Danish Counter-boycott



On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:34:17 -0500, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>>
>> > That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government
>> > that waved
>> > a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper.
>> > The
>> > government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting
>> > with
>> > some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an
>> > issue of
>> > free speech.
>> >
>>
>> What I find particularly troubling is that when the original cartoons were
>> circulated in the Muslim world, some persons unknown added additional and
>> even more offensive cartoons that they created, attributing them to the
>> Danish newspaper, to further inflame the population. While much more
>> blatant, this is akin to the continual program of disinformation from the
>> Bush administration, with the willing help of Fox News and other servile
>> "news" outlets, to whip up public support for the war and their other
>> policies.
>>
>
>It would certainly be ironic that someone in the middle east, and presumably
>Moslem, would create even more offensive cartoons than the originals. One would
>expect that to be a greater sin than drawing or publishing the originals.
>

There are only Muslims in the Middle East? Someone else wants to
blame this affair on Bush...

When I see such thinking in anti-Bushites, I despair that we'll ever
get rid of the neocons.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"aem" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
> Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
> only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
> stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
> Muslims to take offence.
>
> Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
> show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?
>
> I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
> desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
> insult believers they get angry.

And the Muslims have every right to be angry, to write letters to the
editor and publisher of the newspaper, boycott the paper and publicize
the insult. They do not have the right to riot, beat Danish employees,
tear up and vandalize embassies, and kill. That is the difference
between the Christian response to the television show and the Muslim
response to cartoons.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote:

> No it isn't This is fundie started & fundie fueled. There is a long a
> beautiful history of images in Islam. Ever seen any Persian
> miniatures?

There is a big difference between the Shiite minority and the Sunni
majority view, and actually graven images, any image of human or animal
is prohibited. This is why there are so many beautiful geometrics and
mosaics from Muslim culture.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Glitter Ninja) wrote:

> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
> entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
> and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
> antagonize, end of story.

I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword. However,
study of the Qu'ran as well as the statements of Muslim leaders
throughout the world would support these depictions. They are quite
quick to associate Mohammed with militant power.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...
>

Michel, you are increasingly defending the indefensible.

I see caricatures of the pope in a newspaper - does this mean that catholics
all over the world are beginning to burn down New Zealand embassies? Not on
your nelly.
Nor have the Mormons declared a Holy War because somebody took the **** out of
them.

Your argumentation sounds frightfully close to me to something like: We
shouldn't portray slaveholders in a bad light because it might hurt their
feelings. We shouldn't mention Nazi deathcamps because we might offend the
Nazis' political credo. Get real.

What we are seeing at the moment, across the Muslim world, and most likely
fanned by unsonscionable clerics and political agitators (to wit, the fake
drawings that are being circulated in Muslim countries) actually _confirms_
the perception the cartoonists captured on paper. No more, no less.

I can virtually guarantee that 99% of Islam doesn't give a **** wether X-
tianity is also a revealed religion or a pagan cult. With, maybe, the exception
of a few recluse scholars.

The bottom line a.f.a.i.c.s. is this: two tribes going "our tribe better than
your tribe" "We have big clubs" "We hit your women and children over the head
if you don't do as we say". (sorry, this is about as close to neanderthal speak
as I can get).
Usually I don't take sides in these conflicts, but in this case I know which
side I stand on. As a psychologist and social worker I have seen entirely too
much of how Muslim men, be they political refugees or be they immigrant
workers, behave towards their hosts and towards their own for me to have much
respect for that religion/culture. What decides me is not the theological fine
print (yeah, I have studied theology for 3 semesters, too) but the teenage girl
beaten to within an inch of her life because she wants another year of
schooling in a German highschool, or because she doesn't want an arranged
marriage with a 75 year old in Anatolia. Or outright stabbed to death by her
brothers because she allowed herself to be raped by one of their mates. Blah,
blah. Too much of that, entirely too much. Barbaric.

So somebody puts pen to paper to voice their opinion and here you come with
your 'revealed religion'. Sorry man, but that carries no more weight with me
than pastors who bless guns (remember, you shall not kill?!?) and Southern
Baptists who thank the Lord for the Nucular Bomb So We Can Show Those Reds.

