Immigration Global Muslim anger at European depiction of Prophet Muhammad

[No-name]

It's a bit off topic, and I'm not entirely disagreeing with you ArmandV, but the loss of life among Russian troops, their own production of small arms and T34's, and their wearing down and sapping of the German Army had a great deal to do with Germany's fall. The war was lost in the East. Certainly the US contributed and necessarily so, and hastened it-- but ask any German which foe was more costly in terms of lives and material.

As for the US stabbing anyone in the back...? After all that wonderful support we got from our allies (who it turns out were right...) when we invaded Iraq-- who do we owe?

 

[ArmandV]

It's a bit off topic, and I'm not entirely disagreeing with you ArmandV, but the loss of life among Russian troops, their own production of small arms and T34's, and their wearing down and sapping of the German Army had a great deal to do with Germany's fall. The war was lost in the East. Certainly the US contributed and necessarily so, and hastened it-- but ask any German which foe was more costly in terms of lives and material.
As for the US stabbing anyone in the back...? After all that wonderful support we got from our allies (who it turns out were right...) when we invaded Iraq-- who do we owe?

That's why I said the U.S. was primarily the source for the equipment. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you either.

 

[ArmandV]

Mike, all I can say is...

An interesting look at the matter from Neal Boortz
http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02032006.html

...since this is the Japan Forum: Domo Arigato!

 

[Da Monstar]

Edit. Was already said. Nice linkage Mike Cash

 

[Maciamo]

I have just watched a debate on BBC World about Arabic media and the recent events. A Muslim journalist said that in the last few years, he had seen countless caricature or insults toward Christianity and Judaism in the Arabic press, but nobody ever apologised for them.

On CNN, a spokesman of a Muslim organisation was referring to European countries as "Christian states", which I find not only anachronical (most European governments don't have a state religion, and all allow freedom of religion, and do have pluralism in terms of religion), but also offensive as an European Atheist. I was justly writing about a poll about religious beliefs in France today, which showed that 33% of the French are downright Atheist (+14% Agnostics), 65% oppose organised religions. I believe that figures for Belgium are fairly similar. Anyhow, European countries are certainly not "Christian states". At best, they include a a large Christian minority (around 15 to 40%, depending on the country) among a patchwork of many other religious beliefs. I personally feel as insulted by this comment from a representative of the Muslim community, as the Muslim community was insulted by the cartoons.

 

[ArmandV]

I personally feel as insulted by this comment from a representative of the Muslim community, as the Muslim community was insulted by the cartoons.

But I am sure you aren't going to burn an embassy or stone a mosque.

 

[Maciamo]

But I am sure you aren't going to burn an embassy or stone a mosque.

I wouldn't do it because I can control myself and I am not that kind of person anyway. But in the same way as most Muslims haven't condemned the burning of the European embassies, I wouldn't condemn the burning of mosques or Muslim embassies if they happened. If it was up to me, all religious buildings (from any religion) that didn't have a historical significance ("national heritage") would be torn down.

As for Muslims in Europe, I certainly do oppose their rights to bother non-Muslims with their loudspeaker calls to prayers 5x a day (especially the one before sunrise kashii: ). Fortunately, it seems that this has not been tolerated in most European countries so far (except in the UK and maybe Germany, I think ?).

I would also oppose the right of Christian churches to ring their bells if I lived close to a church (fortunately that is not the case). At least they never ring them at indecent hours...kashii:

 

[kumo]

If it was up to me, all religious buildings (from any religion) that didn't have a historical significance ("national heritage") would be torn down.

While this might be very desirable, religious buildings are still private property and can't be simply torn down like that. What I think is absurd, though, is the government giving tax exemption to religious activities, which ultimately promotes the construction of even more completely unnecessary churches.

As for Muslims in Europe, I certainly do oppose their rights to bother non-Muslims with their loudspeaker calls to prayers 5x a day (especially the one before sunrise ). Fortunately, it seems that this has not been tolerated in most European countries so far (except in the UK and maybe Germany, I think ?).
I would also oppose the right of Christian churches to ring their bells if I lived close to a church (fortunately that is not the case). At least they never ring them at indecent hours...

I completely agree. Noise pollution laws should be respected by everyone, regardless of their religious sensitivities.

 

[bossel]

1.) The Russian Winter;

...which could hardly be attributed to the US.

2.) FDR's Lend-Lease Program. Where else did the U.S.S.R. get their munitions (planes, tanks, guns, etc.) to defend themselves?

They built it.

