Apparent Danish Muslims Apologizing for the Cartoons
The World Today – Cartoons of Muslim prophet spark free speech debate
The cartoons were first printed last September — they include drawings of Muhammad wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.
The controversy was given new life when they were recently reprinted by a Norwegian magazine.
They’ve trigged violent protests in the Middle East, Danish products have been boycotted and death threats have been issued. Saudi Arabia and Libya have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark.
Staff at the paper which initially published the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten in Denmark, have had to evacuate their offices twice after bomb threats.
From Der Spiegel there is this report:
In Aarhus, Denmark, an editor says the societal debate unleashed by his paper’s controversial decision to publish political cartoons of the prophet Muhammad has justified his move. In the town, many residents are standing behind Jyllands-Posten…
The call came at five o’clock in the evening. A man warned the receptionist in English: There’s a bomb in the building and it’s going to go off in 10 minutes. A few seconds later, more than 200 employees — editors, secretaries and printing staff — fled the offices of Jyllands-Posten in Denmark’s second-largest city, Aarhus. The police quickly turned up on the scene, as did the journalists, photographers and satellite trucks.
So let me get this straight. Mohammed (nobody has any clue as to what he looks like), is portrayed in a silly cartoon with a bomb on his head and suddenly a bunch of people protest this by threatening to bomb. Do any of these people see an irony here? And talk about easily insulted.
I should mention that the Danes, unlike the nearby Dutch and the Swedes clamped down on letting Arabs and Algerians and other ethnic groups immigrate at will. It will be interesting to see how this tempest plays out. This is extremely undercovered in the USA media (as usual).
related link:
Copies of many of the offending cartoons (and more) archived here on the Atlas Shrugged site. The cartoon that shows a fellow in heaven saying, “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins” to a line of guys who appear to have blown themselves up is just plain funny to any Westerner (with a sense of humor). It’s not insulting in any Western way. It’s a joke. It’s a gag. Non-Western people who cannot accept this sort of poignant humor should not be in Western countries nor should they do business with Western people. Thus they will never see the cartoon in the first place and be happy campers. Reacting with bomb threats is just bad. The people in the picture above should be ashamed of themselves.
#26 – you just confirmed exactly what I said:
The original cartoon was published knowing that it would offend. It was in fact pointing that out.
Plus it’s not satire, its deliberate defamation against the religion. Not that that shouldn’t be protected (just like every characture of jesus or buddha) but there is no way the artist or the paper could say “we didn’t know this would cause a huge ammount of offence to muslims”
What they probably didn’t predict was the conservative muslim states going ape-shit over it. They probably didn’t think it would go that far.
To Gregallen:
To equate those that would protest flag-burning to muslim cartoon protester is a b-i-g s-t-r-e-t-c-h IMO. No matter how acrimonious that stupid flag burning amendment is in this country, I can’t recall any incidence where people in this country used guns or stormed newspapers or buildings to silence or intimidate the opposition over flag burning. And even if they did I’d wager it was the act of a few individuals on the fringes.
The point that everyone is missing is that YOU CAN’T NEGOTIATE with these people. It’s not because they are all unreasonable. It’s because there is no head of Islam. There are many who preach various brands of Islam which are very radical and some which are not. Islam is like a hydra with many heads. Cut one down and another 2 takes their place. The source of the problem is that for many decades, in order to hold onto power, the Saudis have been pumping money into various mosques and this has led to building a network of radical Islamic thinkers which has been a nesting ground for terrorism. It hasn’t helped that our foreign policy is skewed to supporting Israel at any cost.
The solution? It’s not easy, but STOP THE FLOW OF MONEY. Put the USA (and the world for that matter) on a different energy source. Stop buying mideast oil. Pressure the Saudis to stop funding the muslim radicals and move to democracy.
david, you are an ugly asshole. your mother blows for 5 cents. your father takes it up the rear and your whole family is full of crap.
you see, just words.
I don’t believe the words I wrote about myself above. Saying something doesn’t make it so UNLESS I *BELIEVE* IT! It doesn’t even matter if you believe it. Actually, it doesn’t even matter THAT IT IS TRUE. What is true is only what *I* believe.
