So how about these cartoons then, eh?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

A few years ago, a group of Muslims in Afghanistan violently destroyed two giant, ancient statues of Buddha. In my religion, shared by something like 300,000,000 people world wide, this is a terrible thing to do. There were no buildings burned, no violence, no death threats.

What is so different about Muslims that they react in this way to something which, objectively, is quite minor by comparrison?

What is really worrying me at the moment is the different way people are talking now. More and more westerners are openly accepting that the actions of the extremists is reflective of all Muslims. Conversely, I seem to hear more and more Muslim voices telling me that the west is wicked and Islam is right to fight back.

I keep hearing people start sentences with,

“I’m not racist, but….”
And
“I don’t hate Muslims, but….”


Which is a bit worrying.

I think it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Just my opinion.


Peace

ATF

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Yaqinud Din

This is a joke right how can a Semitic people be anti-Semitic?

Being anti-Jew and anti-Semitic is not the same thing so don't make them out to be. It seems to me that anytime anyone disagree with the Jews they call them anti-Semitic thats pure bull.

I agree that the use of terminology is misleading, but it's a term people realise relates to Jews, not all Semitic peoples.

As for the whole incident in question -it's taken me a while to form any kind of opinion on it, but now that I'm forming one, it's hard not to see the entire incident as two wrongs.

The Danish papers must have been aware of the offence they would cause prior to publication, but they went ahead anyway. In a post 9/11 world it can only have seemed an aggressive act to lampoon a central figure of Islam whom is never normally represented in images.

I feel there's a significant amount of hypocrisy in the Arabic press response, though - any paper that publishes material that seeks to offend a people, and even instil hate towards them (ie, the Jews), isn't really in a position to cry foul when their own sensibilities are attacked.

Two wrongs don't make a...

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

A few years ago, a group of Muslims in Afghanistan violently destroyed two giant, ancient statues of Buddha. In my religion, shared by something like 300,000,000 people world wide, this is a terrible thing to do. There were no buildings burned, no violence, no death threats.

What is so different about Muslims that they react in this way to something which, objectively, is quite minor by comparrison?

What is really worrying me at the moment is the different way people are talking now. More and more westerners are openly accepting that the actions of the extremists is reflective of all Muslims. Conversely, I seem to hear more and more Muslim voices telling me that the west is wicked and Islam is right to fight back.

I keep hearing people start sentences with,

“I’m not racist, but….”
And
“I don’t hate Muslims, but….”


Which is a bit worrying.

I think it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Just my opinion.


Peace

ATF

Bingo! You are totally right. If I were you since you live in Europe I suggest you start some sort of protest or organization against these fundamentalists (peaceful of course). We really need more people fighting for freedom of speech. It is probably far worse in Europe than it is in America as well and since I am not European there is nothing I can do about it. If I had the chance to I would.

[Faustus]

This is a joke right how can a Semitic people be anti-Semitic?

Being anti-Jew and anti-Semitic is not the same thing so don't make them out to be. It seems to me that anytime anyone disagree with the Jews they call them anti-Semitic thats pure bull.

You're arguing semantics now, rather than responding to the content of the cartoons, radio and television broadcasts that are regularly aired in almost every nation in the Middle East. Tell me what term we should use rather than "anti-Semitic," however, and I'll go ahead and use it (incidentally, the word "anti-Semitic" wasn't coined by a Jew at all, but by some German guy who was writing a Jew-hating book). Which would be best? Anti-Jewish? Jew-hating? Some other phrase? Which is really more important here, how we describe the behavior, or the behavior itself? I have to say that in the past, people who have pulled out the old, "Well, Muslims are Semitic, too! [Not true in all cases, incidentally, since there are plenty of white, black and Asian Muslims]" bit are usually doing so as a way of sidestepping discussion of the actual anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish/bigotted behavior. I can't help but notice that you didn't address any other aspect of my post but a comparatively minor semantic point, choosing to ignore the crux of the issue, which is, "Why is it acceptable for Middle Eastern countries to continuously produce blatantly and deliberately bigoted and offensive cartoons, TV shows, radio shows and articles about Jews, but one series of rather childish and inappropriate cartoons about a Muslim subject needs to be met with rioting, calls for beheading and burning embassies?" Personally, I don't really believe that this is just some innocent cultural difference.