The same goes for the other countries you mentioned. They got their stuff primarily from Lend-Lease.

The US was not the primary source of Soviet equipment. The only significant role was in providing transport equipment like trucks & locomotives. The tanks, guns & planes you mentioned were mostly produced in & by the SU.

Aircraft provided by the US: 14,795; built by the SU: 157,261
Tanks 7,056 / 105,251
Guns 8,218 / 516,648 (excl. 403,300 mortars)

Not to mention the fighting itself, which was most important.

Denmark is urging its citizens to leave both Syria and Liban as soon as possible. It would also be fair to expel citizens from these two countries from Scandinavia...

Fair? What did they do?
BTW, half the population of Lebanon is non-Muslim.

It is just "regular humour".

I doubt that it is "regular humour", since the editors specifically asked caricaturists to provide this pics. There was a political message behind. That's still covered by freedom of speech & press, though.

European countries as "Christian states", which I find not only anachronical (most European governments don't have a state religion, and all allow freedom of religion, and do have pluralism in terms of religion),

Not that anachronistic if you remember the debate about mentioning the Christian foundation of Europe into the new (failed) constitution.

But in the same way as most Muslims haven't condemned the burning of the European embassies, I wouldn't condemn the burning of mosques or Muslim embassies if they happened.

This "in the same way" then puts you on the same level as those who condone the burning of Western embassies.
It seems that atheist fundamentalism isn't that much different from religious fundamentalism.

By lowering yourself to their level, you probably do exactly what these Islam fundies want to reach: a clash of cultures & as a result ever more influence for them in Muslim nations.

You should remember that Islam, similar to Christianity, is not a monolithic bloc. Even Muslim fundamentalists are divided into several competing factions, non-violent, violent or terrorist (well, much more complicated than that & by far not as simplistic as presented in many media).

I suppose here you can find some articles representing a more moderate Islam. &, specifically for ArmandV who likes to quote oh so liberal sources, I found this one. Not that I support their particular stance, but - well - it's interesting.

Quote:
"Islamic fundamentalism is a temporary and superficial phenomenon. All the efforts to modernise it have ended up undermining it. Hence the brutality and hysterical frenzy re-emerges to reinvigorate it. Its greatest enemy is history and human civilisation."

 

[ArmandV]

...which could hardly be attributed to the US.

Nobody said it was (please don't try to twist things). The U.S. was not involved in the battle between the Soviets and the Germans (known as Barbarossa). Prior to that, the Nazis and Soviets had a non-aggression pact that the Nazis broke. About $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program after the U.S. and Soviets became allies. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk.

specifically for ArmandV who likes to quote oh so liberal sources"

Me? Quoting liberal sources?! You have me mistaken for someone else.
But we digress. The issue here is the Muslim "outrage" over the cartoons. But you're right, it was an interesting article.

 

[nurizeko]

I see the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassy as a declaration of war on the EU and NATO countries. This should give GW Bush and his European allies one of the most valid reason so far to invade a Muslim country. Syria and Iran were both on the waiting list. Iran is already assailed by the international community on its insistence to build a nuclear programme. Syria has now signed its own war declaration, and for the first time I really wish that Western powers invade a Middle Eastern country in retaliation. There is no way we are going to let Muslims attack Western citizens and burn Western embassies for a stupid cartoon !

I totaly agree, i have always been highly tolerant of the actions of muslim groups and nations, though i havnt always agreed, but this time round ive been finding myself strongly wishing for once the west showed these muslim fundies that we arent going to be pushed around and threatened forever, we need to show them that threatening the west and its way of life, while expecting tolerance in return is not acceptable, and that if they want a war with the west, we should show them that they will have made a big mistake...understanding is getting few results, maybe an hard efficient blow against a muslim nation preaching hatred of the west will finally knock the rest in line to STFU and live and let live.
They just dont get how lucky they are the west is so forward thinking and tolerant, in any other period in history, no westerner would shed a single tear if our respective nations deported every muslim who even so much as frowned at how we live our lives.
The problem with the modern muslim faith for many muslims is that it expects all respect without any return, its like trying to comprimise with a child, its completely impossible.
I would argue europe has been one of the most friendly and supportive of middle-eastern nations, with much less of that "you muslums ar terrerists" and "with us or against us" un-comprimising US policy some presidencies have liked to use, and this is how were constantly repaid, with burning flags, and our interests in their countries attacked.
Honestly, i've always considored myself extremely tolerant and easy-going, but im finding these constant betrayals by the muslim world of our respect and tolerence taxing on my patients, There is only so long i would try and reason with an angry friend trying to attack me before i sent him hard to the floor in self defence.
I think we should impose heavy trade and diplomatic sanctions on any middle-eastern government who doesnt condem the actions of its fundie minority, and withdraw OUR embassies, if the middle-east wont accept friendship and seemingly limitless patients with their immature childishness, we should show them what its like to live in a world without powerful and understanding friends, lets see how they enjoy having europe support US military actions against their sovreign regimes instead of calling for a stayed hand and peaceful negotiation.
They may very well quickly learn to grow up and learn how to behave as a modern nation, you can impose muslim law and ethics on your own countries all you want, but how dare they assume to think they have a right to act in such a way about our own lifestyles and freedoms and laws, if our laws allow newspapers to print stupid satirical charactures, then we can, if you have a problem, show us you've stopped printing such blatant anti-western literature and art in your own publications.
kashii:
- angry nuri:relief: (eep!)

