot and loot.
Like those famous pictures showing people razing a Mickey D's.
What do the Hamburglar and Grimace have to do with crude, satirical Danish political cartoons? But if you're an oversensitive egomaniacal ****head you might think it'd be fun to loot and riot at one.
I'd love to have a positive view on the Koran and its teachings but as far as I can tell its just like Christianity circa 800 years ago: A violent, repressive perversion of a superstition that is holding back a large segment of the world.

The "sword Verses" are always quoted out of context. The chapter in which they are found (the 9th chapter) from the very outset makes it clear that it is talking about times of war. The Qur'an as a source of guidance needs to be looked at as a book consistent with itself and one verse may be explained by another verse in another chapter. It is clear after reading the entire book that war is only allowed in cases of self-defence. And if peace is sought by the enemy then muslims should also pursue peace.

Muslims should never be the aggressors. Unfortunately this is not the case that we are seeing today in reality.

Sure.


These are just a few of many verses that speak of tolerance and peace towards the disbelievers who have not harmed the muslims in any way. That last verse makes it pretty clear that forcing people to believe is the epitome of arrogance if God himself has given mankind free-will.

"Koran" is no more offensive than someone referring to Oddworld as "odwurrld". It sounds a bit silly but there is no real offence in it. But does it really hurt anyone to change the "Ko" in Koran into a "Qu"?

I disagree with you that the Qur'an is just like Christianity 800 years ago. I do however agree that Islam is in the same state that Christianity was during the middle ages. The problem is that many muslims uphold teachings not found in the Qur'an (such as stoning to death for adultery, death for apostasy, cutting of hands for theft, women covering from head to toe etc). The situation is very similar to the way Catholics upheld non-biblical teachings before the Reformation. And I blame none other than the priesthood.

(1): There is reference to this in the Bible, or something very similar. Pre-marital sex is Biblicly punishable by death.

(2): This is not a bad thing. Women are not judged by their appearance, and thus cover themselves to appear as "women", rather than "a nice hot blond".

But women should be able to choose for themselves whether they want to be objectified, not have it forced upon them. And they certainly should not be restricted on where they can go without a chaperone or banned from attending university.

Ye its the violent ones I mean. And i the complaints were ignored then well, i don't know. I suppose they can publish the cartoons elsewhere but you're right, it is ignoring those who are offended, in which case they have every right to get upset with it (In a peaceful way of course). But I have to say, if it was cartoons making fun of Christianity (such things happen in so many TV shows) I doubt there'd be violent protests, or at least as many. It seems that any poking fun of the majority, or the country's main religion isn't as noticed, yet when it's the ethnic minorties, much more notice is taken(Not being predjudiced or racist, just saying that you seem to see a lot more coverage about insults towards say Muslims than you do on insults to christians, except in the cases of the Christian zealots)

Nate... while I can't speak for them all, a lot of women DO like the idea. A lot of women who convert to Islam will defend the point that "women aren't forced to do this. It's choice and a sign of respect".

"Banned from attending university"... I haven't heard of this before, but I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I simply don't know about it. However, is this due to religion or political reasons?

Well the justification they give is religious. But you could have a field day discussing the real reasons.