Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures

[vtwahoo]

We're the United States of America. We're supposed to be better than this; and that is why so many people hold us to a higher standard.

Quoted for truth.

Amen, brother Killfile!

[Laik]

Were you aware that the same editor of the Jyllands-Posten allegedly refused to publish a Jesus cartoon (and one that was deemed as mildy humorous by some local Christian authorities, at that?).

Why, yes. I am aware of it.

Have you personally seen the cartoons?

Why, yes. I have.

Did it occur to you that maybe all the other hundreds of artists simply didn't want to make an offensive cartoon, not out of fear of repercussions but simply because it would be offensive and bad taste?

Not one of those cartoons have been deemed offensive by the legislative authority in Denmark, so why should you? None of the artist were asked to make offensive cartoons, and those 12 did not draw those cartoons to shock, most of those cartoons are a jovial look on the debate denmark had on the childrens book situation and the insanity of muslims against debating something they might oppose.

These are only some of the questions one might and should ask when not in possession of the whole picture.

Yes.. and have you? If not, you should.

I'm seeing way too much digression from the original point of all this.. most just opinionated wish-wash about what people feel about the cartoons, when they have no clue about the reasons behind them.

The fact that iranians have turned this against jews, people in pakistan turned it against bush, and prejudiced people have turned it against the prejudism against muslims for being terrorists, just tells you that 'folks are fools' and will continue to put their own meaning and dogma on things irrelevant of the meaning behind it.

in short: muhammed really did hide a bomb in his turban, and it was aimed at whomever you're sympathetic towards.

K.

I feel that you're missing the point. More than the cartoon or the inane reasons behind it is the fact that people are supposed to have the right to draw and say what they want but, at the same time, they have a civil responsibility for it.

Looking at those cartoons only make me wonder how a muslim could possibly take it in a remotely positive way. If I posted something crazy about someone's family then opinions among the family members would vary but they all would hold a general sentiment among them. Some of the family would do the right thing and simply ignore it even if it does bother them somewhat while others would be angry enough to fight.

The reasons behind the cartoon are actually important though. An attempt to speak out against self-censorship is one that is certainly respectable but not like this. You could go on and on about it but there is only one thing to make clear about the cartoon:

The right to satire and speak out about whatever is one well deserved and people can't really be free without it but don't you ever wonder why people don't just up and slander each other all the time? Because it's wrong. Making general accusations and being that stereotypical can only result in bad things and that's exactly what happened.

On the other side of the line, people are honestly blowing this out of proportion but the sad thing is you see apologies being offered after violence sparked but what about the peaceful protesting? It didn't matter?

We don't need garbage like this that only adds to the tension. People are quick to say that Muslims have cartoons that are just as offensive but that doesn't mean it's cool to do it.

People will continue to make their own truths unsupported by any real meaning but I'm willingly to say that a large majority shed those notions in light of refusing to be ignorant of the the important things in life.

Again, the cartoon was wrong even if people should retain the right to post what they want to. More importantly, this whole situation only stresses that we have to make better attempts to get in touch with these people instead of spending billions to find a way to 'defend' ourselves from them.

Also, Quest is right. Forums are all about opinions but it doesn't hurt to be supported by facts and what not.

[Wandering_Mystic]

I had a big response all fired up last night, but like Astro, I clicked submit at the wrong moment and lost everything.

The highlights were my musings about how closely Astro's own comments resemble strawman arguments and how ironic/hypocritical that was. For those who still don't know what a strawman argument is (I didn't either until I looked it up), a helpful explanation can be found in wikipedia.

But the main essence of my ill-fated post was a response to Kasgarinn. Laik has just responded to him with some of the things I was going to say, but there are still some things that haven't been said, so here we go:

First, I wanted to say that I hadn't read the wikipedia article before my previous response which was irresponsible of me and I regret it. But now I have, and I am puzzled if Kasgarinn even read the article he posted. Some of the things that stuck out when I read it:

-there were 40 artists who were asked to draw how they feel about Islam/Mohammed, not 300. I don't know where he got that number from, but 28 people declining to draw about this touchy subject doesn't really prove anything about why they declined, and unless you saw an interview with them that discusses such a thing, I think it would be wiser for all of us to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

-The article is very clear in reporting the pretty large gap in between the original release of the cartoon in Denmark (and even in Muslim countries) and the sudden appearance of violent "protests"

-The article also reported on how the initial reaction of danish muslims was peaceful and lawful, and the suspicious undertakings of the Danish Imam when the whole thing blew over with little excitement or attention.

My main problem with what you've been saying or implying is that it sounds like you see the violence as typical of Muslim culture, which would mean that for some reason you are ignoring all the peaceful ways Muslims have voiced their concern across the world when this issue was still fresh 5 months ago. That is what I meant when I encouraged you to question more critically and try to gleam the pieces of the whole picture. Please correct me though if I misunderstood your views.

I think a very helpful article to illustrate what I am talking about can be found here

Many Western media organizations have portrayed the recent wave of riots and protests surrounding the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as some kind of spontaneous, instinctual war cry among aggrieved Muslims. But when you take a closer look at the social and political contexts of these collective expressions of rage, certain patterns emerge that suggest a more manufactured phenomenon

I encourage everyone to read it and comment. To be fair, there is also on the same website an article by one Sam Harris who argues pretty much the opposite, saying that it is in the very nature of Islam to encourage violence and madness. He claims to feel the same way about all religions, and lauds Atheism, apparently not seeing the irony in how by vehemently misrepresenting other faiths and slandering them to be the source of all danger and violence, he is himself professing his own faith (Atheism, even if he doesn't see it as such) and inciting many people to see faith (and consequently much of the rest of the world) as something dangerous and react violently (with their words and ideas to start with, but that's where phyiscal violence always finds its origins).

[psi29a]

I apologize, apparently there were two casualties yesterday. The problem stemmed from the fact that my colo's router had to be power cycled, or replaced, or something along that line.

I assure you though that my server's uptime (last time since reboot) is on the order of 100+ days at this point. Again, I apologize.

[kasgarinn]

Laiks' Quotes:

only make me wonder how a muslim could possibly take it in a remotely positive way.

to speak out against self-censorship is one that is certainly respectable but not like this.

don't you ever wonder why people don't just up and slander each other all the time? Because it's wrong. Making general accusations and being that stereotypical can only result in bad things and that's exactly what happened.

the cartoon was wrong

Laik, you have made your opinion perfectly clear, and I have but one sentence as a retort: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - S. G. Tallentyre, referring to Voltaire. Often attributed to Voltaire. Pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Wandering Mystic's quotes:

I think it would be wiser for all of us to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

yes.. and no one did that with just the cartoons as an insight into the debate now did they.. of course not..

-The article is very clear in reporting the pretty large gap in between the original release of the cartoon in Denmark (and even in Muslim countries) and the sudden appearance of violent "protests"

Yes, it is.

-The article also reported on how the initial reaction of danish muslims was peaceful and lawful, and the suspicious undertakings of the Danish Imam when the whole thing blew over with little excitement or attention.

Yes, and it also states that those same muslim leaders trumpeted to the world about the cartoons when they did not get the 'right' judgement in court, going around muslim countries with the cartoons and falsified images (which were more distasteful than the original cartoons) and lied that the fakes were a part of the cartoons posted by jyllands posten.

In denmark there is a freedom of speech, you can say anything, but that also means you can be held accountable for it in court if it violates decency laws. That means if someone says something slanderous, you CAN charge them with decency violations, and the one who slandered will be held accountable and sentenced in some way (if found guilty).

The danish police fully researched into the charges brought fourth by the muslim leaders in denmark, and, after much research and debate,in the end jyllands posten was cleared of the charges.

you are ignoring all the peaceful ways Muslims have voiced their concern across the world

I have yet to see any real evidence of peaceful protest 'around the world' on this matter before the muslim tirade, although I do know that a paper in Jordan actually wrote a piece on this when this was happening (before the inflammation so to speak) and would be interested in reading that article, although I haven't found it in english yet.

Please correct me though if I misunderstood your views.

Yes.. my basic view is my retort to Laik. That free speech should be free, no matter how distasteful. I also find the danish view very good, that you are responsible for what you say to the public, and have a chance to defend it in a court of law if someone objects, but that doesn't limit your right to free speech, but it does mean you have to defend it.

it sounds like you see the violence as typical of Muslim culture

I really do feel that whether violence is typical of muslim culture is not what this debate is about, and that's what is confusing the issue alot with some of the other posters, however I am not in the least bit surprised by the violent outrage because it's so very, very, veryveryveryvery common, and even if you say that the muslims did resort to peaceful objections, when the courts ruled in their disfavour they turned to violence.. so how can that truly show that muslims know how to object peacefully when they pick up the violent tactic when they don't get what they want through peaceful means?