People who get insulted by words are people who are holding on to an IDEA that words can hurt. They hurt because they hold on to an idea of SELF. You believe you are John C. Dvorak. But what you really are saying is that you are a THOUGHT of John C. Dvorak. The seperation of your REAL self and your RELATIVE self is caused by THOUGHT. So when you believe in thought, another thought can hurt you because YOU are a thought. Everyone suffers from this problem. Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.
Look at us. There is a bill to make it unconstitutional to burn or desecrate the U.S. Flag. It is nonsense. But some Americans will KILL to defend a piece of cloth with painted red, blue and white symbols. That is the way the head U.S. government wants you to feel. Because when they need you to die for THEIR causes they wave a flag and YOU FOLLOW IT into battle. You have been programmed to do this from 1st grade. EVERY morning you recited something that became a part of your burnt in memory:
“I pledge allegiance TO THE FLAG…”
Dude, they suckered you into believing to defend a piece of CLOTH. It doesn’t start off “I pledge allegiance to FREEDOM…” . That is opposite of their agenda.
You see, BELIEF is EVERYTHING. Want to be free? BELIEVE IN NOTHING. Everything else is just acting, but the actors have forgotten that they are merely acting.
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players” -Shakespeare.
You don’t see it. You are just acting. But you are getting lost in your roles. We’ve made the UNREAL real. You do not live in reality. YOU LIVE IN UNREALITY.
rus32
I don’t understand your rabid denunciation of Aljazeera. Since you made a big deal about their saying suicide bombers are “martyrs”, could you provide a link where they said that? I just came from the Aljazeera site and I could see nothing of the sort.
Maybe you are unaware that Aljazeera is condemned and prohibited by several Arab and Muslim dictatorial states. The Emir of Dubai has allowed Aljazeera a free hand to report the news without any political interference. They often do unflattering stories about Arab governments. The reporting of a story in no way means that that organization believes in those tenets.
You have also pointed out that Western news outlets criticize their own governments. By this token, I guess FOX is not a news outlet. But then, I already knew that.
So rus62, could you give a link showing Aljazeera support of terrorist activities? Do not supply a link with personal commentary or quoting some third party. You see, unless you can back up what you wrote above (#17), you just another rabid hate monger.
pj
I think your post in #27 confirmed exactly what ckrantz said in post #28. These cartoon were published by the newspaper solely to show that they could. They knew the reason that cartoonists wouldn’t take the work is because it would insult Muslims. I don’t accept that the Danish paper was taking any high moral ground, actually it was the opposite.
david
I didn’t know that about your mother.
Pat, hahahaha.
Thanks.
site admin,
I responded to comment #31 before I wrote comment #37. What happened to it?
david
Pat, Aljazeera correspondents have publicly stated on interviews I have seen on CNN that they call these “suicide bombers” martyrs. They admit to it. So there is no link. That is not commentary. I don’t think it is correct for a news organization to call them martyrs. Now if they want to say the Palestinians call them martyrs then they are reporting and that’s ok. If they have a commentary program like “Abdul O’Reilly”and the commentary calls them martyrs then that is commentary and it is okay even though I don’t agree with it.
I guess anyone from the left will think Fox is pro Bush/republican just like anyone from the right will believe NBC is pro Clinton (both of them)/democratic. So what are you a Fox hate monger?
Personally, I like my current and past Presidents. Although I may not agree with them all of the time.
Here is the actual story, which seems be totally forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Debate_about_self-censorship
rus62
C’mon, where is the link? I’ve heard FOX refer to Muslims as a bunch of hatred spewing radicals. That doesn’t prove anything.
Aljazeera calls them martyrs. Where does Aljazeera call them martyrs? Got any CNN links?
Why would you post such a lie? Is it you own personal bias? Is it something you heard about on FOX SPEWS and accepted as gospel?
…Aljazeera say this on their website:
“Our team of dedicated journalists with their multi-national education and diversified backgrounds share a common set of attributes: objectivity, accuracy, and a passion for truth.” I don’t know about you but that is the biggest bunch of bull. At least the Western press will criticize their own governments and policies but they don’t dare to.
C’mon rus62. What can you show me that was broadcast by Aljazeera that violates their Mission Statement?
