# Cartoon madness



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2006)

As some of you may have read, the Islamic world is supposedly in an uproar over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper which portray Muhammed. Certainly the Salafist and Wahhabi Jihadist are making hay from this. On the other hand, here is a link to the sorts of cartoons running in Arab language press EVERY DAY. Why anyone is supposed to have sympathy for these people is beyond me.....

Note: this is very vile stuff, be warned before you link:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm


----------



## Slim (3 Feb 2006)

And they wonder why no one wants peace with them...


----------



## Aislinn (3 Feb 2006)

It's kind of strange that this is just becoming an issue now, 4 months after the fact. I admit to having a evil curiosity as to what exactly the cartoons were about. Apparently it all relates even farther back to a Danish writer who wanted to publish a book on the life of Muhammad, but couldn't find any artists to the pictures for the book. Here's some interesting articles (including the comics!  >) from Wikipedia about it all.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A5re_Bluitgen

Cheers.


----------



## Chimo (3 Feb 2006)

I try to be sensitive to others in all respects however, no mullah or imam seemed to be too put out with the video of the beheading of the American Nicholas Berg.

I think perhaps to quote Hamlet and Queen Gertrude, "Doth protest too much!"


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (3 Feb 2006)

Although we see many different portrayals of religiouse icons in shamefull pictures, I think it goes hand in hand with the freedom of expression.

 A burning cross or even the "jesus" character on familly guy may not be tops in Jerry Fallwells books but generally we are all mature enough to see that it isn't done (in most cases) as an act against all christians.

 IMHO this incident is more about "hate the non islam" than try to have understanding. Honestly I never knew it was "bad" to depict Mohammed but we all know that there are those in society that would do it just because someone doesnt like it.

 Maybee a peacefull, unarmed protest would have garnered an apology but to threaten hostility is only going to put peoples backs against the wall.

 Just an idea.


----------



## Gunnar (3 Feb 2006)

Muslim anger over Muhammad cartoons grows

CTV.ca News

A controversial cartoon, first published in a Danish newspaper, continues to fuel protests by Muslims around the world, including large rallies in the Gaza Strip and Iraq and raucous demonstrations outside the Danish embassies in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia.

One of the cartoons depicts the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a burning fuse. In another, a Soviet star and crescent moon are superimposed over his face.

Droves of Muslims marched through Palestinian cities on Friday burning the Danish flag and threatening repercussions for the European countries where the cartoons were published.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protestors in Ramallah shouted, Associated Press reported.

An imam at a Gaza City mosque told all 9,000 worshippers that the people behind the cartoons should all have their heads cut off.

The Palestinian legislature was taken over by Hamas gunmen as 10,000 demonstrators chanted "Down, down Denmark," AP reported.

Thousands protested in other Palestinian cities including Nablus and Jenin where Danish flags and product imports were burned.

After weekly prayer services in Iraq, about 4,500 people held a rally in Basra while hundreds in Baghdad demonstrated outside of a mosque, AP reported. The protestors burned the Danish flag and threw Danish-made products into the flames.

Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the cartoon depictions in a posting on his website Jan. 31.

"We strongly denounce and condemn this horrific action," al-Sistani said.

However, the cleric did not encourage any protests and he even placed some responsibility on militant Muslims for the negative way that Islam is depicted, AP reported.

He said some segments of the Muslim community were "misguided and oppressive" and that their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

At the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, more than 150 protestors pushed passed security into the building's lobby demanding an apology for the cartoons.

They were unable to get up to the embassy on the 25th floor but they did tear the Danish flag down and set it on fire. They also pelted the embassy with eggs.

"We are not terrorists, we are not anarchists, but we are against those people who blaspheme Islam," one protestor shouted, AP said.

In Islamabad, Pakistan, about 800 people shouted "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France" while around 1,200 people demonstrated in the southern city of Karachi.

The country's parliament condemned the drawings as "vicious" in a unanimous vote.