It's pure hypocrisy in my mind, and it must be logged as clear evidence that in this case, muslims after the judgement in the case (i.e. the peaceful protest and using the normal way) in their disfavour, willingly went around inciting violence in muslim countries with false images (they had images which were not the real cartoons as well as the cartoons) and lied about the true content of the debate itself.

And these are supposed to be the normal muslims you speak of? Just pure hypocrisy.

So yes, I laugh at the whole sillyness of it all, at how pathetic the radicalists really are, and at people defending this as if the muslims have any real case to objecting to these cartoons in the manner they have done.

On a final note in this post, here's a small bit of text copied from the wikipedia article: "As of February 10th 2006, at least 11 people have been killed in the protests". I lay the blame at the muslimists who lied about the cartoons, toured the muslim countries with lies and fake images (laying total contempt for normal peaceful and lawful protests), and got people killed.. over cartoons.. a debate which started with a childrens' books author wanted to write a nice little childrens story about muhammad.. I think I'm laughing to hide the tears in this matter.

K.

[Eldo]

If the Muslims do not draw the prophet Muhammid because of their religious beliefs, I think people of other religions should respect that. I can't imagine why these people are so insensitive about other religious beliefs besides their own. For the cartoonists that didn't draw cartoons of the prophet, I would choose to think that they didn't out of respect of other people's religious beliefs. Why don't the cartoonists just draw a stick shoved up God's arse? What, with all the hurricanes and natural disasters that's happened lately.

If the original intent of those cartoons was for children's books, is it appropriate for a child to see images of a major figure from another religion with a bomb as a turban? I think not. I might as well read bedtime stories to kids about Catholic priests molesting children and about white supremists groups such as KKK who burn people of different skin colours on a stake, but in a satirical sense and with cutsy illustrations. I guess I should also tell the children at church how hundreds of years ago Christians would burn innocent people who were 'witches', and all the atrocities that's commited in God's name.

It is very unfortunate that some of the countries that are the capitals of Islamic faith are war-torn battlegrounds, where most of the people are brought up with violence and war. There are some people of Muslim faith that respond with violence because of the upbringing in their war torn countries, which the West had a hand at. I don't believe that ANYONE believing in Islam are being brainwashed into commiting terrorism or any violent acts, and that the teachings speak of nothing but violence and killing. Islam ARE NOT training terrorists to attack the US. Muslims does not equal terrorists, which seems to be the narrow minded generalisation from some ignorant people. So does that mean that Oro, Libaax, Shaka and other members of this forum of Islamic faith are ticking time bombs and are taught with hate and violence from the teachings of Islam?

[kasgarinn]

Eldos' quotes

If the Muslims do not draw the prophet Muhammid because of their religious beliefs, I think people of other religions should respect that.

Yes, I fully respect the fact that if I ask a muslim to draw muhammad, he will deny to do so because of his religious beliefs. But why then can't the muslims then respect the right for non-muslims to draw the prophet muhammad? People of other religious beliefs are not bound by muslim religious beliefs, and thus should not feel obliged to follow muslim religious law, and muslims should respect that.

I can't imagine why these people are so insensitive about other religious beliefs besides their own.

Exactly! How on earth can the muslims be so insensitive about other peoples beliefs in free speech.. no wait.. you mean you're sympathetic to the muslims? Are you for real? I wonder if you read the wikipedia article I posted..

If the original intent of those cartoons was for children's books, is it appropriate for a child to see images of a major figure from another religion with a bomb as a turban?

I don't think you read the wikipedia article.. is that what you think the ORIGINAL intent of the cartoons are? Hmm..

I might as well read bedtime stories to kids about Catholic priests molesting children and about white supremists groups such as KKK who burn people of different skin colours on a stake, but in a satirical sense and with cutsy illustrations. I guess I should also tell the children at church how hundreds of years ago Christians would burn innocent people who were 'witches', and all the atrocities that's commited in God's name.

My my my.. just the sheer fallacy in deduction.. basing a judgement without even bothering to click a link I posted which shows in detail what has happened...

I mean that comment you made just shows how ignorant you are for not even reading about the debate, and I must say most of you haven't bothered to do exactly that. I linked to a wikipedia article which shows in detail what started all this, how it has developed, and even shows a detailed timetable on events. Go on, read it.. then read it again, it's a very interesting read.

So may I remind you people of the stickied post in this part of the forum, and especially this quote from it :

2 – Think before you post: These issues are complex and the discussions/arguments that surround them are equally complex. Read over what others have written, read over them again, and then formulate your response. No one is going to kick you out of the forum if you misinterpret what someone else said, but you’ll look like a dick – and that’s never fun.

K.

[Devil_Dante]

Few months ago, there was an image published of the virgin Maria, showing her half naked (her breasts were showing). It was published by a muslim.

Here is the picture: http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_136083.html

Only the extreme catholics were making a fuss about it.
Nobody apologized for publishing that, nor did those extreme catholics burn down buildings.

[Killfile]

No - but the Catholics did threaten to torture scientists who voiced opinions about the nature of the Universe that went against established beliefs. When evolution clashed with creationism in American public schools there were death threats. Christians have gone so far as to torture, kill, and even condemn to hell those that voiced opinions that disagreed with their own - to say nothing of fighting a war that spanned continents with genocidal intent simply because people in a foreign land didn't agree with their religion.

Admittedly, that was a long time ago, but the Christian faith has been through transformations along with the rest of European civilization that has forced it to change to accept the inevitability of critique, of mockery, and of individual dissenting opinions. Islam has not been subjected to those same historic forces until very recently.

I'm not suggesting that these protests (such as they are) are good or right - and I'm not suggesting that they are somehow justifiable. What I am suggesting is that the high and mighty attitude we in the West have taken to them is ill placed, and we would do well to remember that in our history we have reacted similarly to perceived threats to our belief structures - indeed, we have acted more violently and with greater abandon.

We would also do well to remember that our faith continues to have powerful influences over national policies, costing individuals their lives and disadvantaging specific sectors of our population enormously; all of this over religious ideas which are not even directly addressed in scriptures. We continue to allow ourselves to be lead like sheep - and in doing so have set medical science and gender equality back decades. Of course I am speaking of the Abortion debate, which is entirely motivated by religious doctrine.

We are not as "advanced" as we would have ourselves believe.

[Wandering_Mystic]

Wandering Mystic's quotes:

I think it would be wiser for all of us to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

yes.. and no one did that with just the cartoons as an insight into the debate now did they.. of course not..

My dear sir, if you are implying that I started to comment with no insight on the matter, you are sorely mistaken. I have previously (and currently) read and researched a number of news and newspapers around the world before I started to comment in this thread. While I admitted that I had not read the wikipedia source before, I hadn't clarified that even after reading the wikipedia info, only a few points in the article were new to me.

Yes, and it also states that those same muslim leaders trumpeted to the world about the cartoons when they did not get the 'right' judgement in court, going around muslim countries with the cartoons and falsified images (which were more distasteful than the original cartoons) and lied that the fakes were a part of the cartoons posted by jyllands posten.

Again you are missing the point of the information you have cited. A FEW muslim leaders (who are acting very un-muslim) are stirring things up, and you are generalizing their actions to be represented of most muslims on the planet. Not only is this dangerous thinking, it is illogical and not based on any form of critical thinking.

I have yet to see any real evidence of peaceful protest 'around the world' on this matter before the muslim tirade

It doesn't have to be an actual protest. The lack of reaction when it was published in Egyptian newspapers should also be considered as a peaceful reaction. This information is in the wikipedia article, but I must encourage you again to read the article I linked to for more info about reactions in the mid-east. As a current example, there has just been a peaceful protest in Berlin by muslims, without riotous behavior.

I really do feel that whether violence is typical of muslim culture is not what this debate is about

I beg to differ. It is a crucial part of this whole issue: the issue of misunderstanding, misjudging, and stereotyping other cultures to the danger and/or detriment of us all

however I am not in the least bit surprised by the violent outrage because it's so very, very, veryveryveryvery common

Case in point about stereotyping and prejudice

and even if you say that the muslims did resort to peaceful objections, when the courts ruled in their disfavour they turned to violence..