Are you seriously suggesting that an article claiming that Jews drink the blood of Gentile children on Purim is simply "disagreeing with the Jews"? That creating a made-for-TV version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a known hoax designed to incite anti-Jewish sentiment is just "disagreeing with the Jews"? And which Jews, anyway? Do you think there is some international Jewish cabal, that all Jews have a hive mind and share the same opinions? Let's be realistic here. How would you react to me saying, "Well, you know how The Muslims are, disagree with them, and they'll torch your house or behead you"?

This is all missing the point, though. The real question here is, do you or do you not think that maybe, just maybe, asserting that Jews drink childrens' blood (we don't, just for the record ), portraying Jews as big-nosed, sidecurled Shylocks (look at the portrayal of Jews in one of those cartoons at the link I posted, then look at the way they were drawn in Nazi cartoons during the 1940s- very similar, and I'm sure not unintentionally so) and trying to claim that there's a secret cabal of Jewish people running the world and orchestrating things like 9-11 just might be considered bigotted and offensive by a lot of Jewish people? Do you think they're published to perpetuate hatred and negative stereotypes of Jewish people? If so, would you appreciate those Jewish people who are offended demanding the retraction of such cartoons and articles, rioting in the street, burning the embassies of various Middle Eastern countries and demanding that Muslims be tortured and beheaded? Would you consider that an appropriate, reasonable, productive reaction?

If you don't think that publishing that kind of thing is offensive, and that "the Jews" should just get over it, then I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why/how the Mohammed cartoons are worse, more offensive, and deserving of the burning, rioting and pleading for attacks by Al Qaeda that we've seen in the media (and yes, I know that not all Muslims are doing this, but still... I don't recall seeing gangs of Hasidic Jews torching the Saudi Arabian embassy with the publishing of that "scholarly article" about the so-called blood libel). Why are Middle Eastern countries apparently justified in demanding apologies for these cartoons, pulling out ambassadors and organizing boycotts, but a cartoon showing Anne Frank in bed with Hitler is "just disagreeing with the Jews," and (presumably) not even deserving of comment, let alone protests, letters to the editor or demanding a retraction? I can just imagine the reaction if groups of Jews who saw that cartoon reacted by burning a few embassies while the Israeli government demanded a retraction and apology- the very idea is almost laughable.

[truthseeker]

There came a time when Blacks got tired of the insults and fought back. Blacks looted and boycotted and sat out and marched and should an injustice occurs, blacks will loot and boycott and sit out and march again. Blacks looted in 1992 when there was just way too much police brutality. Not to say that it was right to burn down neighborhoods and bust a white man over the head that was doing nothing but getting his truck from point A to point B, but it did bring about change. It is scary for me to condone this sort of activity because if a gang member torched my house because I painted it the wrong color, I don't know how I could contain myself.

But we're not talking about my house - we're talking about the integrity of an entire people that is being insulted, consistently, around the world. The newspaper didn't insult their government official, the newspaper insulted their prophet. It isn't a big deal to somebody that isn't Muslim, but I tell you, if somebody created your mother or your daughter in a WWE smackdown game or gave Jesus hair of spaghetti and feet of donkey hooves while riding on a pink cloud to save the world, all while your belief system is degraded throughout the world without the comfort of hiding the strength of an Allied military - you would be pretty hot.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

There came a time when Blacks got tired of the insults and fought back. Blacks looted and boycotted and sat out and marched and should an injustice occurs, blacks will loot and boycott and sit out and march again. Blacks looted in 1992 when there was just way too much police brutality. Not to say that it was right to burn down neighborhoods and bust a white man over the head that was doing nothing but getting his truck from point A to point B, but it did bring about change. It is scary for me to condone this sort of activity because if a gang member torched my house because I painted it the wrong color, I don't know how I could contain myself.

But we're not talking about my house - we're talking about the integrity of an entire people that is being insulted, consistently, around the world. The newspaper didn't insult their government official, the newspaper insulted their prophet. It isn't a big deal to somebody that isn't Muslim, but I tell you, if somebody created your mother or your daughter in a WWE smackdown game or gave Jesus hair of spaghetti and feet of donkey hooves while riding on a pink cloud to save the world, all while your belief system is degraded throughout the world without the comfort of hiding the strength of an Allied military - you would be pretty hot.

It happens every day. And the Blacks who rioted destroyed their own neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The same thing happened in Detroit in 1968 and 1969. The rioting changed nothing, and did nothing for sympathy towards the particular peoples' plight. They didn't "bust a "WHITE man" over the head, they damn near killed a human being for doing nothing. Their rioting changed nothing. The neighborhoods are still the same, or worse.

And I fail to see where an allied military comes into play over any of this issue.