In Turkey, hundreds protested in Istanbul, with many making their way to the Danish consulate.

"Hands that reach Islam must be broken," a group of muslims chanted outside of an Istanbul mosque, AP reported.

At Islam's third holiest site, Jerusalem's Al Aqsa Mosque, Israel banned access to Palestinians aged 45 and under.

About 100 men did protest outside Jerusalem's Old City on Friday chanting Islamic slogans and carrying Hamas flags. Israeli police broke up the protest along with another one at Damascus Gate using tear gas and stun grenades, AP reported.

The caricatures of the Prophet were first published by Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, in September. They were republished in papers in France, Norway, Germany, Switzerland and Hungary this week, causing tension that quickly spread around the Muslim world.

On Friday, Belgium, Italy and Spain's leading newspaper, El Pais, became the latest papers to run the images.

"What shame, Europe gives into Islam and apologizes for the satire of Allah," Libero, an Italian right-wing paper, wrote in a Friday headline.

Muslims worldwide are outraged as Islam strictly forbids any depiction of the revered father of the religion. Even positive images of the Prophet Muhammad are not allowed to prevent idolatry in the religion.

Canadian reaction

Syed Soharwardy, of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, appeared on Canada AM Friday saying that Canadian Muslims were upset but that they were dealing with the situation constructively, by emailing and phoning officials.

"The Muslims in Canada, they are outraged," Soharwardy said. "They are expressing their anger through peaceful means… they are protesting against these horrible cartoons that have offended Muslims around the world."

Soharwardy said he received an email from a Danish media watch group, dated Dec. 14, that outlined peaceful ways that the international Muslim community initially tried to deal with the situation.

"They tried very hard to ask them to withdraw the cartoons and apologize, nothing happened," he said. "They contacted us in December and said that we should do something about it."

Globe and Mail cartoon columnist, Brian Gable, said that the debate lies between freedom of expression and the freedom not to be offended. He said that one taboo area is religious faith, but not how people use their faith.

"If someone of any faith chooses to proceed with a violent act, I feel that's fair game," Gable said.

But Soharwardy said there has to some restrictions.

"The freedom of expression has to have some limits," Soharwardy said. "Would they make fun of any ethic group in Canada? Aboriginal people, South Asians, Chinese community?"

With files from Associated Press

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

The freedom not to be offended?  Mealy-mouthed liberal apologists offend me.  Can I exercise my freedoms?  Liberalism is a philosophy of comfort for the West as it commits suicide.

The whole issue simply underlines that many people don't understand freedom of speech, the muslim arab majority in particular.  A Danish cartoon comes out satirizing the link between Islam and violence...and their answer is that the people responsible for the cartoon should have their heads cut off.  Sounds like a reasonable, measured response to me...really underlines the peace-loving aspects of the religion they claim has been slighted and shows us all how wrong the cartoonist was....

And they wonder why they aren't widely respected, when "Islamic terrorist" is a word on the nightly news...How much have we heard about Muslim charities lately, beside that they are often fronts for terrorists?  According to their book, they're supposed to be about charity, among other things...yet I don't hear about them helping out the poor or downtrodden (apart from poor and downtrodden Islamic radicals), I hear about bombs and bullets.  Is it ONLY the news outlets? Because the news makes you wonder which people of which book aren't reading their books...as the Prophet has alluded to....


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2006)

I find this truly amazing.

One cartoonist and half a dozen editors have succeeded where George W. Bush failed when backed by the might of the US armed forces and various allies.  The cartoonist and editors managed to get the Arab Street to rise up in righteous indignation against the West.  Film at 11.

The pen is truly mightier than the sword.  ^-^


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Feb 2006)

Freedom of the press is now punishable by death. Glad we're all on the same page.

The one where Mohammed complains about running out of virgins was really funny,...Does that make me a bad person, lol

P.S. Don't blame Liberal ideals for this completely. Big business loves this multicultural crap. Look at Google, Microsoft and Cisco caving to China's creepy demands on internet censorship. Money can be made in countries that reject Western values. This different but equal crap has gone to far. Even for al lefty wing nut like me.