Wrong. SOME people turned to violence, and the actions (and the allowing of such actions) of those people had strong links to the mid-east governments in which they occured. Why would a government want to allow such violence and chaos? Simple, it legitimates itself to the rest of the uninformed world (that includes you) that their *secular* government is the only thing holding back a bloodbath at the hands of "crazy bloodthirsty muslims", when in fact it is this same *secular* government that is actively encouraging this violent fringe to gain attention. Again, read the article I posted.

It's pure hypocrisy in my mind, and it must be logged as clear evidence that in this case, muslims after the judgement in the case (i.e. the peaceful protest and using the normal way) in their disfavour, willingly went around inciting violence in muslim countries with false images (they had images which were not the real cartoons as well as the cartoons) and lied about the true content of the debate itself.

So are all white people eager to murder their classmates because they watch too many violent movies and play too many violent videogames? Are all black people drug dealers or gangsters? Are all jews rich and vast power wielders? Are all Germans Nazis? No, no, no, no, NO!!!!! But that is exactly what you should think, if you really think that the few violent reactions of some extremists (who aren't even considered as muslim by the majority of true muslims) represent an entire religion, culture and people! That is an extremely flawed viewpoint, and based on smokescreens and mirrors!

And these are supposed to be the normal muslims you speak of?

Again, NO! If you had carefully read what I and others here have been posting, you would be able to see that. We are saying that those extreme and violent reactions are NOT representative of "normal" muslims!

"As of February 10th 2006, at least 11 people have been killed in the protests". I lay the blame at the muslimists who lied about the cartoons, toured the muslim countries with lies and fake images (laying total contempt for normal peaceful and lawful protests), and got people killed

... ........ ............. The fact that it was a group of indiviuals that were trying to stoke a fire out of ashes is what I've been trying to tell you all along. And yet you simultaneously lay blame on the entire religion of Islam and all those who belong to that faith by saying things like "however I am not in the least bit surprised by the violent outrage because it's so very, very, veryveryveryvery common [of muslims]"

Yes, I fully respect the fact that if I ask a muslim to draw muhammad, he will deny to do so because of his religious beliefs. But why then can't the muslims then respect the right for non-muslims to draw the prophet muhammad?

Why? First of all, let's keep in mind that this specific question deals with why muslims are offended, and it should not be equated that "offended muslim = violent bombings, kidnappings and murder". With that disclaimer out of the way, I'll give you one answer why muslims might be wary about the legality of such offensive cartoons. Despite the original intentions of the cartoon (they were not meant for a children's book, they were meant to portray what the artists imagine when they think of Mohammed), the drawings themselves can very easily be taken out of context from all kinds of people, muslims or not, as we have seen.

It may be harder for a Christian or Atheist or whatever to think of such a thing as dangerous, even if it is offensive, because even when there are offensive caricatures about Christians (or whatever) in the West, the Christians never need to worry about being in danger because they are such a large and dominating force in Western culture today (or are at least well protected and don't need to worry about angry mobs of people lynching them for their beliefs, unless you live in the red-neck areas of America, maybe). Muslims around the globe (especially outside the mid-east perhaps), however, get a very bad rep from the very large publicity of terrorist organizations and acts. Too many people (such as yourself, kasagrinn) too quickly (and often unconsciously) equate the violence and terroism that they hear about in the news with muslims in general. Try to imagine yourself in one of the more oppressive authoritarian regimes in the mid-east (pre-war Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, etc). You see a satirical cartoon in the newspapers about a Christian and/or American (or whatever it is you can relate to) bursting into a typical muslim houshold and shooting the men and raping all the women. Very offensive stuff, but given that you are actually there in a country as a member of the same group as this offensive character in the cartoon, you get chills down your spine fearing that someone would equate that character with you and unleash their frustrations and/or anger on you in retribution for the hardships they have endured at the hand of Western civilization.

That was just one point about why muslims would be concerned, and there is a ton more I can say, but I think I've said enough for now. One final thing though, if you can't even read a wikipedia article carefully enough without jumping to conclusions, I hardly think you're qualified to make snide remarks and accuse someone (e.g. Eldo) of something you are at least as guilty of doing. I'm still wondering where you got that 300 number from, and whether you've read the article that I posted. I don't realistically expect you to magically change all your views, but I do hope that you will at least learn to overcome your own unfair view of Islam. If you want to study Islam further, I would be happy to give you a number of good starting points in terms of books and the like. I have studied Islam among other religions in my academic past, and would enjoy sharing some of the things I have learned.

[Killfile]

Another point Wandering Mystic left out:

There are more than 1.2 Billion (that's Billion with a B) Muslims in the world. 1.2 Billion is a LOT of people. We're talking about a population so large that, armed with pitch forks, it could feasibly defend every square inch of the Earth's land surface by poking people.

If the people flying planes into buildings and setting embassies on fire were really representative of the whole of Islamic culture, we'd be having this discussion in Arabic right now.

[kasgarinn]

Wandering mystic:

Before I even start, let me ask you this: Do you actually support restrictions on free speech? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course you seriously want to make this about racism and other -isms..

Well I don't. You know why? Because I have no real interest in racism, it's not a thing I feel I can debate with you on, because I fundamentally agree with you on the points on racism and prejudism (that it's bad), but I feel that you overrate the sympathy card regarding this matter. You for some reason have a 'thing' you've needed to unload regarding muslims (like alot of people essentially) and how they are viewed by the world for a long time and for some reason view me as the target of that venting. So let's truly have an open debate about this and throw this thing wide open.

The racism/religious-ism/muslim-ism issue has clouded and muddled the debate in my opinion, or to rephrase more clearly, the current views and prejudices regarding muslims and islam have inherently affected the quite simple debate on whether jyllands posten was right to publish the cartoons or not, and the worst of muslims have only stoked the fire and solidified those views by doing what everyone thought they would.. explode over this trivial matter.

But let's go over a few of your replies:

A FEW muslim leaders (who are acting very un-muslim) are stirring things up, and you are generalizing their actions to be represented of most muslims on the planet.

If I may give a quote: "Are we not represented, not only by the best of us, but also by the worst of us?"

The lack of reaction when it was published in Egyptian newspapers should also be considered as a peaceful reaction.

So the peaceful muslims did not react to the article, is a lack of reaction truly an example of a peaceful reaction?

kasgarinn wrote:
I really do feel that whether violence is typical of muslim culture is not what this debate is about

I beg to differ. It is a crucial part of this whole issue: the issue of misunderstanding, misjudging, and stereotyping other cultures to the danger and/or detriment of us all

Well, let's then briefly look at the argument whether violence is typical of muslim culture.

1) In the case of: Misunderstanding: Muslim leaders incited muslims to torch and burn diplomatic embassies and consulates in syria, beirut, indonesia, and people have died in afghanistan (plus alot more examples of violence). So there has been a violent uproar about this matter. This means there is no misunderstanding regarding that there has been a violent reaction to this debate.

2) In the case of: Misjudging: A glossary of first events:

Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.

Meaning that the people who declined illustrating the book, and the artists who declined to draw a cartoon did not misjudge the situation, as there clearly have been violent attacks by extremist muslims. So no one misjudged how the muslims have reacted.

3) In the case of: Stereotyping other cultures: Or to phrase it in another way; to recognise popular trends within a certain group of individuals. Is a violent reaction a trend which can be recognised with muslims in general? That recognition is alive and well today, and every time someone has to hide because of the fear that radical muslims will try to kill him, that trend will continue.

kasgarinn wrote:
however I am not in the least bit surprised by the violent outrage because it's so very, very, veryveryveryvery common

Case in point about stereotyping and prejudice

Well violence in muslim countries bloody well is very common, and I don't see you actually denying it, you're only objecting because you don't like it.

if you really think that the few violent reactions of some extremists (who aren't even considered as muslim by the majority of true muslims) represent an entire religion, culture and people! That is an extremely flawed viewpoint, and based on smokescreens and mirrors!

No, you're quite wrong about my opinion. I think the violent reactions in themselves speak for themselves, and where this violence is taking place, in the muslim countries, none of the people who caused it are being arrested, no one is being held accountable for what these radicalists have done, which means all those peaceful muslims are NOT reacting to stop them, even if they are violating laws in their respective countries regarding violent behaviour.

And that's probably the main point which shows that you have a slanted viewpoint in favour of the muslims. You cite a lack of response to the egyptian paper before the outburst as a positive thing, but completely forget that wherever the violence is happening, whenever it is in a muslim country, you will never find that the upstarts are held accountable for inciting the violence, you will never hear about the peaceful muslims who stopped them.. because they won't. What happened in Indonesia is a perfect example of peaceful muslims being sympathetic to radical muslims:

"Demonstrators in Indonesia damage the Danish consulate and try to damage the US consulate. At the American consulate, they clash with police, and warning shots are fired."