The bloody lot of them should burn in Hell, unfortunately that's just a silly
concept to scare little children and the Hard of Thinking. And ******** the
politically correct with a brown ring somewhere around their neckline who can't
see what's going on around them because they have their head in the [not-sand].

regds, -Peter

--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
 
Ranee Mueller wrote:

> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.

And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.
 
On 2006-02-07, Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ranee Mueller wrote:
>
>> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
>> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.
>
> And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
> riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
> that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.

It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.

OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammeds-breakfast-of-blasphemy/

nb
 
notbob wrote:
> On 2006-02-07, Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ranee Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
>>>that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.
>>
>>And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
>>riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
>>that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.
>
>
> It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
> cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.
>
> OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
> http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammeds-breakfast-of-blasphemy/
>
> nb
>


Shouldn't these immams be stoned for blasphemy (drawing Mohammed with a
pig snout, etc) and bearing false witness by claiming that the Danes had
drawn/published them? I believe blasphemy and false witness of a
capital offense were both punishable by death under the Mosaic law, and
so probably also punishable by death under Islamic law.

Best regards,
Bob
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (xim xim) wrote:

> the way i see it is that WE---U.S. and other
> friendly nations---are CIVILIZED people
> and the rioters/protestors aren't....and they
> never will be.
> maybe we should do the same to them. the
> next time they insult us or kidnap innocent
> people we should just let some heads roll.

So, you are saying that we shoot stoop to their level and respond to
uncivilized violent behavior with more of that same behavior? If so, you
are not as civilized as you think you are.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Curly Sue) wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:10:25 -0500, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> >have no control over the newspaper than published the
> >offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> >even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> >refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> >speech.
>
> Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
> as in this case, to provoke.
>
> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
> cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
> commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
> representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
> If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
> used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.
>
> Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
> of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
> actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
> can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
> Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
> disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
> weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
> them.
>
> The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
> expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
> get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
> point about being offended.
>
> The actors are following the script.

Sue, I couldn't agree more!

The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
editors knew it. I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
shop for some Danish products tonight though!

I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.
 
Stan Horwitz wrote:

> > The actors are following the script.
>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.

I don't doubt that they expected some Moslems to be offended. There are
about 100,000 Moslems there, and some of them may actually have seen the
cartoons in question. I don't think that they would have expected the furor
to that arose, or that it would become an issue across the entire Moslem
world.

> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
> shop for some Danish products tonight though!

Good for you. I bought a case of Tubourg beer. It is one of my favourites
anyway.


> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.

And I would suggest that Moslems spend more time trying to present a better
image to the West instead of using this issue to vent their frustration.
 
Stan Horwitz wrote:

>
> > The actors are following the script.
>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.

Yes, the editors should have expected some sort of reaction. It was the
editors who commissioned the cartoons. It was the editors who selected the
cartoons to run, and it was the editors' decision to run them.

The Danish people had nothing to do with it. The Danish government had
nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the
sentiment of the cartoons, the depiction of the Prophet (not universally
accepted my Moslems as a violation of the Quran), or the image of Moslems as
violent, and goodness knows how they ever made that connection, they had no
say it in it. Never the less, it is a democratic society where there is
freedom of speech and freedom of the press.



>
> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan toshop for some Danish
> products tonight though!

The way I see it is that we should be supporting one side or the other. If
we boycott Danish products, or even if we just stand by and allow them to be
bullied, we condone the violent and coercive forces of the radicals who have
hijacked Islam. I am not recommending counter protests or violence against
Moslems. I do not incensed enough to want to stoop to their level, but I
will do my utmost to counter their economic boycott. I am boycotting
Moslems. I am boycotting any stores that have removed Danish products. I am
going out of my way to buy Danish goods.

>
> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.