----------



## Jungle (3 Feb 2006)

We are inching closer to a conflict between the West and Islam because of... a dozen freaking cartoons !!!
As mentionned earlier: public beheadings are fine, but the buck stops at cartoons  ???
GROW UP !!!  :rage:


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2006)

This is not about "Growing Up".

This is about the inevitable consequences of "Doing your own thing.  Letting it all hang out" and other equally inane groovy comments from the self-centred 60's.

Common courtesy, politeness, dictate that you don't offer offense.  In the 60's that was all washed away as too constraining, too restrictive of the individual, too hypocritical.

Well your freedom has consequences.  If you walk into a room, find the nearest individual, laugh in his face and call him a f***ing idiot, perhaps you should be prepared to dodge the fist that's coming at your nose.

Freedom.  Liberty. License. There are no allowable absolutes.

With respect to my earlier post, I wasn't suggesting the muslim world has over-reacted.  They are acting as they will, just as the target of the insult above might.   I was expressing amazement (pure and simple) that the punditry had read the mood of people so poorly.  As well I am amazed at the misperceptions over what constitutes the trivial.

I am sure that people of an earlier generation, that venerated symbols of their own, would not have been surprised at the results if they had offered a similar insult.  On the other hand, I don't see them as likely to offer the insult in the first place.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2006)

While I agree in principle with you Kirkhill, I should point out that it is rank hypocrisy for "them" to be outraged by an offensive cartoon when they offer far more and far worse every day in their media.

In fact our oh so brave and forward thinking MSM also publishes cartoons which can be construed as offensive to various individuals, groups, organizations and so on on a daily basis, knowing they will receive slams in the forms of letters to the editor, cancelled  subscriptions and so on. Most Western media ooutlets are not publishing or even reporting on this because they now have a well founded fear of receiving something a bit *ahem* stronger than a nasty letter from the Jihadis and their allies.

WW IV is a battle of ideas, hearts and minds as much as it is a military and political contest. If our craven media refuses to call the Islamic world on its hypocrisy, and allows itself to be intimidated into silence (no, they don't have to show the cartoons as a gratuitous insult, but they could discuss the context of the cartoon and the content of Arab and Islamic media....), then we are operating at a big disadvantage.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Feb 2006)

Iran has decided to impose sanctions on itself. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060204/ts_afp/europeislammedia


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2006)

a_majoor:

At the risk of sounding like something out of a 1930's Basil Rathbone movie, I think I can sum up my position: " There's no need to insult the poor blighters.  Just kill them".

Now before anybody takes me too seriously I am not suggesting that we should go out an slaughter the lot.  I am limiting myself to the notion of killing the individual pointing an RPG in the general direction of your G-Wagen.

More broadly though I am of the opinion that debating is a good thing and that prolonging a debate is more possible by not offering insults.  There is no need to offer offence.  People will find ample opportunity to take offence on their own.  

Islam does need to be challenged.  For that matter the west likewise has a bunch of weak spots where its philosophies are contradictory and subject to challenge.  Debate and discourse are necessary but best conducted in a civil environment.  That is one of the reasons why the Speakers of the Commons and the Senate are so particular about insulting language.  Interestingly they are quite within their rights to use force via the Sergeants-at-arms to enforce civil discourse.

As Edward has succinctly described on other threads what the Danish cartoonists and editor did was offensive.  That they did it out of ignorance, naivete, principle or sheer bloody-mindedness doesn't change the fact that they gave offense.   The correct response, at least in my household, would be to apologize for the offense, and continue the debate as to the values involved.

Those that reacted by continuing to publish the cartoons because they felt challenged, and that was my instinctual reaction after I heard James Zogby suggest that they should not have been published out of fear of the consequences, added nothing to the debate.  The reaction was understandable, but wrong.  If we want to discuss then we need to stop shouting at each other.