The integrity of many people are comprimised here. To date I have seen 56 cartoon characitures of Jews and Americans as less than human as drawn by Islamic news papers. I don't see Jews and Americans rioting in the streets, over them.

The Arab world has spent the last decade trying to convince the rest of the world that it is a peaceful world, and has a peaceful religion...and a select few have just trashed all their efforts, in the name of Mohhamad.

If some European news medias had an agenda to discredit the Arab world, then they succeeded wildly, and those select few in the Arab world did most of the work to make it happen.

If the message you are trying to present here is don't insult Arab/Muslims and they won't riot and make asses of themselves, I hardly doubt people are going to listen. If the message you are trying to present is that it is everyone elses fault for the behavior we are seeing, again, I doubt people will get that message.

This is a sad situation to be sure, but those that did the physical damage, brought the sadness upon themselves by taking the "bait". And the longer it goes on, the more the media is going to play it up and out. That is the way it is.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Faustus]

If the message you are trying to present here is don't insult Arab/Muslims and they won't riot and make asses of themselves, I hardly doubt people are going to listen. If the message you are trying to present is that it is everyone elses fault for the behavior we are seeing, again, I doubt people will get that message.

Well said.

I've said this once already, I think, but I'll ask again: which is more detrimental to Islam? Twelve rather lame political cartoons, or mobs of people burning foreign embassies (two of which, the Norweigian and Chilean, represent countries that had nothing to do with the cartoons in the first place), screaming for the cartoonists to be beheaded, saying they'll kidnap/kill any Westerner found in their midst and calling for Osama bin Laden to blow up France and Germany? This might be something the people engaging in these behaviors want to consider for a moment. I know what makes me inclined to view Islam in a more negative light, and it's not those stupid cartoons. The photo I saw of a little girl in London wearing a shirt that said "I [heart] Osama," however....

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It happens every day. And the Blacks who rioted destroyed their own neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The same thing happened in Detroit in 1968 and 1969. The rioting changed nothing, and did nothing for sympathy towards the particular peoples' plight. They didn't "bust a "WHITE man" over the head, they damn near killed a human being for doing nothing. Their rioting changed nothing. The neighborhoods are still the same, or worse.

Everyone is not seeking sympathy.

And I fail to see where an allied military comes into play over any of this issue.

You often do, in any issue that doesn't hail it - but you are right: we are talking about disrespect and the results thereof, perhaps.

If the message you are trying to present here is don't insult Arab/Muslims and they won't riot and make asses of themselves, I hardly doubt people are going to listen. If the message you are trying to present is that it is everyone elses fault for the behavior we are seeing, again, I doubt people will get that message.

The matter of respect begins with me and you, is the message I am trying to get across. But it didn't come out sugary-sweet enough for you, which is often the case. Sounds like I must present you with the gifts that are suitable enough for you before you care to respect that I value anything. Peace is not bearing gifts to your approval or allowing you to do as you please. It begins with an acknowledgement of the value of all human personality. The cartoons represented a Danish newspaper that made asses of themselves by insulting the core of a people's belief system; and that was very wrong too.
I don't have Arab/Muslim issues. I am not Arab, Muslim, Israeli, nor am I in the United States military. But when you want to make an impact, you hit where it hurts. Those who are trained to use their mind, will. Those who are trained in force often use it. Each party knew exactly what they were doing. And, uh, yeah. Quit messing with those people like that and maybe you won't get your embassy burnt down. Quit messing with the US and maybe you won't get your nation bombed up. Quit trying to break into my house and maybe you won't cut up....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Everyone is not seeking sympathy.

You often do, in any issue that doesn't hail it - but you are right: we are talking about disrespect and the results thereof, perhaps.

The matter of respect begins with me and you, is the message I am trying to get across. But it didn't come out sugary-sweet enough for you, which is often the case. Sounds like I must present you with the gifts that are suitable enough for you before you care to respect that I value anything. Peace is not bearing gifts to your approval or allowing you to do as you please. It begins with an acknowledgement of the value of all human personality. The cartoons represented a Danish newspaper that made asses of themselves by insulting the core of a people's belief system; and that was very wrong too.
I don't have Arab/Muslim issues. I am not Arab, Muslim, Israeli, nor am I in the United States military. But when you want to make an impact, you hit where it hurts. Those who are trained to use their mind, will. Those who are trained in force often use it. Each party knew exactly what they were doing. And, uh, yeah. Quit messing with those people like that and maybe you won't get your embassy burnt down. Quit messing with the US and maybe you won't get your nation bombed up. Quit trying to break into my house and maybe you won't cut up....

