• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Yosemite Sam named new ambassador to Muslimland

man_slut

TRIBE Member
Here's what Mr. Fisk has to say:

Now Lebanon is Burning
The Fury
By ROBERT FISK
The Independent

After Syria, the fires fanned by Denmark's anti-Prophet cartoons spread to Lebanon yesterday with sectarian intensity.

Anger flashing through the Muslim world over the weekend saw protesters burn Danish flags and attack buildings from Lahore to Gaza. The Islamic Army in Iraq, one of the main insurgent groups, made a blood-curdling call yesterday for violence against citizens of countries where caricatures of the Prophet Mohamed have been published.

"We swear to God, if we catch one of their citizens in Iraq, we will cut him to pieces, to take revenge for Prophet," it said in an unverified internet statement.

In Lebanon yesterday, 2,000troops fought demonstrators in the heart of Christian Beirut during the day as the Danish consulate was set on fire and a large church was attacked by a mob. Other demonstrators headed for the Lebanese foreign ministry. One protester at the consulate was trapped by flames and died after jumping from the third floor.

Yestereday's violence may have been inspired by the previous day's assaults on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus--or were perhaps encouraged by the same Baath party which must have originally permitted the Syrian demonstrations to take place.

More likely, the crowds in both cities were allowed by the authorities to stage protests, but the demonstrators quickly became overwhelmed as Sunni extremists--in Lebanon, perhaps from the Salafist Hezb al-Tahrir party in Tripoli, and equally Wahhabi-minded Palestinians from the Ein el-Helweh refugee camp--arrived with sticks and stones to assault the Danish property and then to attack the St Maroun church and march on the Lebanese foreign ministry.

If this is true, it shows how quickly two nationalist Arab governments can be challenged by Islamists within their own countries. The 2,000-strong Lebanese security forces had to be deployed in east Beirut to fire tear gas and live rounds into the air to hold back the rioters.

For Lebanon, divided along sectarian lines as it has been since its creation by the French in the 1920s, it was a grim and bitter day--perhaps the worst since ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated on 14 February last year--which brought Muslim demonstrators into the centre of Christian east Beirut where the Danish consulate is--or rather was--located. Burning fire engines and smashing cars parked in the streets, however, brought back ugly memories of the 15-year Lebanese civil war.

Little wonder, then, that Charles Rizk, the Justice Minister, asked angrily: "What is the guilt of the people of Ashrafieh for cartoons published in Denmark?'' Ashrafieh, needless to say, is an almost entirely Christian sector of Beirut.

Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese Prime Minister--who, under the country's unwritten constitution, must be a Sunni--insisted that this was not the way for Muslims to express their anger. One Sunni prelate who appeared on the streets in a vain attempt to calm the demonstrators remarked that "they have done more damage to the name of the Prophet today than the cartoons in Denmark''.

Lebanon's Interior Minister, Hassan al-Sabaa, resigned yesterday, becoming the first political casualty of the crisis.

At least 30 people were arrested and the Lebanese authorities later announced--predictably--that most were "foreigners". Whenever any civil unrest occurs in Lebanon, foreigners are always blamed--just as they were throughout the civil war--although it will be interesting to see if there are any Syrians among their number. Christian politicians complain that the Lebanese government, which knew that there would be demonstrations, should have dealt more "firmly" with the demonstrators--for "firmly", read "fatally".

But, in fact, the Lebanese troops managed to avoid shooting any of the protesters dead; "martyrs" would only have provided room for more violent demonstrations--and yesterday's battle in east Beirut was in marked contrast to the way Israeli soldiers deal with Arab demonstrators. The Lebanese, far from firing bullets into the surging crowds, pushed them back with water cannons.

There is no doubting that those preposterous cartoons originally published in Copenhagen last September have lit a small inferno across the Middle East. In Nablus, Palestinian gunmen stormed the French cultural centre yesterday. In Qatar, the government announced it would no longer accept trade delegations from Denmark. Iran recalled its ambassador from Copenhagen.