Having said all of that I see nothing wrong with concluding a debate by determining that we can't agree.  If we agree to disagree, either by both sides agreeing to co-habit the same space amicably, or by establishing borders to separate the sides then all well and good.  On the other hand if the other side decides that I need to be saved from myself and tries to impose their values on me and mine - then that is the reason I hired you lot in the first place.   Unfortunately I suppose the same could be said for the other side.

Cheers.


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4 (4 Feb 2006)

Mod Note - Pic removed


Cannoneer - We removed the photo the first time you posted it also. Sorry you weren't notified. At this time, we don't think it would be prudent to have this photo associated with the site. Thanks.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Well your freedom has consequences.  If you walk into a room, find the nearest individual, laugh in his face and call him a f***ing idiot, perhaps you should be prepared to dodge the fist that's coming at your nose.



That is true, however, under our system, wether or not you dodge that fist, you have every right to have the other person charged with assault.

More importantly, your analogy is flawed considering the ammount of insults and attacks that have been hurled at us by the Muslim world over the last several decades.  If you want a more accurate analogy, imagine you're sitting in a bar, trying to enjoy your beer, while some drunk is standing over your table insulting everything from your mother to your pet hamster.  Being the civilized North American individual you are, you politely ignore him and hope he goes away.  Eventualy, you get tired of it, and yell back "your mother wears army boots!".

After which the drunk promptly threatens to do unspeakable things to your wife and kids.  And proceeds to take your hamster hostage.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2006)

Actually 48th, initial assault occurred  with the verbal challenge and it then becomes debatable whether the victim of the verbal assault is within their rights to respond physically.  Under the circumstances you describe, as well as in my example,  I would agree that the anwer is "Yes".  Others might not.

Regardless, trading insults doesn't do very much to resolve any situation.

Cheers.


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4 (4 Feb 2006)

"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Muslims are going to do. Some of you always seem to think they are suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Muslims are going to do."


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually 48th, initial assault occurred  with the verbal challenge and it then becomes debatable whether the victim of the verbal assault is within their rights to respond physically.  Under the circumstances you describe, as well as in my example,  I would agree that the anwer is "Yes".  Others might not.



What?  An insult is not considered "assault" under any criminal law I've ever seen.  Could you provide a quote from the CC?

Or maybe I misunderstood, I'm having a bit of a problem parsing your first sentence.


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4 (4 Feb 2006)

Cannoneer No. 4 said:
			
		

> Mod Note - Pic removed
> 
> 
> At this time, we don't think it would be prudent to have this photo associated with the site. Thanks.
> ...





Y'all let me know when freedom becomes prudent.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Feb 2006)

It's prudent now. You're free to leave and we're free to remove content that we deem unsuitable.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Feb 2006)

Slippery slope, whats next?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2006)

> as·sault (ə-sôlt')
> n.
> A violent physical or verbal attack.
> 
> ...


http://www.answers.com/assault&r=67



> 265. (1) A person commits an assault when
> 
> (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
> 
> ...



The Criminal Code apparently defines assault as uttering a threat.  Unless there is threat then there is no criminal assualt.  However fist does not need to make contact with nose for an assault to have occurred.  Also civil law defines things differently than does criminal law and "verbal assault" seems to show up in a variety of contracts and documents.    I'm no lawyer, anymore than I am a soldier, but I have always worked under the understanding of the first general definition that swearing at somebody can be construed as a form of assault.

PS Mike, Thank you.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> After which the drunk promptly threatens to do unspeakable things to your wife and kids.  And proceeds to take your hamster hostage.



Highlander:
Criminal Code
            PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
               Assaults
Uttering threats
 264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Punishment
 (2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Idem
 (3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.

Criminal Code
            PART II OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
               Duels
Duelling
 71. Every one who

(a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel,

(b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or

(c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 72.

Criminal Code
            PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
               Assaults
Assault
 265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application
 (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent
 (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Accused's belief as to consent
 (4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 244; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 21; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Source: Criminal Code, [R.S. 1985, c. C-46] http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Feb 2006)

> Slippery slope, whats next?



