Immigration Global Muslim anger at European depiction of Prophet Muhammad

[Maciamo]

WWIII?
On September 12, 2001, I declared to my colleagues in our office that we were already in it!
We just don't perceive it for what it is.

You are probably right. WWIII is probably the protracted conflict between Muslims and Non-Muslims nations, or what GW Bush calls the War on Terror (as it indeed is a war, and it does have a world-wide scale, even more than WWI and WWII).

 

[Maciamo]

Freedom of speech (and press) is a right that allows for the publication of said cartoons, however tasteless they may be. (I agree with Bush, they were tasteless, but I thought the one regarding the shortage of virgins was particularly funny. But that's just me.)

Humour is one of the least universal human feeling. I know from experience that humour is often incompatible across cultures (the more different, the least compatible). That's why the most successful comedies in each European linguistic group rarely manage to receive more than a lukewarm attention in other linguistic groups. Humour even divides people of the same culture and education level... So when religion and radically opposite cultures are involved, it is only normal that some people get offended, others find it tasteless, others stay insensible, while yet others find it funny.

I am pretty sure som Westerners could find some Muslim jokes offensive, but that not a reason to throw stones, fire guns, burn embassies and ask for the heads of the humourists. Had similarly violent protests happened in Europe against some Muslim countriess' embassies, I am sure that the European demonstrators would have been arrested, and probably fined or jailed, and European governments would have had to deeply apologise to the countries which embassies had been attacked. When the reverse happens, like here, however, it is the Europeans whose embassies have been burned who feel like they have to apologise for their journalists !! That's unbelieveable. If the Syrian government does not apologise and finance the complete reconstruction of the 4 destroyed embassies, I want Western governments to team up and sanction Syria.

 

[ArmandV]

When hell freezes over!

Humour is one of the least universal human feeling. I am pretty sure som Westerners could find some Muslim jokes offensive, but that not a reason to throw stones, fire guns, burn embassies and ask for the heads of the humourists. Had similarly violent protests happened in Europe against some Muslim countriess' embassies, I am sure that the European demonstrators would have been arrested, and probably fined or jailed, and European governments would have had to deeply apologise to the countries which embassies had been attacked. When the reverse happens, like here, however, it is the Europeans whose embassies have been burned who feel like they have to apologise for their journalists !! That's unbelieveable. If the Syrian government does not apologise and finance the complete reconstruction of the 4 destroyed embassies, I want Western governments to team up and sanction Syria.

What was it that Hugo Drax in Moonraker said about not understanding English humor? Yes, humor is regional and cultural.

Frankly, I think the European countries whose embassies were burned shouldn't apologize until the host countries pay for the repairs/rebuilding and the Muslim publications who print cartoons and diatribes against Jews, Israel and 9/11 also apologize.

 

[ArmandV]

Europe is finally waking up!

AS IF!!!!
That is the most ridicolous point ever. Why would the US nuke a prime ally in the middle east and one of the main "CHEAP" oil suppliers to the US. The consequences would be catastrophic. That would prolly start the clash between civilizations not to mention the economies of the West going to chaos mode.

I highly doubt it will ever happen. However, the point is that Osama doesn't know that! That's the whole idea. Even discussing it should give Islamic radicals the shivers. Maybe it might spur good Muslims into finally taking back their religion from the radicals. Who knows?

We are already in a clash of civilizations. That is what is meant that some people have a post-September 11 mentality and others a pre-September 11 mentality. The economies of the world are already heading in chaos mode. Looked at the prices at the gas pump lately? It is creeping up again. The good people of the countries where the cartoons were published did nothing wrong, yet they are the one being penalized with boycotts and other actions that have been mentioned.

Face it, folks. We are in a friggin' war. And we have Jimmy Carter to thank for it. If it wasn't for Carter greasing the skids for the fall of the Shah of Iran, we wouldn't be in this mess today. All this Islamic radicalism crap spread from Iran. We are dealing with barbarians and they should be treated as such.

 

[ArmandV]

You gotta be kiddin'!

Well said, TwistedMac. It's time for European countries who backed the USA to see if they can really count on their American allies, or if it's just a one way relationship. I am pretty sure that if it had been the US embassy that had been burned, US troops would already be on their way to occupy Syria, and Bush would have said that attacking diplomatic missions is no response to what private citizens might have said or drawn in a country.

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

 

[bossel]

You are correct that it is only a violent few who are causing the trouble. They are giving the Muslim community around the world a bad name. The problem I have is that the 1.4 billion + change Muslims aren't comdemning the violence and the radicalism of the "few thousand." One can interpret their silence as tacit approval.