Do you really think that the police couldn't have stopped the demonstrators at the danish consulate? Be serious.

It doesn't have to be an actual protest. The lack of reaction when it was published in Egyptian newspapers should also be considered as a peaceful reaction.

And the lack of reaction by 'peaceful muslims', when there was violence by radical muslims in the muslim countries, should then be considered a violent reaction by 'peaceful muslims' by your definition of a 'lack of reaction'. Isn't that right?

As a current example, there has just been a peaceful protest in Berlin by muslims, without riotous behavior.

Are they protesting the violence? No? Are they protesting the right to freedom of speech? Neither? Are they objecting to the same thing the radicals objected to? No? Are they thus sympathetic to the radicals and their behaviour? And the answer is...

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

Whew.. taking a little break..

(turns on some music) ...Ha.. nightmare before christmas soundtrack.. Love random playlists, such fun


(grabs a refreshing drink) *humms with the song*

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

We are saying that those extreme and violent reactions are NOT representative of "normal" muslims!

Well, what about the lack of reaction from the peaceful muslims regarding the violent reaction? If a situation should arise that an iranian paper grossly offends a target group in the US which is the same as is in power in the US government, what would happen if that target group attacks the iranian embassy in washington DC? Would there be a lack of reaction?

My point is that the lack of reaction can be easily interpreted as a violent reaction because it shows sympathy for the radicals.. shows solidarity, and the lack of objections to the violence or radical behaviour from the normal muslims is as damaging as the radicals themselves.

kasgarinn wrote:
Yes, I fully respect the fact that if I ask a muslim to draw muhammad, he will deny to do so because of his religious beliefs. But why then can't the muslims then respect the right for non-muslims to draw the prophet muhammad?

Why?

Seriously.. do I have to explain basic human rights to you? If I accept your freedom to do what you want without limiting me, you must accept my freedom to do what I want without limiting you, and in this case muslims have freely and by choice accepted the limitations imposed by their religion, so why the hell should I have to be limited by their religion? Their limitation is by choice, and in a free society they're fine to limit themselves while it isn't imposed on others who choose not to limit themselves by their religion, especially through violence.

The rest of your post is just sympathetic imagery which has little to do with the debate in itself.

But there is just one single light in this, the 'moderate muslims' have come forth in denmark in an effort to distance themselves from the radicals and: "The organisation, Moderate Muslims, is to begin a campaign in Arab countries in favor of Denmark. They will use SMS and newspaper advertisements, paid for by their Muslim members only."

The first and the only clear and present example of muslims objecting to the violence and embracing the freedom of speech.. and until more muslims show an actual effort to inhibit radicals instead of leaving them free to carry on their terrorist behaviour against laws in their respective countries, their lack of reaction to them will continue to depict muslims as radicals, or worse being sympathetic to radicals with their lack of action against them, for there has been no real effort of peaceful muslims throughout the world to truly try to distance themselves from the radicals, only their silence regarding the violence, and their own objections to things which attack their beliefs which harmonise with the objections of the radicals.

"Are we not represented, not only by the best of us, but also by the worst of us?"... what a great quote.. really happy that I came up with it

K.

[Killfile]

Well violence in [Muslim] countries bloody well is very common, and I don't see you actually denying it, you're only objecting because you don't like it.

Murder: The United States has the 24th highest murder rate in the world at 0.04 murders per thousand individuals. Of the countries with higher murder rates only Russia and Kyrgyzstan have large numbers of Muslims per capita.

Rape: The United States has the 9th highest rape rate in the world. No countries that have higher rape rates have a large concentration of Muslims per capita.

Assault: The United States has the 6th highest assault rate in the world - of the five with higher assault rates, only Mauritius has a large concentration of Muslims.

So it would seem that by most sane metrics that aren't based entirely off of TV news coverage - that Muslim countries enjoy lower instances of violent crimes and violence in general. Fewer rapes, murders, and assaults would seem to indicate that Islam really is a religion of peace.

Remember - this isn't my opinion, these are facts.

[vtwahoo]

Before I even start, let me ask you this: Do you actually support restrictions on free speech? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Though I do not presume to speak for Wandering_Mystic I cannot help but weigh in on what seems to be an absolutely ridiculous question.

You're damn right I support restrictions on free speech.

The question is: why don't you?

Free speech (and press for that matter) are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They are among the most carefully guarded provisions of American government and society. And yet even the United States Supreme Court, charged with upholding the provisions of the Constitution, readily admit that free speech is not a limitless right.

Two instances of case law come immediately to mind: US v. O'Brien and Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire.

In US v. O'Brien the Court ruled that speech likely to lead to violence or riots could be regulated. In Chaplinksy v. NH the Court ruled "fighting words" are not protected by the First Amendment.

I know that we're not looking at an instance of US law here but I ask you---if the United States Supreme Court can see that the right to free speech must be limited under specific circumstances why can't you? Why do you ask Do you actually support restrictions on free speech? as though it is a terrible and unthinkable concept?

Perhaps I've missed something...

"Are we not represented, not only by the best of us, but also by the worst of us?"... what a great quote.. really happy that I came up with it

And you are quoting...who exactly? I'm certain that there's an authoritative source here---perhaps a political scholar or historical leader---but I don't recall it from my studies and I can't seem to find it anywhere...

[Laik]

Well violence in [Muslim] countries bloody well is very common, and I don't see you actually denying it, you're only objecting because you don't like it.

Murder: The United States has the 24th highest murder rate in the world at 0.04 murders per thousand individuals. Of the countries with higher murder rates only Russia and Kyrgyzstan have large numbers of Muslims per capita.

Rape: The United States has the 9th highest rape rate in the world. No countries that have higher rape rates have a large concentration of Muslims per capita.

Assault: The United States has the 6th highest assault rate in the world - of the five with higher assault rates, only Mauritius has a large concentration of Muslims.

So it would seem that by most sane metrics that aren't based entirely off of TV news coverage - that Muslim countries enjoy lower instances of violent crimes and violence in general. Fewer rapes, murders, and assaults would seem to indicate that Islam really is a religion of peace.

Remember - this isn't my opinion, these are facts.

Gah, I was going to post some of that stuff but it's all good.

Either way, at the end of the day, the radicals we see are merely a fraction of the Muslims in the entire world. While they are concentrated in the Middle East, I can say for a fact that violence is not what Islam is about.

I can also say for a fact that stereotypical views and rash generalizations are seriously dangerous. Adopting the idea that the good should always suffer with a bad is not a kind one. You say that the best and worst of us represent who we are but that's only a more restricted point of view. When I look at Christianity, I see all kinds of people. Some of them are radical, some of them are overzealous, some of them are kind, some of them are closed-minded, and the list goes on. I can say the same thing about any group of people.

The face of Islam isn't the people holding up the guns and creating bombs and the religion doesn't have violence in its culture. Some people mentioned this earlier but just because it seems better here doesn't mean we can impose our way of living on these people when they obviously want to live there own way.

The thing about free speech is that you are able to say what you want and get what you want known in various forms of media and that is perfectly fine no? However, that means we have to be careful. Not self censorship or anything of the sort but just thinking before we do things. A man will more than likely be offended if I straight up made fun of his beliefs and I wouldn't be surprised if he got angry enough to take action. The entire point of free speech is to not be bound but people don't go around saying whatever because people have feelings friend. With free speech comes a civil responsibility to know that some things shouldn't be said, that to know that you have to face the repercussions if something that came from you offended someone. Just because he's not being tried in court for a crime does not mean he was not in the wrong.

The people in charge may be a representative of me but they are definitely not a reflection of me or what I believe in. The same thing applies over there on a much larger scale. A few men, not even enough to call a fraction, can't represent more than a billion people. Some people committing arson and killing in order to advance their own plans don’t represent Islam at all.

You ask are we not represented, not only by the best of us, but also by the worst of us but I haven't seen you say anything positive about Muslims yet but most of your post deals with the bad.

Do you honestly think someone thinks of Martin Luther King Junior or Denzel Washington when they see me? I don't know about that but what about all the rapists and thieves they see on the evening news?

Society doesn't give out character credit and we see bad things happen way more than good things. The point is that we have to rise above that and believe that white guy is not a racist just because I saw that white woman just turn away that black man but accept the white one behind him. I have to believe that I'm not going to be robbed when I talk to some guy and not let my views on a particular group of people be pulled down by the common misconceptions I see almost daily. Better yet, these are things I know not just believe.