To whom are you addressing your question?


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Feb 2006)

Are news agencies not reprinting the cartoons because they are objectionable or because they are scared? If I have to choose between a rude cartooist and a balckmailer threatening violence and murder its very easy.

I belive that Islam is political by its nature. Theocracies abound throughout the middle east. The lampooning of politcal groups is a tradition in Western culture. A neccessary freedom in a democratic republic. The cartoons are offensive, like Salman Rushdie's interpretation of the Prophets dreams. But we are supposed to be tolerant of others traditional beliefs. It works both ways right?


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Criminal Code apparently defines assault as uttering a threat.  Unless there is threat then there is no criminal assualt.  However fist does not need to make contact with nose for an assault to have occurred.  Also civil law defines things differently than does criminal law and "verbal assault" seems to show up in a variety of contracts and documents.    I'm no lawyer, anymore than I am a soldier, but I have always worked under the understanding of the first general definition that swearing at somebody can be construed as a form of assault.



Neither civil law nor criminal law would categorize insults to be an assault.  You could classify it under harrassement, however, that's a whole other bag of worms.  And harrassement does not justify assault.  In other words, if I'm harrassing/insulting you, you do not have the right to "defend yourself" by punching me.  You can call the cops on me, have me charged with harrassement, even get a restraining order against me, but under the criminal code if you punch me, regaurdless of what I may have said to you, YOU will be charged with assault.

The exception, as you have noted, is if I were to utter a threat against you, because that IS considered a form of assault, which means you can now claim self-defence.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> PS Mike, Thank you.



Ditto.



3rd Herd:

I was reading though all that wondering what the heck it had to do with anything, right up untill I hit the part about "dueling".  I really had no idea that such a law existed, and did a doubletake once I read it.  I'm betting most cops don't know about it either.  Anyway, even attempting to start a duel doesn't seem to fall under assault, so, while punishable by law, it wouldn't give the party being challanged the right to respond with force.


And none of this has ANYTHING to do with the cartoons    This is why analogies are dangerous; they have a tendancy to derail threads.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Feb 2006)

Highlander,
I was just trying to be my ever helpful self. You requested some quotes from the CC on assault so I supplied those. I included the duelling because if you do challenge someone to step out of a bar over a difference of opinion, you are in fact challenging them to a duel. Included in my post is the link to the entire Criminal Code of Canada ( for every ones future reference), the section on intimidation could equally be applied in some of the circumstances. A final key point is that it is all up to how the judge interrupts the law.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2006)

Highlander:

I shall sit corrected.


----------



## Gunnar (4 Feb 2006)

> But we are supposed to be tolerant of others traditional beliefs. It works both ways right?



Ah, but there's the rub.  Tolerance of another's beliefs is a product of a free, and liberal (in the original sense of the term) society.  Their society has no such tradition, and doesn't really understand it.  So as far as they can see, it DOESN'T work both ways.  They condemn when they are offended, and then try to use the rules of OUR game when they want to say things that are offensive to us.

Put another way, they know that we're not allowed to use a bat to hit the baseball out of someone's hand, but they want to be able to do so when we're trying to play.  But they can't even yell "hey, we don't do that to you!" because they do.


----------



## squealiox (4 Feb 2006)

there's really no wiggle room on this one. these outraged muslims attacking danish embassies are in effect demanding that we (the west, that is) discard a bedrock principle of western civilisation -- freedom of speech and thought. they might as well be asking us to adopt middle eastern standards of living, as well.

anyway, gotta go shopping for a whole bunch of lego...


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Feb 2006)

I was hopin' someone would catch that Gunnar.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

newest:



			
				http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/prophet_drawings;_ylt=AiR.Ypa4R3zI6Eb3jcwHiims0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- said:
			
		

> Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press Writer
> 
> DAMASCUS, Syria - Thousands of Syrians enraged by caricatures of Islam's revered prophet torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday — the most violent in days of furious protests by Muslims in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
> 
> ...