Muslim demonstrators could be seen on the streets of Beirut yesterday with green banners bearing the legend: "Oh Nation of Mohamed, Wake Up!'' The danger for the West--as well as the dictatorships and semi-democracies of the Middle East--is that rather a lot of members of the nation of Mohamed will do just that.

Syria is a largely Sunni nation ruled by Alawites--a branch of Shiism--and it is not difficult to see how even minimum Baathist encouragement of Saturday's demonstrators quickly turned into a Sunni protest.The Norwegian embassy had demanded extra protection from Syria--but was not provided with the security forces it asked for. There will be many questions asked about this among Europeans in Damascus; for it is the same old problem: who runs Syria?

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Fisk's new book is The Conquest of the Middle East.

LINK
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Big Harv
But the Muslims are not "protesting" their historical grievances - they are protesting the cartoons!!! Again, you are projecting reasons for the violence that don't exist.
No, I can only refer you to my post of 02-06-2006 09:30 PM, when I argue that:

A) YOU dont know why they are doing what they're doing; ALL you can know is what you hear in the media here, and, as this CIA Mid-East specialist testifies, that means you dont know shit, and the picture in your head is totally seperate from the pictures in the heads of Arabs and Muslims who you're nevertheless judging (note, Arabs and Muslims youre judging, not violence)

B) Yes, do we hear they are saying they're upset about the cartoons.
What else DONT we hear? What else have they been saying for literally decades that we dont hear? ie what is the context of this cartoon thing. It didnt just drop out of the blue sky one day, it is in a context of already violently hating America, its one exchange in a looooong and ugly fight.

Like TrIbAlNuT said: In my opinion these cartoons where simply the last straw for Muslims.

Again, " do you really think this is merely a matter of a law that says dont draw Mohamed?
In other words do you think these people are fucking retarded children?
The cartoons were deliberate insults. They were Western papers knowingly slapping Muslims in the face." - Insults coming from those smug affluent westerners who have ground Islamic faces into the dirt for decades

Thats the context

Everybody knows this. Everyone knows they are furious, have been for years. See again my 02-06-2006 09:30 PM post and add to it this (to points A) and B) here as well):
...The polls are pretty rough. So why do they hate us? Perhaps we ought to talk about the Middle East because that is where most of the action is right now – Central Asia and the Middle East.
There are some that say they do not understand us. There are some people in the State Department who will say [that]. ...But mostly, it is our policies. People are well informed.
...
[It is widely acknowledged that a very major grievance is America's unilateral support for Israel's occupation, along w/ the sanctions on Iraq]
...What we can’t explain is why the Congress of the United States makes it a law that the United States Government cannot publish a document that identifies the Capitol of Israel as Tel Aviv. It must identify, according to United States Law, Jerusalem. Of course, this is one of the unresolved points of contention between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Very few people in the United States know that this is the law in the United States. Everybody at every level of society in the Middle East knows that is the law in the United States and knows that that law was passed last year.
So policy is one thing, but some of the things we do sends messages that result in this enormous feeling that we are biased; that we are insensitive to the Arab point of view; and that we are not fair to the Palestinians.

...this anti-American feeling..., for the most part, is based on opposition to our policies

Harold C. Pachios , Chairman, Advisory Commission for Public Diplomacy
January 28, 2003
Public Diplomacy and the War on Terror
http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/rls/19104.htm
By your logic, the Muslims all over the world are protesting to express solidairity with their "oppressed" Danish Muslim brothers and sisters who are suffering because of their treatment in Denmark.
:rolleyes: You fucking idiot. By "my logic", those who are not personally directly oppressed feel solidarity with those who are: Danish Muslims feel solidarity with those in the middle east everybody knows are oppressed and whose oppression everyone acknowledges is the major grievance of "Muslim anti-Americanism"..... obviously, Palestine, Iraq, etc etc
Oppressed my ass.