Actually, you can find a number of Muslim scholars & media rejecting the current violence. But that's perhaps not good enough to make the news in the US. Only bad news is good news.

BTW, haven't seen millions of Germans taking to the streets to protest violent neo-nazi demonstrations. Does that mean the majority of the German population tacitly agrees?

So far, newspapers in the following countries have (re)printed the cartoons :

You forgot to mention Jordan in your list.

Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.

Very funny. Sadly, OBL is most probably not stupid enough to take this threat seriously. Luckily, probably even Bush isn't stupid enough to make such a threat come true.

I see the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassy as a declaration of war on the EU and NATO countries. [...]
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 take this your post as some strange form of sarcasm.

There is no way that an invasion is justified for the simple reason of some idiots burning an embassy.

Just on a side note: Would you see a Chinese invasion of the US justified, because the US forces bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrado?

Who do you think played the major role in taking back Europe from the Nazis?

The USSR.

You'd be speaking German right now if it wasn't for America!

Or maybe Russian?

 

[Mike Cash]

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

 

[TwistedMac]

Do you really think that the U.S. has to prove itself as an ally?

the way the US recently backstabbed Denmark, yes.

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

You people must see france as one huge nation to always think like this. We don't expect France to do much of anything, They're just one small nation like the rest of us. it's like saying Texas was worthless in the wareffort and the repeadetly using the Texan war effort as a measure on how well America did.

And leave all this "If it weren't for America" BS out of this. first of all, this new war has nothing to do with WW2, that's alot of years ago.

Second, if you wanna go that far, how about "If it weren't for France, you'd still be an English colony," and you would've entered the WW2 on the command of the Queen then, meaning you wouldn't have entered when every country was torn to pieces already but at a more reasonable time.

Not to mention Russia had an equal or bigger part in defeating the Nazis. It's not like America came down from the skies in an army thrice the size of both nazis and allies together, wiping out the Nazis in one fell blow. It was a joint effort, and we have much to thank the Canadians for aswell.

The WW2 argument is getting well old.

And I repeat; Yes, the US needs to prove itself as an ally.

 

[No-name]

I'm not so certain when it comes to the Arab world that having us (The US) as a ally is all that valuable.

 

[TwistedMac]

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

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.

obvious truth to anyone.

 

[No-name]

It is one thing to be outraged, quite another to burn down an embassy. There are many ways of expressing yourself that don't invlolve property destruction or violence. Not only does the response seem disproportionate, it actually seems to work counter to its purposes. Mike Cash, I believe you may be right in your assessment-- perhaps it has become a culture of outrage.

 

[Maciamo]

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?

If you care about history ? Who helped the US get their independence. Where do white Americans come from originally ? For your information, half of Europe was never occupied by the Nazi (Finland, Sweden, UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerlands, half of France, and well Italy, Austria, and Germany were the Nazi team, so they weren't really occupied). I doubt that the Nazi could have kept their control over Europe for very long, as the USSR was already given them a hard time since Stalingrad, and the German economy and human capital was declining fast. Imagine, the US is already in the red just for sending a comparatively derisory amount of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, so how could a smaller and poorer country finance troops to occopy and fight in half of Europe, North Africa, Russia and even beyond ? Hadn't the US intervened, the biggest risk was that the USSR had taken over Europe within a few years after 1944. The USA knew that. For Americans, having a Nazi or Comunist Europe would mean no more trade with a continent worth more than its own worth (Europe has always been more populous, although the gap is decreasing). Anyway, that's history.

 

[Maciamo]

Ironically, the "outrage" of the Muslims towards the cartoons of Mohammed are the main cause of the massive reprinting of them around the world, especially on the Internet ! These cartoons will now become emblematic symbols, and people will associate the bomb in the turban with the burning of embassies by Muslims.

 

[Void]

sorry for the late reply

Are you implying Muslims are liars too? Oh! What a mindless generalization!

no. That`s what you are implying after reading my words. %) You eagerly snatched the bait and draw the conclusion you wanted.
To elaborate: many americans still believe what Bush said and they repeat it
after him. But many americans don`t. It might be that even Bush himself believed in what he said at his annual "appeal to the nation" and it might be a good play also.
What mob says doesn`t 100% reflects the attitude of a whole nation(s). And very often what politicians say is not to be read directly.
Back to the freedom of speech =) Ran into quote of american lawer Holmes Oliver Wendell (sp?) (1841-1935) "freedom of speech doesn`t include the right to scream "Fire!!" in an overcrowded theatre" (translation back to english is mine, so some words might differ from original)

Do you mean the reality people are "most comfortable with" is Muslims
attacking our basic freedoms and trying to turn our governments into a
theocracy? I don't find it any comfortable at all.