WW1 was started by a Serb in Austria - a massive conflict caused by a relatively insignificant action involving two tiny nations.  It'd be rather poetic if WW3 was started by 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper.....


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2006)

48th, WW IV is already under way......

For a really wide ranging look at the entire situation, go to Instapundit.com, and scroll through the February 4 2006 archive.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 48th, WW IV is already under way......



Eh, I know, but I don't consider it a world war unless there's a lot more fighting and killing than what we're seing now.  If the middle east goes to war against the rest of the world and peole start dying in the millions, when it's over you can bet it won't be known as WW V.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> For a really wide ranging look at the entire situation, go to Instapundit.com, and scroll through the February 4 2006 archive.



Thanks, I'll check it out


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2006)

We can argue about what number to use later (maybe we should be selling WWIII, BTDT tee shirts  )

Meanwhile, here is a comment by Captain Ed Morresy (Captain's Quarters)



> Editorial cartoons exist to challenge political thought and expose hypocrisy. Among religions, *Islam should be the least protected from this form of speech, as it insists on involving itself in temporal political matters wherever it is practiced. Indeed, it insists on dictating political and legal matters, usually in the most extreme terms, and it uses the life of Mohammed as its claim on political and legal supremacy.* Christianity hasn't taken that position in centuries, focusing on the spiritual and individual rather than group diktat. Judaism hasn't had the means to develop that kind of theocratic position for over two millenia until the establishment of Israel, and even then the Chosen have chosen a liberal democracy for themselves rather than rule by the high-priest descendants of Aaron.
> 
> _That insistence on dictating terms of temporal power makes criticism, by cartoonists or editorialists, absolutely necessary in order to combat the stultifying reach of sharia. Islam sets the terms of debate. It cannot insist on temporal rule based on Mohammed and the Qu'ran and then expect people to refrain from criticizing either one._
> 
> Actually, it can and does. *The fact that criticism and debate is one of the most potent weapons available against tyrannical Sharia law is precisely why they react this way.* Islam cannot expect people to refrain from criticism if they wish to be relevant in the modern world, but that isn't the goal of Islamic fascism: They want Islam to be relevant in the 10th century, and to take the rest of humanity with them.


----------



## Acorn (5 Feb 2006)

And Morresy illustrates the gulf between cultures. Muslims cannot understand why we do not accept religion's dicates on political and legal matters.

In addition, our reaction to the cartoons, or to the results of the cartoons is illustrative of our ignorance of how Muslims regard the Prophet and their religious texts and scholars.


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Feb 2006)

Okay as with any religion their often is a schism. At one point we had three Romes. The Muslim religon is no different with a schism developing over the way they should practice their religon. What has the reaction been from either group. Is one groups public outcry greater than the other or is this the first time since the prophets death they have become reunited as a faith.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

Acorn said:
			
		

> In addition, our reaction to the cartoons, or to the results of the cartoons is illustrative of our ignorance of how Muslims regard the Prophet and their religious texts and scholars.



How so?  I don't think people are "ingorant" of it, I think they just don't give a s**t.  I know I certainly don'y.  So Mohammed's great and holy and doesn't like having his picture taken.  Great.  Get over it.  We have certain freedoms that ol' Mo didn't give the Muslims, if they don't like it that's too damn bad.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (5 Feb 2006)

It may offend islamics to see Mohammed portrayed in pictures, but it offends me to see televised beheadings. Maybee I should start a protest that incites violence.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

Agreed 48H. This pretending that primitive beliefs are equal to our own is really treading on my last nerve. Enough all ready. In some situations the "polite" thing to do is teach them some manners.  :threat:


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Feb 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Not yet, but it seems that this radical, western hating brand of Islam is growing, not receding.