I'm sorry. Being angry over an insulting cartoon and protesting is one thing, and understandable. Destroying property that is not yours, and killing over a dozen people because of a cartoon that is insulting is totally different.

There is no excuse for that.

[Yaqinud Din]

You're arguing semantics now, rather than responding to the content of the cartoons, radio and television broadcasts that are regularly aired in almost every nation in the Middle East. Tell me what term we should use rather than "anti-Semitic," however, and I'll go ahead and use it (incidentally, the word "anti-Semitic" wasn't coined by a Jew at all, but by some German guy who was writing a Jew-hating book). Which would be best? Anti-Jewish? Jew-hating? Some other phrase? Which is really more important here, how we describe the behavior, or the behavior itself? I have to say that in the past, people who have pulled out the old, "Well, Muslims are Semitic, too! [Not true in all cases, incidentally, since there are plenty of white, black and Asian Muslims]" bit are usually doing so as a way of sidestepping discussion of the actual anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish/bigotted

I'm not arguing semantics I'm just sick of Jews saying Semitic people are anti semitic it makes you guys look like fools. Yes they are alot of black,asian and white Muslims but how can they be anti semitic? maybe anti Jew but sorry their not anti semitic. I'm not side sidestepping anything.

Do you think there is some international Jewish cabal, that all Jews have a hive mind and share the same opinions?

Yes I think all jews have the same opinion I read it in the times that was a joke I don't want people to start calling anti semitic

Go to this website http://www.masada2000.org this website makes fun of Muslim even calls us names. What you don't seem to get is this is not about making fun of Muslims its about people making fun of a Prophet of God. Show me one picture of Muslims making fun of Moses or any other prophet of God.

Most of the Protests were very peaceful this is a fact some did get out of hand and you know the west loves to show out of hand Muslims.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Yaqinud Din

Go to this website http://www.masada2000.org this website makes fun of Muslim even calls us names. What you don't seem to get is this is not about making fun of Muslims its about people making fun of a Prophet of God. Show me one picture of Muslims making fun of Moses or any other prophet of God.

Most of the Protests were very peaceful this is a fact some did get out of hand and you know the west loves to show out of hand Muslims.

Those are good points - some of the European press have emphasised that demonstrations in Europe and North America have been peaceful.

Also, the use of religious figures is another good point - I noticed that when I saw the anti-Jewish cartoons that they fixated on political figures, not religious ones.

[Faustus]

So you would say that portraying Jews as Nazis and trying to reinvigorate old, old justifications for Jew-hatred (such as the blood libel, which was the cause of many a pogrom) is less offensive than portraying Mohammed? Tell that to my friend whose grandmother is a Holocaust survivor. And while the cartoons fixated on political figures (actually, I don't think that's true- many, many of them portrayed average Jews- well, average "Shylock" types, not Sharon or any political figures I recognized), what about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Or the blood libel article, asserting that part of the celebration of Purim is drinking childrens' blood? Give me a break.

The Middle East has been the home of Jew-hating cartoons, books and literature for decades now, and yet I haven't heard of one instance where gangs of ultra-Orthodox Jews have felt compelled to take to the streets and burn a few embassies (and if there is such a case, please post something about it, and I'll shut up right now). People have written letters and editorials and complained, as is absolutely their right and quite reasonable, but no one has called for retractions, no embassies have been burned, no diplomats pulled out, no demands for governmental apologies made. And calling the Holocaust, an event that killed two-thirds of the world's Jews "a myth" is offensive, just as offensive as any of those cartoons. Saying that Jews kill non-Jewish children for Purim is just as offensive as any of those cartoons. Saying that "the Jews" planned and executed 9-11 is just as offensive as those cartoons. Yet I'm hearing people brush all of that off with, "Well, no one portrayed one of your prophets." First of all, Judaism doesn't have the same restriction on images of prophets as Islam, so it wouldn't be an issue (otherwise I'm sure some newspaper would have tried it by now), and second of all, I suspect that the only thing stopping anyone is that virtually all of Judaism's prophets are prophets in Islam, as well. I would guess that mocking Jews and Judaism at the expense of Islam would be just a bit too far, since that would actually be going against the Qu'ran while most of the folks publishing and enjoying these anti-Jewish cartoons and so on would have you believe that the Qu'ran allows and encourages anti-Judaism (which it doesn't, at least not based on my reading of it).