Pat, After my last post I did find some links. It was Larry King, but as you know Larry is usually not aggressive. It was the producer of Al Jazeera. The funny thing is the person who posed the question happens to be the famous Judith Miller of the NY Times. Wouldn’t O’Reilly hate that?
Also, I do have Muslim friends. So please I do not hate all Muslims. If you or anyone took it that way, my apologies.
One is transcripts of Larry King and the other states the same. Here are the links:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/15/lkl.00.html
http://www.us.imdb.com/news/sb/2001-10-17
Sorry for some reason links aren’t working any more. I have to talk to IT about this.
One more thing. Do you think CBS should keep Bob Shieffer at the anchor or waste a bunch of money on Katie?
Personally, I liked the days of Cronkite who kept his personal views out of the news and left commentary to Eric Severeid. Don’t forget Huntley and Brinkley, they weren’t bad either.
So Pat, you favor arresting these cartoonists and publishers, but you think TSA is infringing on civil liberties?
ABCD
I never suggested that the cartoonists or publisher should be arrested. I believe that what they did was in very bad taste and provocative. There is no moral ground that they can stand on.
I do believe TSA infringes upon our Civil Rights.
May I take it from your questioning that you think the cartoonist is a hero?
They call them “martyrs” because they don’t have an airforce.
rus62
These are good links. They don’t pass though. You stated that “Aljazeera” calls suicide bombers martyrs. The links are for a single producer. He doesn’t speak for the network any more then Larry King speaks for CNN or Judith Miller speaks for Time.
From the article…
An Al-Jazeera producer …
From the transcript:…
KING: Your network broadcasts — it takes a view that anything that comes in, you put on, right? If it comes in from bin Laden, you put it on. If it comes in from the Taliban, you put it on — it if comes in from the northern areas of Afghanistan. Is that role of your network: to express the views of all?
SUYYAGH: We try to have a balancing act, yes. We try and put every view out there possible on the air, yes. We do. We do. …
SUYYAGH: It’s all in the cause. I think that’s what we’re trying to do, is differentiate between the causes.
We still think that the acts of New York and Washington were terror attacks because they were causeless.
I also think it would be wise to understand that the producer, Dana Suyyagh, is speaking in a second language and might have missed something in translation. I don’t think he elaborated enough but I do believe he is referring to the Palestinian cause of resisting oppression by the Israelis. Most mid-Eastern people feel that Israel is the aggressor and has committed a multitude of terrorist acts against the Palestinians.
And Judith Miller is the last journalist to be used as a good example. She is a right wing ideologue who has been outed for spreading the myth of WMDs when she knew there was absolutely no evidence of any. The time she spent in jail was to protect members of the Bush administration, not on some self martyring principle about journalistic integrity.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Aljazeera is playing to a Mid-Eastern people. This is a total different audience then what FOX SPEWS plays to. The languages are different and the mind set is different. Aljazeera would win any day over objectivity.
Pat, Reread this:
From the transcripts of Oct 15, 2001 on CNN Larry King Live:
MILLER: Do you call a people who blow themselves up on the West Bank and in Gaza and in Israel martyrs, because that’s another thing we have heard about your network?
SUYYAGH: Yes, we do. We do. Only since…
MILLER: And do you think that’s objective or…
SUYYAGH: Yes.
I don’t care if it was a child asking. She asked a question on live tv and he answered it clearly.
And now you say Aljazeera is playing to the Mideast people. So how do I know when they are or are not playing to the Mideast people?
What does Fox News have to do with all of this anyway?
I made a point and I backed it up.
Well, it’s like arguing with a wife, you can’t win.
>never suggested that the cartoonists or publisher should be arrested.
OK, I misinterpreted your comment about this being hate speech to mean you thought it was a crime, since that’s how Canada deals with things like this.
Part of the reason for the reaction is that Muslim groups deliberately stoked it by adding 3 more cartoons to the list that were never part of the original set. One had Mohammed in a pig’s snout, and another as a demon pedophile.
To synclair,
Flag Burning isn’t a perfect analogy but it is a better analogy than Jesus, which most people are making.
Here’s why I say this:
There are many American who value free speech but think the flag is so sacred that it is above free speech.
Substitute “fhe Prophet” for the flag, and you have the Muslim view of this issue.
No analogy is perfect but I think the core of it stands.