If you believe Islam is dangerous then what evidence do I have to believe that you are not being prejudice? Violence is common here also and the fact in the quote is proof enough of that. What does that mean? That the 'War on Terror' should be waged on ourselves as well as our enemies?

[Devil_Dante]

So it would seem that by most sane metrics that aren't based entirely off of TV news coverage - that Muslim countries enjoy lower instances of violent crimes and violence in general. Fewer rapes, murders, and assaults would seem to indicate that Islam really is a religion of peace.

Remember - this isn't my opinion, these are facts.

Perhaps it's possible that those violent crimes aren't registrated correctly in those countries? At least not as good as in the other countries.
Would you believe me if I say that 70 % of the crimes in my country are done by young muslims? I've got many muslim friends. And not many of them are good citizens.

This is my opinion :p

[kasgarinn]

killfile:

Well, don't forget Executions per capita, where sierra leone, kuwait, oman, jordan, saudi arabia, iran, yemen, kyrgyztan, egypt, lebanon, and afghanistan have a higher rate then United states.

And what is the difference between executions per capita and murders, rape and assault rate? Official Executions are documented by all countries as it is the legitimate killing of a government.

The other statistics are based on the willingness of the victim (or the family of the victim in case of murder) to come forth about the misdeed, and that depends on the individual society, as well as how correct the data is collected by that government, and in the case of muslim countries, the margins of error, especially in the case of rape.. Societies which deem it completely normal that the rape victim should prosecute against the rapist are high on the list, but the countries which have a history of killing the victim to save the victims honour.. well, can you name a country with that kind of history, and how high on the list those are?

Which means that murders, rapes and assault rates do not give a 100% correct view on the differences in violence between countries, there are error margins which means you have to take the information with a grain of salt.

Do you even know the difference between a fact and a statistic?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact;

sta·tis·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-tstk)
n.
A numerical datum.
A numerical value, such as standard deviation or mean, that characterizes the sample or population from which it was derived.

So I'd recommend you to only use the word fact on something which has happened.. For instance muslims kill rape victims for the victims' honour is a Fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing . Violent reactions to danish cartoons is a fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoon

--

Vtwahoo:

You're damn right I support restrictions on free speech

Ok, then I must tell you to never speak in this thread again, your comments offend me, and I hereby ask you to restrict your own freedom of speech to both show support for restriction of the freedom, and because I find your comments offensive and ignorant.

Why do you ask Do you actually support restrictions on free speech? as though it is a terrible and unthinkable concept?

Because without freedom of speech there is no open discussion, if you can't say your opinion to an open forum (whether that be in the papers, on television, or on the internet) then that means that someone elses opinion is worth more than yours, someone elses opinion is being told as the right opinion, and who is to say that your opinion is the wrong one without open discourse about it? It's the bloody well the most basic and the most essential building piece of a free democracy, and an enlightened society. If someone is scared to say his opinion or to behave in normal fashion, then that person is oppressed, and oppression is bad.

Perhaps I've missed something...

Yes.. Perhaps you have.. Now remember, not a word more from you, you have a point to prove.

And you are quoting...who exactly? I'm certain that there's an authoritative source here---perhaps a political scholar or historical leader---but I don't recall it from my studies and I can't seem to find it anywhere...

Why I'm quoting myself my good man! I tried to find similarly worded quote via google, but couldn't find it, so I guess it's mine

--
Laik.

I can also say for a fact that stereotypical views and rash generalizations are seriously dangerous.

exactly, the muslims objecting to the cartoons are just objecting because of vast generalizations regarding the debate and have stereotyped westerners in this manner, you're quite right.

You say that the best and worst of us represent who we are but that's only a more restricted point of view. When I look at Christianity, I see all kinds of people. Some of them are radical, some of them are overzealous, some of them are kind, some of them are closed-minded, and the list goes on. I can say the same thing about any group of people.

How can it then be a restricted view? You say it yourself, Christians are represented by the good they do, the good people and good things they have done, as well as the bad apples, same thing with indians, danish, mexicans, jehovas witnesses, it's a bloomin' great quote and especially for being so true.

With free speech comes a civil responsibility to know that some things shouldn't be said, that to know that you have to face the repercussions if something that came from you offended someone.

Yes, and that concept is alive and well in denmark, there are laws which deal with repercussions regarding things spoken to the public and that process was set in motion.

Just because he's not being tried in court for a crime does not mean he was not in the wrong.

Exactly! Jyllands posten was tried in court regarding this and was cleared by the society, the muslims inciting the violence weren't tried in court and have not been tried by their fellow peaceful muslims. You make a great argument and I fully agree with you.

You ask are we not represented, not only by the best of us, but also by the worst of us but I haven't seen you say anything positive about Muslims yet but most of your post deals with the bad.

that's because for some reason you have all gone mad, you seem to forget that civil liberties are being constantly violated in muslim countries this link: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/07/saudia12622.htm to name one.

Society doesn't give out character credit and we see bad things happen way more than good things. The point is that we have to rise above that and believe that white guy is not a racist just because I saw that white woman just turn away that black man but accept the white one behind him. I have to believe that I'm not going to be robbed when I talk to some guy and not let my views on a particular group of people be pulled down by the common misconceptions I see almost daily. Better yet, these are things I know not just believe.

Exactly, any group is represented not by just the best of us (in the case of black people in america "Martin Luther King Junior or Denzel Washington" is a great example, but also by the worst of us, so you just prove my point.

If you believe Islam is dangerous then what evidence do I have to believe that you are not being prejudice?

Well, here are some real facts:

Islam

1) In 1989, Indian born British author Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death for blasphemy by Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini for Rushdie's depiction of Muhammad as a businessman in his novel The Satanic Verses. Khomeini offered a $3 million reward to anyone carrying out the sentence against Rushdie. Other Islamic scholars follow suit, providing similar fatwa (religious opinion).
2) In 1989, Khomeini died, making fatwa permanent to those who follow his teaching.
3) In 1991, Hitoshi Igarashi, the book's Japanese translator was murdered at the university where he taught in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 60 kilometres north of Tokyo.
4) The book's Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan.
William Nygaard, the Norwegian publisher was shot in 1993.
5) 37 people, who had come to listen to a speech by the translator and publisher (of some parts of the book) Aziz Nesin, a well-known satirist, perished in a tragic escalation of events when the hotel where they had gathered was torched in Sivas, Turkey.
6) The post-Khomeini Iranian government, while maintaining that fatwa cannot be reversed, promised only in 1998 to dissociate itself from it. Rushdie stayed in hiding under police protection for several years. [5]
7) In May 1994, a fatwa on Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin came after she was quoted in The Statesman that "…the Koran should be revised thoroughly." This follows attacks and persecution of Taslima for her 1993 book Lajja (Bangla word for 'shame')
In 1997 Tatiana Soskin was apprehended in Hebron while attempting to attach to an Arab storefront a drawing she'd made depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad as a pig reading the Koran. The incident created considerable tensions.
9) In 1998, Ghulam Akbar, a Shi'a Muslim, was convicted, in a Rahimyar Khan court, of uttering derogatory remarks against Muhammad in 1995 and sentenced to death. He was the first to receive such a sentence under Section 295(c) of the Pakistani penal code. [6]
10) In August 2000, a Lahore court sentenced Abdul Hasnain Muhammad Yusuf Ali to death and 35 years' imprisonment for "defiling the name of Muhammad" under Section 295(a), 295(c), and 298.[7]
11) In 2001, prior to 9/11, American magazine Time printed an illustration of Muhammad along with the Archangel Gabriel waiting for a message from God. The magazine apologized for printing the illustration after widespread protests in Kashmir.[8]
12) In June 2002, Iranian academic Hashem Aghajari gave a speech that challenged Muslims to refrain from blindly following their clergy. His speech provoked international outcry, and, in November 2002, he was sentenced to death for "blasphemy against Muhammad." [9]
13) In November 2002, an article in the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper prior to the upcoming Miss World pageant, suggesting Muhammad would have chosen one of the contestants as his bride, sparked riots that eventually claimed over 200 lives.[10]
14) In December 2002, Pulitzer Prize winner Doug Marlette published a drawing that showed Muhammad driving a Ryder truck, with a nuclear rocket attached. He received more than 4,500 e-mails from angry Muslims, some with threats of death and mutilation.[11]
15) In 2004, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali created the 10-minute movie Submission. The film is about violence against women in Islamic societies. It shows four abused naked women, wearing see-through dresses. Qur'anic verses allegedly unfavourable to women in Arabic are painted on their bodies. After the movie was released, both van Gogh and Hirsi Ali received death threats. Van Gogh was stabbed and shot dead on November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri. A note he left impaled on Van Gogh's chest threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding).
16) In February 2005 the "Världskulturmuséet" ("Museum of World Culture") in Göteborg, Sweden decided to remove the painting "Scène d’Amour" by Louzla Darabi. The painting was part of a temporary exhibition about HIV/AIDS, and depicted a man and a woman having sexual intercourse. Tha artist and the curator had received numerous death threats from Muslims enraged over the Koran quotations which were featured in a corner of the painting. Some threats were telling the artist to "learn from the Netherlands", referring to the murder of van Gogh and threats against Hirsi Ali.[4] (News article in Swedish)
17) On April 19, 2005 the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet broke the news that celebrity preacher Runar Søgaard in a causerie had called the prophet Mohammed "a confused paedophile" (alluding to Mohammed's revelations and his marriages with young girls such as Aisha). Søgaard had at the same time also told jokes about Jesus and Buddha. Søgaard received numerous death threats from Muslims and went on national television to apologise for his jokes. His apologies did not help, and Muslim extremists in Sweden contacted imams around the world in order to have a fatwa issued against Søgaard. Among the contacted ones were Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A fatwah with a death sentence against Søgaard was eventually issued by an African imam.[5][6] (News articles in Swedish)
18) In September 2005 the Tate Britain gallery decided not to display a work by John Latham entitled God Is Great #2, made ten years previously, which consisted in part of a Koran, a Bible and a Talmud that had been disassembled. The exhibition was close to the time of the July 7 2005 London bombings which influenced the Tate's decision. [12][13]
19) In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed twelve cartoons of Muhammad, including one that portrayed him wearing a bomb under his turban. The cartoons angered Muslims around the world and, when several other newspapers reprinted the cartoons and an Islamic committee from Denmark had toured several Islamic countries with the real and some falsified material, led to death threats, riots, and burning of embassies in some countries in January 2006 and February 2006.
20) A Catholic priest, Father Andrea Santoro, was shot to death in Turkey on February 5. A 16 year-old student was arrested for the murder and admitted it, saying he had been "enraged by the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the European press". It was unclear whether Turkish police saw this as the real motive for the killing.[7] (see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy).