Just marvellous it was obvious that paranoid statement "they deny our
freedom of speech and press!" will lead to statements of denial of basic
freedoms, and, probably, human rights.
Throughout the history of interaction between "north" and "south" (or "third world") latter was treated as less civilized, the one whato needs tutoring, improvement and modification. Even when French Revolution led to the formulation of Human Rights, they were not granted to the nations of the "third world" (by the way they were not entirely granted to hte "west" population either, up to the middle of XX century, and even today in some cases they are denied). Does it fell any comfortable?
"First world" always considered itself superiour, mature and better. Well, i
looked at the caricatures. Although, i don`t care about what and how might be portraited regarding Cristianity, my own government and country, for example, and such, but this obviously reminds pics drawn at the time of cold war. An this is not humor, some pics is an attempt to mock and belittle. This can be done in two cases:
1) childish behaviour, when the person (nation, country) is not mature enough to create constructive criticism.
2) intentional behaviour, when disparaging is done on purpose.
which is worse?
The sad truth is that if your government will decide to issue some sort of
"Patriotic Act", it can do this without Muslims. And another interesting point
of view is that all these rights were granted to you not because of pure humanism but because "working class" (at first, and "middle class" later) was considered "growing and dangerous strata" and needed some sop
======================

then the whole concept of Islam is a threat to world peace.

maybe, this advice:

As a muslim friend said once about his fellow muslims; "read the f**king manual, b**ch!"

could be as well given to the west? in both cases - to read Koran and to read its own concepts of democracy and liberalism?
AFAIK, the concept of Islam is no more threat to the world peace as the concept of globalizaton. You shoude`ve differentiate the concepts (of no matter what) and the policy of its employment (use). There are enough of good points in Islam not to banish it.

More than that, Muslim beliefs are so uncompromising that Muslims around
the world also seem to run into conflict with people of other religious
affiliations.

i live in multinational and multicultural country, and most recent controversies
with muslims had rather political background than religious, in fact our Orthodox church very often shows its rigidness and intolerance toward others.
i have been to one Middle East country yet, considering some other trips. Yes, it is certainly different from purely islamic countries, but nevertheless, its official religion is Islam. And i met different people with different attitudes.
This world is changing, slowly but it does. (And also i can say no one is liked
being pushed... and pushing is often done in intimidating forms)
So i looked from the blogs of the country i know a bit. When i`ll have more time, i`ll get more from others
http://www.black-iris.com/?p=488
http://www.black-iris.com/?p=479
http://www.natashatynes.org/mental_mayhem/2006/02/caricatures_the.html
http://www.black-iris.com/?p=470
you can jump across the links and see various points - violent and not, fanatic and reasonable
at the same time i can`t find the answer to the question:
"how good at compromising and tolerating is western world?"

 

[Maciamo]

Now they do it in Liban as well !

The anti-European movement is heating up (no pun intended) in Liban as well, as they torched the Danish embassy in Beirut.

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...

 

[Maciamo]

Throughout the history of interaction between "north" and "south" (or "third world") latter was treated as less civilized, the one whato needs tutoring, improvement and modification.

For many people civilization is defined by a nation's wealth (e.g. GDP per capita), technologies, cultural richness, human development (education, life expectancy, happiness, freedom, democarcy...), respect of human rights, and advancement of its public institutions (government, courts, public services...).
If we take that as the basis of civilization, then by definition third world countries are generally less civilsed than developed countries and democracies (often the same countries).

Even when French Revolution led to the formulation of Human Rights, they were not granted to the nations of the "third world" (by the way they were not entirely granted to hte "west" population either, up to the middle of XX century, and even today in some cases they are denied). Does it fell any comfortable?

This is not true. The French declared Universal Human Rights, which applied to people all over the world, whatever their ethnicity. The US in comparison only granted those rights to white US citizens, until the Civil War extended it to all US citizens. That is why slavery was abolished in 1789 in France, but not until 1865 in the US. The universality of the concept of Human Rights that emerged in the late 18th century France is also the one on which is based Belgium's universal juridiction of the war crimes law (in other words, it doesn't matter where in the world war crimes were commited and by citizens of which nationality, Belgian courts can try them).

"First world" always considered itself superiour, mature and better.

This may be true. However, the countries that make up this "First World" have constantly changed throughout history. For instance, Japan was not "First World" until the 20th century. Eastern Europe may have been part of the "First World" until 1918, and may soon be part of it again, but not in between. Southern Italy, Spain, Portgual, Greece and Ireland were all second of third world until a few decades ago, but all can now be considered first world (if not always economically, at least politically).