If supporters of the flag-burning ammendment reflected on their logic and emotions… they should have some insight into why Muslims are reacting this way.
Rus62
I wouldn’t consider an incomplete sentence that was interrupted by an interviewer with an agenda a very good reference. Second, a producer speaks for himself, not the network.
From post #36
So rus62, could you give a link showing Aljazeera support of terrorist activities? Do not supply a link with personal commentary or quoting some third party. You see, unless you can back up what you wrote above (#17), you just another rabid hate monger.
from post 41
…C’mon rus62. What can you show me what was broadcast by Aljazeera that violates their Mission Statement?
Comment by Pat — 2/3/2006 @ 2:27 pm
As a reminder, Aljazeera Mission Statement, as you posted it is (From post #17) :
“Our team of dedicated journalists with their multi-national education and diversified backgrounds share a common set of attributes: objectivity, accuracy, and a passion for truth.”
and your comment on that:
I don’t know about you but that is the biggest bunch of bull.
The reason that the Bush Administration doesn’t like Aljazeera is because they might have a grain of truth to what they report. Their reporters are not censored by their owner or any government. The Pentagon has a contract to with a private company to plant pro US articles in Iraqi news outlets. The administration has done the same in the US. Bush wanted to “take out” the Aljazeera headquarters and was only stopped by Tony Blair.
So while you are all hopped up on attacking a news outlet that doesn’t conform to your way of thinking, take a look at the loss of objectivity in the American mainstream media and Bush’s efforts to quash any remaining objectivity.
BTW, your comment in Post #42,
Also, I do have Muslim friends. So please I do not hate all Muslims. If you or anyone took it that way, my apologies.
is extremely condescending. Hey, I have black friends too, but…
It’s amazing they (the Muslims) get so riled up over these cartoons but when an Islamic terrorist kills someone or several people with a bomb strapped to themselves the press in the Middle East and the people there applaud it, reward it, and call them matyrs. from post #17
rus62 — folks who stay in touch with journalism around the world also know that Aljazeera has passed through two major management changes since the interview you chose to quote.
They narrowed the breadth of coverage a wee bit closer to the center — to accompany their oft-applied appelation as the CNN of the Middle East. This was accompanied by losing a couple of their most talented and well-known stringers to NBC — taking place within the context of NBC trying to build a stronger presence in the Middle East at the same time.
At the time, it was apparent their management was hoping for an accomodation with the dolts in Washington, DC. Since this was followed on by acts ranging from the murder of journalists in Iraq to the eventual discovery of the Downing Street memo where Bush proposed bombing them, I’m surprised that Aljazeera has maintained that centrist position.
When I look at those cartoons, I can’t help thinking of old WWII propaganda posters. Does anyone else see this? The caricature of the evil enemy, at that time sanctioned by governments, is now being published by the Western press itself, with some of those governments apparently trying to put a stop to it before the world is aflame with religious wars (the ghost of John Calvin rears its ugly head).
And of course, in Muslim countries they’ve been doing the same thing all along to ‘infidels’, simply because the dehumanizing label “THEM” is pan-cultural. It’s not blasphemy if they don’t belong to your religion. Call a Muslim fundamentalist a hypocrite for caricaturing the Jews? He’ll just laugh.
Where I come from, it’s considered a bit of bad taste to make fun of people’s religious beliefs, if only in a feel-sorry-for-them kind of way. H L Mencken once said, when told he was insulting people’s faith, “I don’t hate religious people, I just find them comical”.
But they don’t understand the essential harmlessness of lampooning.
They’d rather cry with the saints instead of laugh with the sinners.
Freedom of speech and expression? By all means! But surely this was done in bad taste. Take the sucide bombers cartoon. First of all, killing yourself and innocent lives is just not what the Prophet taught. If you take the “Muhammad” out of the cartoon, yes…thats funny because its making fun of those who killed themselves stupidly (too late now) believing that they will be rewarded in after life… but to associate the a caricature to represent the Prophet?