And here's the glossary about honor killings:

As of 2004, honor killings have occurred in numerous countries, including: Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy[4], Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom. In Europe, honor killings have been reported within the Muslim and Sikh communities. Many cases of honor killing have been reported in Pakistan, where it is known as KaroKari. It is also reported among Sikhs in the adjacent Indian Punjab[5].

In December 2005, Nazir Afzal, director of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service in west London—an area with a large number of South Asian residents—stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honor killings" between 2004 and 2005 [6]. Afzal notes that

I've certainly seen more cases of honor crime since July 7...When communities perceive themselves to be under threat they tend to turn in on themselves, regardless of whether that perception has any basis in fact.

Regarding acid attacks in muslim countries:http://www.rediff.com/news/mar/27bang.htm

Rape, acid attacks on women rampant in Bangladesh
There is an alarming spurt in crimes against women in Bangladesh, particularly rape and acid attacks - even though in both cases the law is very tough with offenders.

Two schoolgirls, Sonia and Sathi, were savagely attacked with acid in two separate incidents in the capital recently. In both cases, the attackers were men from their neighbourhood who were angry because the girls had spurned their advances.

Police records show that women belonging to poor families are mostly victims of rape, acid assaults, and tricked into prostitution - even as those responsible walk free.

The perpetrators are so powerful and influential that the victims cannot fight them either legally or socially. The story of the daughter of a landless farmer in Chaain village in Saver district is one example of social injustice.

The girl was raped last month by the son of the village chief and his two friends. In the 'Salish' or the traditional village court, the rapists were fined the equivalent of $375. But they paid the family only $75 and threatened to kill the peasant family if they did not leave the village in 24 hours.

Do you want me to continue? I could easily invest the next week in finding FACTS about how muslims all over the world have done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain, and these are facts which are no older then a couple of years at most.

I could further dig up links which show that this has been ongoing for many decades and nothing is being done or has been done to change the mindset of muslims so that this isn't tolerated.

At the end, let's look up one word from dictionary.com:

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Now, how many of you can actually see that the objections muslims have against the cartoons (of which there have been thousands of protests against, both violent and peaceful by many muslims) are a form of racism? (or what I like to define as racist-religion-ism)

K.

[panasonic]

Quote:
You're damn right I support restrictions on free speech

Ok, then I must tell you to never speak in this thread again, your comments offend me, and I hereby ask you to restrict your own freedom of speech to both show support for restriction of the freedom, and because I find your comments offensive and ignorant.

well, restrictions meaning that ppl should say the right thing at the right time. would any of you go to ghettos and start insulting people there. hell no! youd probably get your ass kicked. free speech is becoming a major problem since people always believe that they can say whatever the hell they want. in a democratic society it is important to voice your opinions, however, the cartoons in the danish paper, whether intentional or not, was distateful and very untactful given the current state of the world.

the generalization the kasgarinn places on muslims is atrocious. 1.2 billion people is a lot. you are placing the fault of a few on that many ppl. and you seem to forget that they do not have the same media as us, and therefore are fed propaganda. if you were told the evil x people did this and that and are trying to invade us, strip us of our culture and religion etc etc, i would hope you would be mad, since that is the emotion one should experience under that situation

[Killfile]

So executions are your measure of the violence of the state? You define execution as "legitimate killing by a government" -- your (extremely foolish) words, not mine.

Let’s see here.....

Has a Muslim nation ever killed:

1.) More than 6,000,000 individuals of a single religion with a single government sponsored program? (Nazi Holocaust)
2.) More than 30,000,000 individuals in a single region through enforced starvation? (Stalin's Ukrainian Genocide)
3.) More than 60,000,000 individuals in a single nationwide program of enforced starvation? (China's great leap forward)

Or maybe you're referring to single actions?
1.) More than 250,000 people with a single weapon? (Atomic Bombings of Japan... and we did it twice)
2.) More than 25,000 in a single bombing campaign? (Dresden - Allies, WWII)
3.) More than 700,000 killed over a single strategic point (the Battle of Verdun).

Yea - we non-Muslim nations are so peaceful. Executions are the ability of a state to kill within its own borders without resistance. War is the ability of a state to kill outside its borders in spite of resistance. I’ll take “killings by a state” or “execution” as a means of defining the violence of a culture any day of the week, if for no other reason than you don’t have the historical background to back up your claims.

Of course statistics are fallible - but the fact remains that they are the only numerically quantifiable means we have of measuring broad societal trends. Statistics are, in short, a quantification of facts. Perhaps paraphrasing Joseph Stalin would be best:

"A single death is a tragedy (or a fact) a million is a static."

But only a fool - indeed a great fool - would imply that each of those million deaths is not ALSO a fact. Similarly, each of the rapes, murders, and assaults reported in the United States is a fact. Each of the rapes, murders, and assaults reported in various Muslim nations are also facts.

But the rapes murders and assaults which -=might=- have occurred, but were not reported are not facts. Indeed - they're just speculation.

So we know that a certain number of rapes, murders, and assaults occur in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries - and we know that, as a percentage of population, more of those crimes occur in non-Muslim countries.

You suspect, but can not prove in any way, shape, or form, that there exist enough unreported crimes to change the balance.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that - when it comes to judging the moral character of an entire religion and its billions of adherents, we'll stick to what we KNOW to be true, as opposed to what you think MIGHT be the case.

Ok, then I must tell you to never speak in this thread again, your comments offend me, and I hereby ask you to restrict your own freedom of speech to both show support for restriction of the freedom, and because I find your comments offensive and ignorant.

That is the most juvenile, vapid, and idiotic thing I have ever read. I actually became dumber because I read your half literate, run on sentence. Congratulations - you've just proven you're out of your intellectual depth.

Vtwahoo cites US case law in defense of her (read the damn profile genius) argument. Surely, when dealing with someone who clearly knows enough about the legal system to cite it "chapter and verse" (as it were) you're not so daft as to dismiss them with an obvious logical fallacy?

Oh - you already did that. Never mind.

[vtwahoo]

You're damn right I support restrictions on free speech

Ok, then I must tell you to never speak in this thread again, your comments offend me, and I hereby ask you to restrict your own freedom of speech to both show support for restriction of the freedom, and because I find your comments offensive and ignorant.

Why do you ask Do you actually support restrictions on free speech? as though it is a terrible and unthinkable concept?