Even if Muslims had a claim that they were oppressed, which I deny, that does not give them an excuse or justification to commit criminal acts and violate international law by burning down embassies
You're right it doesn't give them an excuse or justification
I dont think anyone has even suggested that their violence is justified - except for you guys who keep emphatically rejecting that point..that..... no one has raised but you
:confused:




My point is not and has never been that the violence is justified, just as yours has never been that this violence is unacceptable (duuuuh, really its not good to uh burn down embassies??)
No, yours has been that this anger and violence is an expression of mystifying Muslim barbarity, savagry, inferiority.
This was ~atp~'s point with the Nat Turner analogy:
Back then, their gruesome murder-spree was seen simply as black savagry.
If ~atp~, say, went back in time and pointed out to some whites in a tavern: 'Uh.. hey guys, they're fucking slaves. You're enslaving them, their entire race here.' The whites would fucking explode:
"AND SO ITS OKAY TO SLAUGHTER LITTLE CHILDREN, WIVES AND BOYS AND GIRLS?!?!??!?!?! IS THAT WHAT YOURE SAYING!??!?!!?"
or perhaps a more sane white person might say
"Thats ONE factor, ~atp~, but you cant attribute their greusome slaughter entirely to slavery! See, Mr. ~atp~, you think they're not responsible for their behaviour because they're slaves. Thats not acceptable. I hold everyone equally accountable!'

Well, if that were anywhere close to being true, and this were their reaction to a small slave revolt and massacre of innocent white children, what would you expect to be their reaction to the, oh, say, one trillian times as large crime of slavery and truely mass, mass-violence/murder - over which, on top of its hugeness, they actually have influence and resonsibility? And what is their actual reaction to that violence? Oh? Barely a peep? Even, - sorry, what was that? - defence? Oh you actually consistently defend and excuse it? Well then, Mr Racist, I'll just start calling you Mr Racist from now on because thats clearly what you are. [/end slight tangenet]

Our point has been that it is not uncivilized, mystifying Muslim barbarism - that it is understandable, and not some sort of animalistic insanity!!! .... (though of course the extreme incidents, examined specifically, are bound to be pathological)

So there is a confusion of two issues:
This is what you guys seem to insist is the issue:
'We are saying this violence is unacceptable, and you guys are saying its all cool just cus we supposedly 'colonized' them! Well that doesnt justify violence you slimey liberal!'
While we're supposedly saying 'No you guys, we treat the Muslims really badly, its okay for them to firebomb embassies! :) Its actually just!'

What we are saying, and ultimately I can only speak for myself, of course, is:
'You are not talking merely about violence.
You are not merely condemning violence.
This is obvious first of all because of the large volume of indictments in this thread not of violence but of the inferior barbaric Muslim mind that happens to be committing this violence, and second of all because the violence is being explicitly attributed specifically to some Muslim-ness, some Muslim ineptitude, failure to grasp concepts of civilization.

Dont make me start quoting you racists!
Its so flagrant its fucking disgusting on Tribe, Toronto often being sold as the most multicultural city in the world, our generation the first to be raised on a concentrated diet of that tolerance and respect and etc

Furthermore, you show no comparable interest in far far far vaster and more extreme violence commited by none other than 'our own side' to which some of you acknowledge this is a reaction (even if an 'underlying' factor), but rather jump exclusively and savagely on the unique Muslim-type barbarity


So, we're saying the violence is not due to some Muslim defect or inferiority any more than examining German bombing of London during WWII, one would say 'What is wrong with these Germans! Look what stupid beasts they are! What fucking animals!
This bombing can be chalked up to their German-ness'
No: you're in a war, what do you expect.
Attributing the violence to the nature of your enemy ignores the war and your enemy as a human and as a human society complex and diverse etc etc

You cant pretend you're simply upset about merely the violence..... again, the open attributions to Islamic inferiority are so flagrant
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
man... these people really make you work for it eh Deafplayer? Nice to see you putting in the effort but I wonder if they'll be able to read your post objectively...