Do you really think that the U.S. has to prove itself as an ally? Who do you think played the major role in taking back Europe from the Nazis? You'd be speaking German right now if it wasn't for America!
I hope you aren't going to pin your hopes on getting help from France.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." - Gen. George S. Patton.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf

That better be sarcasm, americans always give out this "we saved your ass in WW2 so we owe you nothing and you owe us everything for infinity" BS but frankly its false, The british, Canadians, Free-soldiers of occupied nations, resistance movements, russians, if you count it all up we all did more to free europe, if it wasnt for their input America would have been lucky to so much as make a dent against nazi held europe.
This is an old argument, as as such i feel its long since been proven in europes favour, suffice to say i will state it again that America's involvement was to "spam-rush" lots of soldiers at an already weakened and crumbling regime, whos interests were getting gnawed at from the inside by resistance and secret operations, and getting clawed at from the east by the much costlier effort of the russians.
If the American government thoroughly condemed the actions of the muslim fundies and governments against innocent european people and interests, it would still come no-where near to the friendship europe has given the states.
Also the French refusing to join a war the people has decided is un-justifiable for them doesnt somehow make them betrayers and backstabbers worthy of contempt, the American government and some people need to relise just because a country doesnt join every little adventure the states goes on doesnt somehow mean that country has withdrawn friendship.
That attitude makes me wonder, if europe ever came under assault, would our american "friends" be there, or would it be "a european matter, our involvement would complicate things".
All i know is that Most european countries, especially the "old europe" ones, would be in america in a heartbeat if it found itself fighting a defensive war.

 

[TwistedMac]

The U.S. backstabbed Denmark? Please elaborate.

I already have, you obviously disregarded it.

and again, WW2 argument getting well old.

and the thing about the reason behind them helping america being he charmed women is all unfounded speculation. there is no substantial proof that had any weighing factor at all. "strange but true."

 

[nurizeko]

The article that was linked earlier in this thread, quoted below, its not too uncommon with usual talk-point articles, but it does seem to speak some truth, if some muslims can feel justified in attacking european property and people, all who are innocent of the suppoused crime, over some silly cartoons, then why cant they feel outraged when actual crimes that corrupt the purity of proper islam?.

OUTRAGED MUSLIMS! OH MY!

We wake up this morning to see video on CNN showing rampaging Muslims around the world. In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim ... Muslim Mobs spreading mayhem. It seems that these mighty mad Muslims are rioting and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because of cartoons. Yup ... this latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons depicting Mohammed. In fact ... here is one of my favorites!



Admit it, this turban/bomb thing could be the next big fashion hit on the Muslim street!

Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"

Indeed. Why not?

 

[No-name]

Perhaps we should pay more attention to our inhumanity to each other, the state of children's lives in the world and such and get outraged about that, then to get our collective panties in a bunch about some silly cartoons, the price of oil, the latest fasion... it does make you think.

I keep wondering if the good will that seemed to develop after 9/11 across the globe was not squandered by our president's incompetence.

 

[Maciamo]

Fair? What did they do?

Nothing, like the Danes, Swedes, Norwegian or other Westerners attacked in the Middle-East. But that's the point. If the governments of Syria and Lebanon cannot assure the security of Scandinavian citizens, then it's not a religious issue but a political one. I hate it when one side always patiently suffers abuses, while the other side feel they have the right to abuse them in all impunity. There is an obvious lack of balance. On the one side, Muslims are condeming criticism of Islam and attacking Westerners who have done nothing to them. On the other side, you have the Muslim press criticising even more virulently Judaism and Christianity, but no reaction from these communities. To show those Muslims that their actions are wrong, the best way is to use their own weapons. They harass or attack Westerners who haven't done anything to them, so let's expell their fellow citizens from Western countries in retaliation.