And Tolerance from the West towards this religion as a whole is starting to diminish as the Islamic Silent Majority continues to keep quiet about these radicals and fanatics.... If they want any sympathy and understanding from us then they need to start speaking out against the acts of violence that their fellow Muslims are committing....
Otherwise worse case scenario I can see this whole thing turning into a new holy war... Crusades Part II anyone?


----------



## combatcamera (5 Feb 2006)

Nice rhetoric.  I'm willing to bet 48Highlander and others here have never even been to a Muslim country.  Respect for religion and culture works both ways.  That comes with growing up.

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

Does India count? They are a great example of what happens when you have too much tolerance.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Feb 2006)

I think you just made combatcamera's  case....


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

combatcamera said:
			
		

> Nice rhetoric.  I'm willing to bet 48Highlander and others here have never even been to a Muslim country.  Respect for religion and culture works both ways.  That comes with growing up.





Funny man.  Yes, you're right, after prancing around in foreign countries with a camera you are MUCH more qualified to comment on these things than we are.

Yes, respect for reliogion and culture goes both ways.  We were quite respectfull untill we realized that certain groups keep insulting us, keeps killing us, crashing airplanes into our buildings, beheading our civilians, attempting to tell us what we can and can't say, and generaly failing to return the respect and tolerance that we've been showing.  By your own rhetoric, we should be on the warpath by now.  If respect works both ways, how can anyone reasonably expect ANY citizen of a western nation to have respect for Muslim culture?


----------



## combatcamera (5 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Funny man.  Yes, you're right, after prancing around in foreign countries with a camera you are MUCH more qualified to comment on these things than we are.



Of COURSE I am, compared to someone like you who's never been anywhere!  Please fill us in on your worldly experiences - or have you ever been outside of Toronto? 

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

Why must I respect Ideas I find abhorent? Must I respect that women are property? Must I respect a fathers right to murder his daughter for marrying who she wants? Homosexuality is punishable by death as well, its the law. My wife was almost killed in Saudi for shaving off a mans beard. She was a nurse and he was on a respirator and his beard was mouldy/causing infection. She was forced to watch public beheadings. How tolerant do I have to be? 
  India allowed Sharia courts to have civil and even some criminal jurisdiction. Enshrined in the constitution since 1949. Governed by classical era Sharia standards. Hindu's are under the English common law system. India is a very good example of a country that has lived with a large Islamic community for centuries. 

Here is an account of the first attempt at imposing Sharia law on India. Its a little dry but worth the read.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

my 2 cents.


----------



## combatcamera (5 Feb 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> I say, time to start giving them a taste of their own medecine.



I'm glad people like you aren't in the Canadian military.

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

Meh, Combatcamera is an apologist.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Feb 2006)

OK guys - back to debate and enough of the personal jabs. This appears to be heading for a lock - let's keep it on track. Thanks


----------



## combatcamera (5 Feb 2006)

Thanks for stepping in.  I always love when you ask some posters here for their "operational" experience to back up their incredulous statements -  how some simply slink away. 

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

"The modern concept of freedom of speech on political and religious matters arises from the European Enlightenment of the 1700s and was alien to religions such as Christianity and Judaism in their pre-modern forms. Similarly, Sharia law in its most vigorous interpretations does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of the prophet Muhammad.

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe -- the death penalty. ("The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him" [9]) 
On the other hand, the denial of freedom of speech by Muslims is not only restricted to those Muslims supporting the most vigorous interpretations. In Egypt, public authorities went so far as to try to annul, without his consent, the marriage of Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd when he got in conflict with an orthodox Islamic cleric from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The cleric had condemned Abu Zayd's reading of the Qur'an as being against the orthodox interpretation and labelled him an apostate (seen as a non-believer and consequently not permitted to marry or stay married to a Muslim woman). Abu Zayd fled to the Netherlands, where he is now a professor at the university of Leiden. Nevertheless, the case illustrates how far more common or average interpretations can go."

So rude cartoons are punishable by death.
P.S. combatcamera you are the one posturing without content.