One can always hope a seed gets planted somewhere..:)
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
lol thanks man


btw Another important point:


the slave revots (usually simply gruesome massacres of whites) were usually, normally not declared as being in opposition to or being a protest of slavery!!
(!!!!!)
Which only made it easier to construe them as ingrateful black savagry against the benevolent white guardians
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by deafplayer
No, I can only refer you to my post of 02-06-2006 09:30 PM, when I argue that:

A) YOU dont know why they are doing what they're doing; ALL you can know is what you hear in the media here, and, as this CIA Mid-East specialist testifies, that means you dont know shit, and the picture in your head is totally seperate from the pictures in the heads of Arabs and Muslims who you're nevertheless judging (note, Arabs and Muslims youre judging, not violence)

yours has been that this anger and violence is an expression of mystifying Muslim barbarity, savagry, inferiority.
ok, i see better where you are coming, from.
solid post.

without repeating everything again, ill say this:

1. no one can ever truly know whats going on in each region of the world intamately enough to lay claim to the ultimate reality of the situation.

there were muslims in the mid-east and the rest of the world, including parts we live in and have some degree of knowledge about, who reacted with anger and others who reacted with violence etc etc.

the voices that i personally respect and turn to when i want to better understand (even superficially) some elements of muslim issues were unanimous in condemming the violent ends of the protests. now if muslim community leaders in and outside the mid-east were able to condem the violent protests as inappropriate, un-islamic and hurtful to the muslim world, where does your claim rest?

i dont personally think it was MUSLIM Barbairty, but simply Barbarity itself, that as human beings some people reacted with rage.

we devote most of our debate on the political forum no TRIBE to slamming US policys and wesetrn imperialism, or at least debating it! id say most of us here dont blindly accuse Muslims of holding the Ace of Spades for violence and babarity.

american soldiers mistreating detainees are being ignorant and misrepresenting what their uniforms represent, just as an individual storming an embassy filled with innocent civilians under the guise of protecting their muslim faith.

but i gues we are beating this to death. some good points all around.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Deafplayer: I'm not indicting Islam as a whole religion, or arguing that Islam naturally breeds violence. I do believe that there are a large majority of radicals/Islamofascists/fundamentalists/Wahaabists who twist the principles of Islam to justify and encourage violent action...and it's the growing number of that sect of Islam that drowns out the voices of the more reasonable moderates who condemned the cartoon, but didn't burn down buildings in protest.
 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by deafplayer
No, I can only refer you to my post of 02-06-2006 09:30 PM, when I argue that:

A) YOU dont know why they are doing what they're doing; ALL you can know is what you hear in the media here, and, as this...
I wonder if you would be willing to apply that to, say...the crusades, or maybe the 6 day war.

What you say is true, but I wonder if you have a bias.
 

Hal-9000

TRIBE Member
I find westerners professing to speak 'for the oppresed people of the world' almost as gross as inherent cultural superiority and racism.

That line gets blurred quite often.
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~

Do you not see how that is even remotely condescending? Of course violence should be condemned, but you would not simply condemn the violence of the Women's rights movement just because one of their protests became violent, or became spuriously violent as a result of a newspaper mocking women slaving away in a factory for $2 / week.

bit of the pot calling the kettle black, eh? do you not see how your comments in this thread were even remotely condescending?


anyway, violence should be condemned! there, you said it. i believe that's what most here have been doing.

sure, perhaps most are placing a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the bahaviour of the protesters, rather than the underlying reasons behind said behaviour, but it doesn't matter if there are underlying reasons or not, people are responsible for their own behaviour, and for directing their emotional responses in the proper directions.
there are only explanations for violence, not excuses.