BTW, half the population of Lebanon is non-Muslim.

30%, actually. As I said above, it's more a political issue than a religious one. Middle-Eastern government have a close link to religion (many are Islamic governments), control the press, and have a tight control on their citizens' freedom. In Lebanon's case, the Interior Minister has resigned, so that should suffice for the moment. At least their is a political will to apologise.

Not that anachronistic if you remember the debate about mentioning the Christian foundation of Europe into the new (failed) constitution.

I believe that only Poland and Spain wanted this. All other countries opposed it. So, if you want to call these 2 countries "Christian states", that may be alright. However, my conception of a religious state is one where a specific religion is priviliedged, state-funded and laws and politics are heavily influenced by this religion. This was the case for all Europe in the Middle Ages, where almost everything (from top level politics to peasants' lives) was related to Christianity.

This "in the same way" then puts you on the same level as those who condone the burning of Western embassies.

Really ? If I decided to go myself burn Mosques and/or Muslim embassies, it would. But if my not condemning it makes me on the same level, then the whole Muslim world (except a tiny minority) is also on the same level as those who burned the embassies, as they didn't condemn it.

It seems that atheist fundamentalism isn't that much different from religious fundamentalism.

I don't think I am an atheist fundamentalist. If I were, I would want to extermination of all religious people worldwide. That is not the case. In fact, I am opposed to violence, except as a response to violence (I am not Jesus, I do not give the right cheek when hit on the left one).

By lowering yourself to their level, you probably do exactly what these Islam fundies want to reach: a clash of cultures & as a result ever more influence for them in Muslim nations.

As I see things progressing in the Muslim world (increasing fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment), the ultimate solution to this clash of civilisation (which already exist, and vividly), will be a devastating war. This is based on what I have learnt from history. Western countries have already had their history lesson (especially Europe in the 20th century), but most Muslim states haven't. They are still young countries, and want to show the world what they are capable of, like Germany, Italy and Japan from the late 19th century to 1945. Most Muslim countries only got their independence from Western powers after WWII. Now they want their "revenge", and more than that, show the world that they don't need the West to interfere in their affairs, and won't be "insulted" by infidels.

You should remember that Islam, similar to Christianity, is not a monolithic bloc. Even Muslim fundamentalists are divided into several competing factions, non-violent, violent or terrorist (well, much more complicated than that & by far not as simplistic as presented in many media).
I suppose here you can find some articles representing a more moderate Islam.

If you want my opinion, it doesn't matter. History has shown that once extremists were numerous and powerful enough, they'd take power and do things the way they wanted. The "moderate" ones end up being the victims, or just keep a low profile, justly because they fear conflicts. Not all Germans were Nazi under Hitler. Not even a majority was. This didn't prevent the Nazi to have their way. Look at the Middle East. Who has the real power ? Who controls the government and media in most countries ? In fact, Lebanon and Jordan may well be among the most moderate countries in this regard. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are probably among the most radical.

 

[Maciamo]

Muslims in Brussels didn't manage to reach the Danish embassy (not in the centre), so they decided to throw stones at the closer US Embassy. As long as they get an exutory to their anger, it doesn't seem to matter who is the target...

Expatica : Muslims protest in Brussels as global Islamic rage grows

...The only unrest involved several youths throwing stones at the US embassy. Police had sealed off the Danish embassy to ward off any problems.
...
The EU, the US and NATO condemned the rioting. Lebanese politicians and the US have accused the Syrian government of supporting the protests in Lebanon to undermine the government.

 

[TwistedMac]

Lebanese politicians and the US have accused the Syrian government of supporting the protests in Lebanon to undermine the government.

Now that's what I'm talking about! thank you US, enough of a vindication for me atleast.

 

[nurizeko]

My thoughts exactly, thats all i wanted from the US, and most of europe unfairly targetted, the US standing by its allies.

 

[misa.j]

As long as they get an exutory to their anger, it doesn't seem to matter who is the target...

It seems exactly that way to me. They seem to be using this cartoon thing as an excuse for their uprising and rampage.
Depiction of Mohammed has been done many times in the past, so why are they so angry this time?
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The reaction to these cartoons has been uncivilised and retaliatory. Whatever reaction we have has to be civilised, not retaliatory - so we shouldn't deport Muslims or boycott their businesses or condone any violence whatsoever. We should be continuing to uphold the example of how civilised people behave.