I heard an interesting interview on CBC radio today. A Moslem who described
himself as a liberal thinker indicated that despite his secular views, found
the cartoons offensive. He did not think they warranted violent protests.
However, he pointed out that in Arab countries the governments must have
been involved in the demonstrations. They all have repressive governments,
and in countries like that you cannot get large a turnout and massive
participation without government consent. He suggested that the government
used the occasion to allow their people to vent their frustrations. There
are a lot of things to protest about over there. People are hopping mad,
and usually at their own government but powerless to do anything about that,
so they allow their attention to be directed at other things.
 
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
>> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a
>> diplomatic solution since the publication which obviously Denmark
>> ignored. Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much
>> earlier and none of this would have come to pass.
>
> There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand
> that Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a
> bomb, since it would characterize them as being violent. But to
> me, to react to the offensiveness of the portrayal by starting
> riots that have lead to murder and arson??? I have to say that it
> doesn't do much for their argument that it is unfair to portray
> them as being violent.

So, not everyone has the literary talent of Churchill. How, pray
tell, would you suggest they do react, if they want people to listen
to them who are ignoring them? Obviously, once a mob has gone
unruly, there is more violence than the events call for, but that was
also the case with the much more deadly (and much less justifiable)
invasion of Iraq. Putting things in perspective, I believe the
Muslims have very good reasons to be majorly ****** at the West right
now (and we as a collectivity keep wondering why because it serves
our interests to ignore their suffering), and that the cartoons and
Denmark's unforgiveable lack of interest in resolving this
diplomatically are only the latest straw.

And why are you defending the Danes? They are our enemies too,
leaving bottles of akvavit on Hans Island in violation of Canadian
sovereignty. Of course that's actually funny, but obviously their
close association with the Bush administration in recent years has
caused them to disregard the sensitivities of others in emulation of
the Erstwhile Jet Pilot (copyright Michel Boucher 2006).

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

> > There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand
> > that Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a
> > bomb, since it would characterize them as being violent. But to
> > me, to react to the offensiveness of the portrayal by starting
> > riots that have lead to murder and arson??? I have to say that it
> > doesn't do much for their argument that it is unfair to portray
> > them as being violent.
>
> So, not everyone has the literary talent of Churchill.

It is more than a matter of level of articulation. It is a sad irony that
they have violent demonstrations to protest being betrayed as violent.


> How, pray
> tell, would you suggest they do react, if they want people to listen
> to them who are ignoring them? Obviously, once a mob has gone
> unruly, there is more violence than the events call for, but that was
> also the case with the much more deadly (and much less justifiable)
> invasion of Iraq.

How much of a role do you think their governments have had in these
protests. They aren't allowed to question things about their (state)
religion. They aren't allowed to protest against their government. If
they are protesting against something western or a foreign government, it
is a safe bet that their own government is actively involved.


> Putting things in perspective, I believe the
> Muslims have very good reasons to be majorly ****** at the West right
> now (and we as a collectivity keep wondering why because it serves
> our interests to ignore their suffering), and that the cartoons and
> Denmark's unforgiveable lack of interest in resolving this
> diplomatically are only the latest straw.

It wasn't Denmark that did it. It was the decision of the editors of one
newspaper in Denmark. The Danish government would not act because it is
a matter of freedom of speech. It should be noted that the issue had
been resolved to the satisfaction of Danish Moslems when the newspaper
printed an apology a week ago. Newspapers in other countries ran the
cartoons. Then there are the stories about some imams having been
responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons for
distribution.

>
> And why are you defending the Danes? They are our enemies too,
> leaving bottles of akvavit on Hans Island in violation of Canadian
> sovereignty.

I have an affinity for Denmark because of what Danes have done for me and
my family. My father was shot down over Denmark during the war and a lot
of Danish citizens risked their lives to help him, and they would been
executed by the Germans if they had been caught. When my father died we
took his ashes over to Denmark to be interred alongside the graves of his
dead crew mates, and when people over there caught wind of our planes
they arranged special ceremonies and receptions. We were overwhelmed by
the hospitality shown by the Danish people. I have been there twice for
Liberation Day ceremonies and seen them demonstrate their gratitude to
the Allies who fought to free them.