in the case of an excuse, addressing the underlying causes is of paramount importance, whereas in the case of an explanation, there are two seperate, though obviously related, issues to look at.

as i said, perhaps i should have addressed both sides of the issue, but it is easy to get slightly pissed off when people have issues directing their violent aggression in the correct direction, particularly when my in-laws live in Denmark, and they, like me, are total pacifists who have a great deal of respect for people of all races and belief systems.
additionally, my gf's dad is the financial manager for Arla, one of the companies hit hardest by the boycotts.


i realize that i essentially directed my anger in only one of two directions i should have, but the current violent response to the drawings is the most immediate threat, and one for which i see no excuse.

The important question is not "is rioting against innocent victims okay" (of course it isn't okay) but rather "why did these rioters lash out?"
no, you're wrong.

the violence is one issue, and the reasons behind the violence another. of course they are intertwined, but they can be addressed seperately because, as i mentioned, there are no excuses for violence, only explanations.

i think this is where our heads butt.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by docta seuss

bit of the pot calling the kettle black, eh? do you not see how your comments in this thread were even remotely condescending?


anyway, violence should be condemned! there, you said it. i believe that's what most here have been doing.

sure, perhaps most are placing a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the bahaviour of the protesters, rather than the underlying reasons behind said behaviour, but it doesn't matter if there are underlying reasons or not, people are responsible for their own behaviour, and for directing their emotional responses in the proper directions.
there are only explanations for violence, not excuses.

in the case of an excuse, addressing the underlying causes is of paramount importance, whereas in the case of an explanation, there are two seperate issues to look at.

as i said, perhaps i should have addressed both sides of the issue, but it is easy to get slightly pissed off when people have issues directing their violent aggression in the correct direction, particularly when my in-laws live in Denmark, and they, like me, are total pacifists who have a great deal of respect for people of all races and belief systems.
additionally, my gf's dad is the financial manager for Arla, one of the companies hit hardest by the boycotts.


i realize that i essentially directed my anger in only one of two directions i should have, but the current violent response to the drawings is the most immediate threat, and one for which i see no excuse.

no, you're wrong.

the violence is one issue, and the reasons behind the violence another. of course they are intertwined, but they can be addressed seperately because, as i mentioned, there are no excuses for violence, only explanations.

i think this is where our heads butt. [/B]
excellent post.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by docta seuss

bit of the pot calling the kettle black, eh? do you not see how your comments in this thread were even remotely condescending?
[/b]
Of course they were. It was intentional and designed to draw contempt from my mortal enemies. Which is what I assume many of you were doing to the Muslim savages, right?


anyway, violence should be condemned! there, you said it. i believe that's what most here have been doing.
And then enhancing that statement with "and we can't imagine doing that over something as trivial as cartoons" and that "there's never an excuse for violence, especially under these ridiculous circumstances". The language of which carries meaning that is extremely disdainful and judgemental.

If this isn't what some of the posters intended, fine. But taken from the receiving perspective, it could easily be interpreted as hostile. In fact, this entire issue is hostile and would certainly not be received in any other way than in the dimmest possible light...


sure, perhaps most are placing a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the bahaviour of the protesters, rather than the underlying reasons behind said behaviour, but it doesn't matter if there are underlying reasons or not, people are responsible for their own behaviour, and for directing their emotional responses in the proper directions.
I can easily imagine circumstances where I would become sufficiently desperate to turn to violence. External conditions influence -- if not directly necessitate -- the strategies for resolving conflict and I refuse to believe that those conditions don't "matter". Obviously "people are responsible" for their own actions, this is not questioned, what is questioned is the excessive (to the point of abusive) amount condemnation their behaviour has received, amplified terribly by the context in which that behaviour has been painted.