Because without freedom of speech there is no open discussion, if you can't say your opinion to an open forum (whether that be in the papers, on television, or on the internet) then that means that someone elses opinion is worth more than yours, someone elses opinion is being told as the right opinion, and who is to say that your opinion is the wrong one without open discourse about it? It's the bloody well the most basic and the most essential building piece of a free democracy, and an enlightened society. If someone is scared to say his opinion or to behave in normal fashion, then that person is oppressed, and oppression is bad.

Perhaps I've missed something...

Yes.. Perhaps you have.. Now remember, not a word more from you, you have a point to prove.

You've missed the point entirely.

The right to free speech---especially in a democracy---is not absolute.

Now, unless my speech consists of "fighting words" likely to incite violence and unless you have been endowed with the authority of a high court, I cannot be restricted.

But the point is that the speech in question could be considered by no less than 1.2 billion people as "fighting words" and DID incite violence.

So...unless you're declaring the US an unenlightened society (and I'm not sure you'd be completely wrong on that count) your post makes no sense.

[Laik]

exactly, the muslims objecting to the cartoons are just objecting because of vast generalizations regarding the debate and have stereotyped westerners in this manner, you're quite right.

They are objecting to the cartoons because they are offended not by what is perceived as a uninformed opinion defined by a drawing but instead something they view as blasphemy.

How can it then be a restricted view? You say it yourself, Christians are represented by the good they do, the good people and good things they have done, as well as the bad apples, same thing with indians, danish, mexicans, jehovas witnesses, it's a bloomin' great quote and especially for being so true.

If anything, we aren't represented by something as black and white as the best and worst but instead the gray. What I meant is that there are all kinds of people of course and that applies to Islam also. Even if they share the same beliefs at the core, the kind of muslim varies widely. Being open-minded means knowing that Islam is not dangerous because it's a fact that all muslims are not.

Yes, and that concept is alive and well in denmark, there are laws which deal with repercussions regarding things spoken to the public and that process was set in motion.

Yeah but I still fail to see why the cartoon existed in the first place. To create something that tasteless and put it somewhere for people to see really does say things about the person it came from.

Just because he's not being tried in court for a crime does not mean he was not in the wrong.

Exactly! Jyllands posten was tried in court regarding this and was cleared by the society, the muslims inciting the violence weren't tried in court and have not been tried by their fellow peaceful muslims. You make a great argument and I fully agree with you.

Forgot to mention that doesn't mean he was right either. It seems like a lot of people want moderate Muslims to become the Islam police but that isn't happening anytime soon, one of the reasons being that they are finding a common enemy thanks to crazy stuff like this.

You ask are we not represented, not only by the best of us, but also by the worst of us but I haven't seen you say anything positive about Muslims yet but most of your post deals with the bad.

that's because for some reason you have all gone mad, you seem to forget that civil liberties are being constantly violated in muslim countries this link: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/07/saudia12622.htm to name one.

I know that. I know everyone isn't handing each other flowers over there but that doesn't mean that there aren't people over there trying to do the right thing. This just means that I accept the fact that Muslims aren't bad people, it's merely the people who are pulling that stuff that are in the wrong. I admit that I shake my head at some stuff like that but who am I to seek to change their way of life unless they make a valid attempt to change it themselves?

Society doesn't give out character credit and we see bad things happen way more than good things. The point is that we have to rise above that and believe that white guy is not a racist just because I saw that white woman just turn away that black man but accept the white one behind him. I have to believe that I'm not going to be robbed when I talk to some guy and not let my views on a particular group of people be pulled down by the common misconceptions I see almost daily. Better yet, these are things I know not just believe.

Exactly, any group is represented not by just the best of us (in the case of black people in america "Martin Luther King Junior or Denzel Washington" is a great example, but also by the worst of us, so you just prove my point.

The point is that we have no social credit. Mostly, as far as anyone who doesn't know me is concerned, I'm a threat as opposed to just being a normal citizen but that's just how things seem to me. Today's society seeks out the bad in people. In no way does a rapist represent me but, on the same side of the coin, neither does Denzel Washington.

You won't see a reflection of me in those people and I'm sure a lot of my peers feel the same way. Nowadays, people don't even entertain the thought that someone might be kind when they could be mean or could actually help instead of getting caught up in apathy.

Regardless, going back to your quote, something as massive as Islam can't be represented by merely a fraction of the people who belong to the faith. Definite words like good and bad hardly apply on a scale that big.

Do you want me to continue? I could easily invest the next week in finding FACTS about how muslims all over the world have done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain, and these are facts which are no older then a couple of years at most.

I could further dig up links which show that this has been ongoing for many decades and nothing is being done or has been done to change the mindset of muslims so that this isn't tolerated.

Do you know I can show you just as many bad things that happen across the world that has nothing to do with Muslims at all? On another note, how can being attacked and threatened help motivate a person to become more passive?

I agree with you though. Those radicals have to come to understand that violence doesn't get your point across, it only serves to taint their message and get innocent people killed but another mindset we have to do away with is the one that is spreading right now: That Islam is bad and that Muslims are terrorists. It's sad but people are honestly starting to believe that.

With rising tension, adding conflict with a flawed notion like that will not lead to anything even almost good.

Now, how many of you can actually see that the objections muslims have against the cartoons (of which there have been thousands of protests against, both violent and peaceful by many muslims) are a form of racism? (or what I like to define as racist-religion-ism)

Racist because they are upset over obviously offensive material? They protest because it's an image of a religious icon with a bomb on his head. People would be angry at me if I put it in an newspaper, people would be angry at you if you did it, and they were angry at the guy who did do it. Race has nothing to do with the reaction.

You are have a misconception. There is no evidence that I've seen that states that Islam supports or even encourages violence and to make such a claim only shows you the restriction I was talking about. Stand back and look at something bigger than what you see on the news.

[kasgarinn]

You people amaze me.. Every single time I cite facts upon facts of crap the muslims have done you say "b-b-b-b-but those are individual cases and not meant to reflect the normal muslim". But then what should reflect the normal muslim? How about an easy example: What if the governments of the muslim countries are held accountable for the violence which is happening in their countries? Do you think it should be the government who takes responsibility for reacting to the violence in their countries? And who do the government represent? The average muslim within that country? You don't say.. And what does it mean when the government does nothing to stop the violence, that the government is to blame for the violence, right? they have had ample opportunity to mend their ways through the years, and haven't done so... and what about the lack of reaction from the average muslim to a government which does nothing about the violence? Shouldn't this then mean that the government is doing the average muslims bidding in allowing the violence to happen?

Killfile: So relatively speaking muslims have done all right? Is that your point?

Let me ask you then, if you personally ran someone over with a car, killing that person, would you then plead not guilty because stalin has killed millions, while you have only killed one person? Would your crime be any less just because stalin killed so many more? Or would you accept the responsibility of your actions?

Plus your analysis of statistical data makes me wince.. you seriously have a strange grasp of reality by putting your faith in just a single statistical source without any fact-checking on the error margins or credibility of the data. I recommend you check out the annual reports from amnesty international http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/

Here's a quote from the 2005 report:

Justice, impunity and the death penalty in middle east and north africa

Throughout the region, states continued to pay little regard to their obligations under international human rights law. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and ill-treatment, and unfair trials – sometimes before exceptional courts – were routine. In Algeria, Iran, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, the authorities regularly placed restrictions on freedom of expression and association, or carried out sporadic clampdowns, often resulting in the detention of prisoners of conscience. Political activists continued to face arbitrary detention or prolonged imprisonment after unfair trials in countries such as Iran, Libya and Syria.

Perpetrators of human rights violations continued to enjoy complete impunity in most countries in the region. However, in Morocco, in an unprecedented measure in the region, an Equity and Reconciliation Commission was inaugurated to look into cases of "disappearances" and arbitrary detention in previous decades.

Death penalties continued to be imposed and carried out throughout the region. In Libya and other countries, death sentences were handed down after unfair trials, and in Iran, the execution of children under the age of 18 was still permitted. There was a setback in Lebanon, where capital punishment was reintroduced following a five-year de facto moratorium, when three executions were carried out at the beginning of the year. Human rights activists launched a campaign against the reintroduction of executions in Lebanon. There were public debates about the death penalty in Egypt and within the regional human rights NGOs.