They are freedom loving people. As far as this cartoon issue is
concerned, the Danish people did nothing wrong. Their big crime was to
uphold the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but
they ended up being victimized by the radical Moslems who are trying to
vent their hostility against the West. Given the option of siding with
freedom loving people like the Danes. who committed no wrong, or with the
religious fanatics, I prefer the Danes. I hate to see the Danes vilified
over such a trivial matter. I hate to see that sort of coercion against
an innocent people. So I will do my best to counter the boycott and urge
reasonable people everywhere to do the same.


> Of course that's actually funny, but obviously their
> close association with the Bush administration in recent years has
> caused them to disregard the sensitivities of others in emulation of
> the Erstwhile Jet Pilot (copyright Michel Boucher 2006).
>
> --
>
> "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
> the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
>
> Dom Helder Camara
 
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> It wasn't Denmark that did it. It was the decision of the editors
> of one newspaper in Denmark. The Danish government would not act
> because it is a matter of freedom of speech.

However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
outbreaks of this sort...usually.

> It should be noted that the issue had
> been resolved to the satisfaction of Danish Moslems when the
> newspaper printed an apology a week ago. Newspapers in other
> countries ran the cartoons.

And the publisher of France-Soir fired the editor who published them.
At this point, it was no longer freedom of speech, it was hate
literature.

> Then there are the stories about some imams having been
> responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
> for distribution.

I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
plausible.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>Then there are the stories about some imams having been
>>responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
>>for distribution.
>
>
> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
> found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
> creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
> plausible.
>

http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.html

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Best regards,
Bob
 
zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk
>> being found in breach of the law forbidding representation of
>> living creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does
>> not seem plausible.
>>
>
> http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.
> html
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

And that is conclusive...a blog...

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

> zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>>I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk
>>>being found in breach of the law forbidding representation of
>>>living creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does
>>>not seem plausible.
>>>
>>
>>http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.
>>html
>>
>>http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
>
>
> And that is conclusive...a blog...
>

You'll have to decide for yourself if it's conclusive. Don't dismiss it
just because it is a blog. (Even FoxNews is right sometimes)

The reports are widely distributed in the mainstream news. I linked to
the blogs becuase they show the actual original 12 pictures as they
appeared in the Danish paper, and the 3 additions being distributed to
incite the riots.

Bob
 
On 2006-02-07, zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.html
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
>
> Best regards,
> Bob

Yes, I've seen these and pointed this out before. There can be no
doubt these riots are being purposely orchestrated by extremist muslim
elements, be they imams or just plain ol' terrorists. The fact these
riots are occurring a full three months after the fact makes it
obvious enough.

Here's another website that is intriguing:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery.htm

It's somewhat extreme in the other direction, perhaps even
propagandist, but still provides food for thought. I dumped you at
the picture gallery for simple shock value, but I'm sure you can
separate the wheat from the chaff.

Here's another website I stumbled across, which I'll include for no
other reason than to add a little levity after the above grimness:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565

nb
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

>
> However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
> made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
> government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
> usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
> obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
> diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
> outbreaks of this sort...usually.

Pray tell, what sort of diplomatic solution was Denmark supposed to agree
too. They seem to have indicated that they were not in a position to
punish the editors, to force them to retract the cartoons or to offer an
apology because Denmark is a free society with freedom of speech. That
should not be hard for westerners to understand, though it seems to be a
difficult concept for those living in Islamic countries.

The newspaper did issue an apology and it was accepted by the Danish
Moslems, and that happened before the riots erupted all over the place.

> And the publisher of France-Soir fired the editor who published them.
> At this point, it was no longer freedom of speech, it was hate
> literature.

I have seen them and I would disagree that they are hate literature.
Considering the stuff that comes from some Moslem sources, they would be
among the last to complain about hate literature. Perhaps their concern
over being portrayed with a sword and a bomb would be viewed more
sympathetically if they didn't respond with violent protests.


> > Then there are the stories about some imams having been
> > responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
> > for distribution.
>
> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
> found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
> creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
> plausible.

Why not? They have made up a lot of other stuff over the years. One of the
reasons there are different sects of Islam is that some embrace
interpretations the others do not. They certainly feel free to spread lies
about Christians and Jews. According to today's reports, this all started
as some sort of Jewish conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back