Recombobulator: Yes, I suspect there are muslims who will caricature the jews but they probably will never caricature moses, abraham or david…
I think , it is not right to publish such cartoons. it is a violation of human rights. it is an era of libralism. but ones boundries ends where the others rights starts. Muslims also have rights. All should respect others. The fun is not only toheart others( My English is not so good as I do not learn English good)
I’m sure that one reason why some Western countries have created relatively successful societies is because people have learned to laugh at themselves and each other more, in ways that most individuals eventually learn to understand is not really threatening. It points the way to developing a cultural habit of overall tolerance among people of diverse backgrounds.
I remember a children’s schoolyard saying that went, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. That has a healthy ring to it in general, and any society that gets it will surely have an ultimate advantage over others in the long run that do not, no matter what their religious or political faith is.
MY mentions Abraham and Moses as names that Muslims wouldn’t make fun of. You must understand that a secular person might say to him/herself: “So, Muslims do it too, then? So what did the Jews do to deserve to be caricatured and not Muhammed?” And please, no conspiracy theories. They’re hard to take seriously in this day and age.
It seems to indicate something much more ancient in human behavior, though, far older than the times of Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Buddha, et al… So, we laugh at all the lot of them, what else could we do?
We ‘infidels’ are coming to realize that the human species is a pretty screwball phenomenon, with a lot of off-the-wall ways on all sides, and the more slack we can give each other, the better off we’ll all be.
Lenny Bruce (who was Jewish) once had a little skit that went,
Okay okay, we did it! We killed Christ. I found a note in my Aunt’s basement. It read:
“We killed him.”
-signed,
Morty
The above quote makes subtle fun of all religious intolerance that ever was, imho.
Recombobulator: The point is, muslims …I suspect will not make fun of prophets or caricature prophets…even prophets closest to judaism…as the names I mentioned. You can caricature muslims or the “negativity” of some of the muslims like those who killed themselves (I mentioned that in my last post). By caricaturing that, you’re making fun of those people…the ugly side…not the entire community as much nor their Prophet, as how the muslims caricature the jews…some of the ugly side of the jews but not the Prophets from the jews…nor are they associating the Prophets with the ugly side of the jews (if any..like sabra and shatilla)…I think caricaturing prophets and communities is two different things altogether.
In the end, it’s really about being sensitive. I suppose a secular person too has some degree of sensitiveness. And when in this current time when there is a lot of distrust, the cartoons was just simply a bad choice for displaying examples of freedom of speech. Probably if you were to read Richard Itani’s article in Counterpunch, then you may see that the “freedom of speech” argument is really jaded…
( http://www.counterpunch.org/itani02022006.html )
Two words: race-baiting. That’s what these cartoons were.
I made that point twice already, that plus the fact that these cartoons do not qualify for protection under any freedom of speech legislation in any country as they are racist and could reasonably have been foreseen to incite violence.
Let’s see if I get censored a third time. To be honest, I’m very disappointed, John.
Race-baiting? Please inform me as to the race being baited?
Negro? Mongoloid? Caucasian? Other? Seriously. Which “race” is being baited?
I’m disappointed in you my friend. Your notion of race goes a little too far back in history — where, for example, the Irish were called a race. Shame!
These cartoons were poignant humor. And mild at that. So you are disappointed because I think people are getting too worked up over it?? Geez.
religion is religion
prophet is prophet who should have respect from all people all over the world so……………….
god will send u to the hill for that
(muslim person)
Arab. For an example of the usage, just browse google.
As noted in one of my previous mysteriously unposted comments (I’m sure it was just an error of ommission), those cartoons were not innocuous, and they were meant to bait. If they genuinely were the product of poor judgement, then an immediate sincere apology would have been seen after the reaction across the Arab world (and even in non-arab predominantly Islamic coutries such as Pakistan and Indonesia). Instead there was defiance and arrogance, followed by a less than sincere apology (one of those, ‘well, it’s really your problem for being offended’-type jobies)… a prelude to other European pubs posting the same cartoons in the name of free speech, which this clearly does not qualify as (hate and racism are not covered).
As noted, if this was a cartoon of a famous Christian or Jewish religious figure in heaven congratulating ‘his’ people for killing Arabs, even in a toungue-in-cheek manner, the howls would have been just as loud among the respectively offended groups.
But it’s just a bunch of Arabs, so it’s ok to make fun of them for being offended…
I love DIMMU BORGIR from Norway! those band is anti christ! christ bastard!