An this is not humor, some pics is an attempt to mock and belittle. This can be done in two cases:
1) childish behaviour, when the person (nation, country) is not mature enough to create constructive criticism.
2) intentional behaviour, when disparaging is done on purpose.
which is worse?

Frankly, I do not see the caricature as either of them. It is just "regular humour". There are many jokes among neighbouring countries in Europe (e.g. among Scandinavians, or between French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans...), but they are not intended to be criticism (your point 1), nor to disparage the other country/culture. Humour is very important is many European countries, even if it mean making fun of other people or culture, of politicians, of the clergy, of authority in general, of men, of women, of homo/heterosexual, or whatever might be funny to a particular group of people.

I certainly understand that on a national scale, like a newspaper, making fun of a kind or people common to most of the country's citizens (e.g. Islam), is the best way to gain an audience. Why do you think GW Bush has been such a popular target for humourists worldwide ? That has not prompted the Bush administration to burn the embassies of every country which newspapers ridiculed or even insulted him.

Incidentally, do you know the movie Looking for comedy in the Muslim world. This might give a clue to why Muslims overreact to what is seen as humour elsewhere (however, I wonder why they chose India to set the movie, as it is only 13% Muslim, almost the same as France ! But may that's justly because they feared negative, or even violent reactions in more hardline Muslim countries).

 

[TwistedMac]

"how good at compromising and tolerating is western world?"

at the moment we're tolerating having our embassies and flags burned around the world. I'd say that's pretty tolerant.

 

[ArmandV]

Facts are stubborn things.

If you care about history ? Who helped the US get their independence?

Thank you for bringing this up. The reason France had to be goaded into helping the colonies gain independence was that Benjamin Franklin (that wily rascal) was busy charming the French officials' women. Otherwise, they were reluctant to get involved (despite hating the English). Strange, but true!

 

[kumo]

no. That`s what you are implying after reading my words. %) You eagerly snatched the bait and draw the conclusion you wanted.
To elaborate: many americans still believe what Bush said and they repeat it
after him. But many americans don`t. It might be that even Bush himself believed in what he said at his annual "appeal to the nation" and it might be a good play also.
What mob says doesn`t 100% reflects the attitude of a whole nation(s). And very often what politicians say is not to be read directly.

Surely not the attitude of the whole nation, but if even just 1% of the population is stupid enough to burn embassies because of a cartoon, then we have a serious problem that needs taking care of. Of course, seeing the consequences of the boycott on Danish products, we can be sure the percentage of stupid people is way higher than 1%.

just marvellous it was obvious that paranoid statement "they deny our freedom of speech and press!" will lead to statements of denial of basic
freedoms, and, probably, human rights.

Quite obvious indeed, since freedom of speech and press IS a basic right (at least in "First World Countries").

"First world" always considered itself superiour, mature and better.

And in most cases they are. That is pretty much definitional.

 

[ArmandV]

For the record...

the way the US recently backstabbed Denmark, yes.
You people must see france as one huge nation to always think like this. We don't expect France to do much of anything, They're just one small nation like the rest of us. it's like saying Texas was worthless in the wareffort and the repeadetly using the Texan war effort as a measure on how well America did.
And leave all this "If it weren't for America" BS out of this. first of all, this new war has nothing to do with WW2, that's alot of years ago.
Second, if you wanna go that far, how about "If it weren't for France, you'd still be an English colony," and you would've entered the WW2 on the command of the Queen then, meaning you wouldn't have entered when every country was torn to pieces already but at a more reasonable time.
Not to mention Russia had an equal or bigger part in defeating the Nazis. It's not like America came down from the skies in an army thrice the size of both nazis and allies together, wiping out the Nazis in one fell blow. It was a joint effort, and we have much to thank the Canadians for aswell.
The WW2 argument is getting well old.
And I repeat; Yes, the US needs to prove itself as an ally.

The U.S. backstabbed Denmark? Please elaborate.
Sure the U.S.S.R. played a role in beating the Nazis. However, they would have fallen as well if it weren't for two things: 1.) The Russian Winter; 2.) FDR's Lend-Lease Program. Where else did the U.S.S.R. get their munitions (planes, tanks, guns, etc.) to defend themselves? The same goes for the other countries you mentioned. They got their stuff primarily from Lend-Lease.
The Soviet role in ending the war in Europe, as we all know, was not a totally happy one. So I would not be so high on the U.S.S.R. in that regard.