I'm not arguing semantics I'm just sick of Jews saying Semitic people are anti semitic it makes you guys look like fools. Yes they are alot of black,asian and white Muslims but how can they be anti semitic? maybe anti Jew but sorry their not anti semitic. I'm not side sidestepping anything.

And yet you answered all of one of the points I raised in my post. You're not sidestepping anything, but you're not bothering to actually engage in substantive discussion, either, are you? You just don't like someone pointing out that Arab countries (even "moderate" ones) have been publishing cartoons, articles and books that are every bit as offensive to Jews as those Mohammed cartoons are to Muslims. You've tried to brush that off by saying, "Oh, well, how can we be anti-Semitic if we're Semites?" when I addressed that, you say, "Well, we get accused just for disagreeing with Jewish people!" So I'll ask again: do you feel that stating that drinking childrens' blood is an integral part of Jewish holiday observance is "just disagreeing"? This was in an article by a "scholar" in a Saudi paper- it was presented as fact. Are you arguing that it's not offensive and not something people have a right to get upset about? You don't like Muslims being portrayed as terrorists (completely understandable), but apparently it's perfectly all right to present "the Jews" as a bunch of blood-drinking, baby-killing, world-controlling monsters. That's "just disagreeing." Is that what you're saying? Because that's how it comes across. I don't know if English is your first language, so maybe there's just a communication gap or something, but if you really believe that the things published in the Middle East regarding Jews are "just disagreeing" and found any less offensive by Jewish people (and a hell of a lot of non-Jews, based on the reactions of people I know who've seen them) than the Mohammed cartoons in that Danish paper, you're mistaken.

What you don't seem to get is this is not about making fun of Muslims its about people making fun of a Prophet of God. Show me one picture of Muslims making fun of Moses or any other prophet of God.

Is this because they want to extend respect and consideration toward Jews, or is it because Judaism and Islam happen to share the belief that Moses et al are prophets, so to make fun of them would be an offense against Islam, as well as Judaism? And I should say here that by "they" I'm referring to the type of people producing the Jew-hating cartoons and other stuff, not all Muslims, since I actually do know Muslims who are perfectly respectful of Jewish people and Judaism and don't believe we drink childrens' blood, which is very kind and rational of them.

Oh, and speaking of portraying Mohammed, we do all realize that this guy has been pictured practically since he showed up on Earth, right? Here are various historical pictures portraying Mohammed that date back to the 1300s (obviously, don't look if you'll be offended by pictures of Mohammed- there's also a lot of images, so it takes a minute to load). This isn't some brand-new thing.

The author of the website you posted, incidentally, is an Israeli. In 1997, she drew a cartoon of Mohammed as a pig authoring the Qu'ran (the cartoon is on that site) and tried to post it in public in the city of Hebron. What happened to her? I'm sure everyone laughed and found it hysterical, y'know how those Israelis are. Except they didn't: she was arrested, tried and sentenced to jail time.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Also, the use of religious figures is another good point - I noticed that when I saw the anti-Jewish cartoons that they fixated on political figures, not religious ones.

Can I add one point? Christian and Jewish prophets are also recognized as prophets of Allah. That is why you would not see them say anything derogatory about Moses or Jesus. The three faiths are considered people of the book.

[I, Brian]

Indeed - and I'm not supporting the use of anti-Jewish material. I'm simply noting the distinction of political vs religious figures.

[Faustus]

Except that to my mind, trying to portray Jews themselves as blood-sucking babykillers is insulting a religious figure. You're insulting people based on their religion- insulting a particular religious community. It's every bit as offensive as Mohammed being portrayed as a terrorist (thus insinuating that all Muslims are terrorists) to take a nasty charicature of a Jew with a big nose and peyos and show him killing Palestinian children, because it's doing the same thing as the Mohammed cartoon- expressing blatant bigotry toward an entire religious denomination. Oh, and there's the whole Purim/drinking blood article, which is a wholly religious issue and has nothing to do with politics at all.

The only reason these cartoons don't mock Moses and friends is because the Jewish prophets happen to be prophets in Islam, as well, so to mock them would be mocking the cartoonists' own religion. And I'm sure that sounds cynical, but given the content of those cartoons, I think it's a pretty safe bet that they're not refraining from mocking Jewish religious figures out of newfound respect of or consideration for the religious side of things.

I understand that you're not saying, "Hey, it's cool, it's just political figures!" But the reason they're sticking either to generic Jews, specifically Jewish observances or political figures is because while they can twist the Qu'ran to allow them to mock the people, it won't let them mock their own prophets, not even to stick it to "the Jews." I don't think they're refraining out of sensitivity or political correctness.