Bush would have loved your keen statistical abilities when he was pleading to the UN regarding WMD's.

vtwahoo: and you mistake mine.
1) The freedom of speech means I can say anything I like
2) Laws are to handle situations between people in a neutral and fair manner
3) If you don't like something I say, you can hold me responsible for it by taking it up with a court of law.
4) The court of law will then judge in a neutral and fair manner whether my speech violates the law.
5) If it does violate the law, then I must take responsibility for breaking the law
6) if it doesn't violate the law, then I have defended my right to the freedom of speech.
7) And this step is important, I am free to say things and then accept the responsibility for it if and when it violates the law, not the other way around, otherwise you are repressing the freedom of the masses to criticise those in power.

Now, unless my speech consists of "fighting words" likely to incite violence and unless you have been endowed with the authority of a high court, I cannot be restricted.

Of course you can, the chinese do it to their citizenry all the time, and your case of limiting free speech when dealing with 'fighting words' means you've just given the government a tool to reduce criticism towards it, and any they favour.

It's the reason why people in U.S. are so afraid of the situation today, where radical republicans control the senate, the presidency and the courts. It's so incredibly ripe for abuse, and the lack of reaction to the eavesdropping in the government is a perfect example of that abuse.

But I digress... My point on muslim violence is that to muslims, anything viewed as criticism in the public domain will be attacked by violent muslims regardless of validity, and the violence in the muslim countries will be ignored by the muslim governments, and the lack of reaction to the apathy of their government is the fault of the average muslim in those countries.

But the point is that the speech in question could be considered by no less than 1.2 billion people as "fighting words" and DID incite violence.

But my whole point on this jyllands posten thing is that it's up to the court of law to decide whether they were fighting words, and they found no evidence of that.

Laik: You're really on my side, and you know it.. you're just uncomfortable about it. Just accept it mate, muslims have done and are doing some really bad things in the name of religion today.. and although many aren't, their silence and lack of action or criticism adds weight to what the bad apples are doing.

Here's an excerpt from United states Institute of peace: http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr82.html

When moderate Muslims remain silent, extremists speak for all. It is time that Muslim moderates rescued Islam and Muslim causes from the clutches of extremists.

Moderate Muslims must fight against all forms of prejudice, hatred, and intolerance within Muslim ranks and must militantly advocate peaceful resolutions of conflict both within and outside the community.

In the end, muslims are a people who have willingly limited themselves to certain religious laws, and have shown violent reaction towards anyone breaking those laws, even though they're not muslims. This debate has opened up a criticism on the violent reaction towards people not of the muslim faith, and to show the unfairness in punishing people who are not of the muslim faith.

And it is sheer hipocrisy to believe that the muslims are right to react violently in this matter or that people have a right to withhold legitimate criticism just because the people the criticism is aimed at can't handle it.

K.

[vtwahoo]

1) The freedom of speech means I can say anything I like

No it doesn't. What part of "the right to free speech is not limitless" are you still not understanding??

And the rest of your list misses the point. The legal system does not exist to provide judicial redress for every utterance nor does it exist to adjudicate every differnece between or among individuals. Instead, it is esesntial that individuals in a free society learn to discipline themselves.

Pretty much everyone---although you are showing yourself to be the exception---accepts that the right to free speech is not absolute. And we do not require courts to determine what we should or should not say. Most of us tailor our speech in accordance with the norms of our society and out of respect for others. Respect is as much a component of a civilized society as responsibility.

The "free speech" in question was disrespectful and irresponsible. I'm appalled that the speakers did not have the decency to know that.

Now, unless my speech consists of "fighting words" likely to incite violence and unless you have been endowed with the authority of a high court, I cannot be restricted.

Of course you can, the chinese do it to their citizenry all the time, and your case of limiting free speech when dealing with 'fighting words' means you've just given the government a tool to reduce criticism towards it, and any they favour.

What does this mean?

The Chinese do what?

And "fighting words" do not include critiques of the government. They are targeted at specific groups. So your argument that limits on "fighting words" constitute a tool for the government to reduce criticism is, to put it bluntly, wrong.

If your point is that a democracy is predicated on the ability of its citizens to criticize the government, I agree completely.

But you haven't said that.

All you've said so far is that Europeans have the right to criticize Muslims.

But the point is that the speech in question could be considered by no less than 1.2 billion people as "fighting words" and DID incite violence.

But my whole point on this jyllands posten thing is that it's up to the court of law to decide whether they were fighting words, and they found no evidence of that.

That's a valid point. However, if you will again -=read=- my post you will find that my response was to your question: Do you actually support restrictions on free speech? You did not qualify your question but worded it so that anyone who answered "yes" would appear opposed to the fundamentals of a democratic society. I responded merely to establish that restrictions on free speech are part of---not contrary to---a civilized society.

[Killfile]

How about an easy example: What if the governments of the muslim countries are held accountable for the violence which is happening in their countries?

Sounds reasonable to me. Are we holding non-Muslim governments accountable for the crimes of their citizenry as well? The United States alone has pursued agricultural policies which have starved millions. Portions of the US population have pursued programs which have accelerated the spread of AIDS in Africa, condemning tens of millions more to death.

I don't think that anyone has characterized the reactions of Theocratic states to be at all appropriate when it comes to the religiously motivated violence of their citizens - but what you're doing is blowing one of the world's problems way out of proportion - and in doing so pretending that there's nothing else going on that is worthy of concern. The end consequence is that anyone who reads your posts uncritically will walk away with the general impression that Muslims are violent, barbaric people who are the cause of most of the world's problems.

That - in my book - makes you a bigot, a racist, and a hate monger.

Killfile: So relatively speaking [M]uslims have done all right? Is that your point?

Historically speaking - yes. Unlike the Christians, they didn't torture and kill those who disagreed with them through all of the middle ages. There have been comparatively few acts of genocide committed by Muslim nations. Muslims, as a whole, have been a fairly peaceful people for the 1500 or so years the religion has existed.

Let me ask you then, if you personally ran someone over with a car, killing that person, would you then plead not guilty because talin has killed millions, while you have only killed one person? Would your crime be any less just because talin killed so many more? Or would you accept the responsibility of your actions?

Well I wouldn’t plead guilty to genocide but I'd be just a guilty of murder regardless of what Joseph Stalin did. To fill in the blanks in your analogy though - It would be both wrong and racist to extrapolate from my auto accident that white males are bad drivers, murders, violent people, and dangerous individuals. In the civilized world, we judge individuals based on their actions - but we do not judge cultures based on the actions of a tiny minority of the population.

Plus your analysis of statistical data makes me wince.. you seriously have a strange grasp of reality by putting your faith in just a single statistical source without any fact-checking on the error margins or credibility of the data.

Just because you didn't check any of those things on my statistics, doesn't mean I didn't. Amnesty International has lots of good information -- out of curiosity, have you seen their statistics on the horrible, vile, evil cultures that even allow the execution of minors and the mentally retarded?*

Bush would have loved your keen statistical abilities when he was pleading to the UN regarding WMD's.

Oooo.... tar me with another totally irrelevant comparison! It makes me all goosepimply!

Your pathetic attempt to derail an argument that went from a loss to an embarrassment for you isn't going to work.

* Hint: The United States is on that list.

[Wandering_Mystic]

Kasgarinn, I'm afraid to inform you that you are a serious bigot. I don't know what life has brought your way that made you embark on that dark, narrow road, but it is your willful ignorance that is keeping you in chains. Nothing anyone says here has any effect on you, not because what we have said is irrelevant or naive, but because you are simply not listening.

In good faith we try to show you concrete examples, give you images of other perspectives, show you the complexity of layers beyond black and white that exist in the different societies and cultures in the world. You ignore them. You exagerate and misinterpret our words to the point of rendering yourself incomprehensible. You see a raindrop in the sky and proclaim "The sky is falling!". Your "facts" lack context, your ignorance of Islam as a religion is plain as day, your lack of knowledge regarding who/how/what mid-east governments really are is apalling considering the number of related opinions you have, and aparently you still haven't read the article I posted.

You have a history in this forum for saying bigoted and offensive things, as well as turning people's words into something they didn't say, which shows your disrespect for other people's opinions. You even came extremely close to getting banned here once for your excessively offensive comments. I only very rarely ever think this (this being my first time), but I almost wish you had been banned. Almost. But your type of selective blindness intrigues me, and may be the death of me (god I hope not).

As for your statements (I can't call them arguments because they are so full of holes it makes my head spin), I (or maybe some other helpful soul with enough time on their hands) will try to walk you through what you said with baby steps to show you all the times you stepped in poo, but its late over here and I have some travelling to do, so our little lesson will have to wait. Before I sign off, I do want to encourage you once more to read the article I posted, please?

Edit: Ah, it appears I've been beaten to the punch