----------



## combatcamera (5 Feb 2006)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> P.S. combatcamera you are the one posturing without content.



Good one,

I'm sure you didn't write that babble from your "own" experience.  More like Wilkepedia, eh!? 

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Feb 2006)

Okay back to the Muslims.
In three Islamic countries we have had three recent electoral changes in government, Palestine, Iran and Iraq. To some extent a more radical fashion of government is in charge. These cartoons were published initially over 4 months ago with hardly a whisper. Now with the recent government changes a furor has been whipped up. Good way of getting everyone to see your government as the "new" savior of Islam and it gives certain segments of the population a chance to demonstrate their loyalty to their new government. Next having watched several different news broadcasts(CNN, BBC, CBC..........) it seems the young bull horn instigators are all getting instructions from just off camera view. Are we getting a true picture? Oh and my first trip to a Muslim country was in 1976.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

Perhaps thats why it  in quotes? 

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

I'm beginning to feel like I brought a gun to a knife fight CC, lol


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Perhaps thats why it  in quotes?
> 
> http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm



Good info, but if you're going to quote someone else make sure you ALWAYS either provide a link (if it's online) or a reference (if it's from a book).  It shouldn't be neccesary for people to ask you about it.

Oh, and you're best off adding cameraboy aka Frank the Tank to your ignore list.  I've yet to see the man actually add anything useful to these forums.  Lurkers and trolls genrealy aren't worth arguing with.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

seen


----------



## combatcamera (5 Feb 2006)

Nice try troops,

I've only been asking for YOUR operational experience in these countries, which I believe to be NONE.  That's like ZERO - though you're always entitled to your opinions and writing here.  I really hate reading BS from people who haven't been anywhere who spout opinions on worldly matters, especially when it borders on hate.  That's sad.  Just remember, you're not taken very seriously at all as any kind of expert -1,400 posts-and-all - or even worth debating with. 

Frank 

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

I have been to India and studied Hinduism, Buddhism and a bit on Indian history to put it in context. Muslims are roughly 17% of the Urban populous and 11% of the rural. Though some provinces like Kashmir are a Muslim majority. Our current problems are their ancient problems. Why reinvent the wheel. Why do I need to go to a completely Muslim country to defend my cultural ideals from a troll?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2006)

I'm counting at least three trolls in this topic......and I am tired of the name calling.

I'm locking this up now.

Any problems or further comments can be directed to the Staff.  If it is relevant to this topic, it will be included.

George


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2006)

Post Submitted by Acorn:

---------------------------------------------------
I think the earlier post that mentioned the "coincidence" of the four-month-old cartoons suddenly becomeing an issue is on track: there are elements that seek to whip up this rage. In Syria, Lebanon and a number of other countries (which have seen violent reaction) there is, shall we say, interest at a certain level (government, frex) to keep peoples' minds focussed on something other than their own sorry states.

Some of you are reacting in exactly the same way as those who've burned the Danish Embassies in Syria and Lebanon. Selective quoting, dubious sources, trusting the media when it suits your own predjudices.

I have yet to see any quotes from a number of Muslim leaders in Canada who have condemned the violent reaction, while still condemning the cartoons (and advocating boycots, letter writing and other non-violent protest). I have yet to see anyone quote British news which quotes British Muslim leaders who advocate the immediate arrest of those idiots who carried placards calling for beheadings and jihad in the streets of London.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676524.stm Or other more grassroots reactions http://www.damasceneblog.com/

Islam is deeper and wider than the stereotype of a bearded fanatic triggering a bomb-belt in a crowded bus.

Most of the reaction here, in anger, has been along the lines of "I'm offended by cartoons from Arab newspapers, but I don't burn their Embassies. They're a bunch of primitives." They? All of them?

And for the record, I've lived in Muslim countries. For years, not a six month tanning-and-souk tour either. They aren't as you see them through your TV screen - and a 60" plasma doesn't impart a picture any deeper or clearer than a 5" portable CRT.


Acorn


----------