I mean, it is like the media is gloating over how extremely unreasonable their behaviour is, which, when placed next to other historical examples of "unreasonable behaviour" becomes entirely trivial and quite ironic.


there are only explanations for violence, not excuses.
There are only explanations for everything we do...if you are saying that violence is inherently immoral, then I would disagree. I think that violence needs to have context before conferring any moral judgement.


i realize that i essentially directed my anger in only one of two directions i should have, but the current violent response to the drawings is the most immediate threat, and one for which i see no excuse.
No one is excusing the violence in this particular case. No one in this thread has done (or is trying to do) that. The violence is certainly not "moral" in this case, however it has its roots that go beyond the condescension of Arabic culture and religion. Heavy-handed condemnation of all violence, regardless of context, is dangerous and ignorant.


no, you're wrong.

the violence is one issue, and the reasons behind the violence another.
Sorry, where did I say that violence and reasons were intertwined? I pointed out, quite clearly, though in parenthetical statements, which may have been glossed over, that the violence is not excusable (this is issue one). I then proceed to ask a second question (issue two) that exists quite independently of issue one.
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Of course they were. It was intentional and designed to draw contempt from my mortal enemies. Which is what I assume many of you were doing to the Muslim savages, right?
drop the 'Muslim savages' bit. it's both inaccurate and old.

i have defended Muslims in more than a few debates, and i don't appreciate the label you've plastered on me and others.

it's like it's taboo to speak out against all but the most extreme Muslims on TRIBE.

Originally posted by ~atp~

I can easily imagine circumstances where I would become sufficiently desperate to turn to violence. External conditions influence -- if not directly necessitate -- the strategies for resolving conflict and I refuse to believe that those conditions don't "matter".
who said they don't matter? i'm saying it's not an excuse.

Originally posted by ~atp~

Obviously "people are responsible" for their own actions, this is not questioned, what is questioned is the excessive (to the point of abusive) amount condemnation their behaviour has received, amplified terribly by the context in which that behaviour has been painted.

I mean, it is like the media is gloating over how extremely unreasonable their behaviour is, which, when placed next to other historical examples of "unreasonable behaviour" becomes entirely trivial and quite ironic.
hmm.. excessive condemnation to the point of abuse.. sounds familiar¿

i can't speak for "the media".

Originally posted by ~atp~

There are only explanations for everything we do...if you are saying that violence is inherently immoral, then I would disagree. I think that violence needs to have context before conferring any moral judgement.
agree to disagree.

in my eyes, violence involving mature humans is inherently immoral.

Originally posted by ~atp~

No one is excusing the violence in this particular case. No one in this thread has done (or is trying to do) that. The violence is certainly not "moral" in this case, however it has its roots that go beyond the condescension of Arabic culture and religion. Heavy-handed condemnation of all violence, regardless of context, is dangerous and ignorant.
you could have fooled me. it certainly sounded as though you were offering past and present abuse as an excuse.

i don't know why you continue to mention the condescension of "Arabic", or more accurately Muslim culture. i'm speaking from a personal perspective. the quarrel is not with myself and mine, just as my quarrel is not with all Muslim people.
i can differentiate, most Muslims can differentiate, and i take issue with those who can't.

i think accepting violence with your 'we had it coming' attitude is dangerous.

Originally posted by ~atp~

Sorry, where did I say that violence and reasons were intertwined? I pointed out, quite clearly, though in parenthetical statements, which may have been glossed over, that the violence is not excusable (this is issue one). I then proceed to ask a second question (issue two) that exists quite independently of issue one.
you didn't, but it's a fact, they are intertwined.

what i thought i saw you doing was essentially dismissing issue one due to your belief that issue two is an excuse.

you've been totally playing down issue one, which has led me to believe that you think emphasis should be placed on two. i disagree.

both need to be addressed, and not at the expense of the other.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Of course they were. It was intentional and designed to draw contempt from my mortal enemies. Which is what I assume many of you were doing to the Muslim savages, right?



And then enhancing that statement with "and we can't imagine doing that over something as trivial as cartoons" and that "there's never an excuse for violence, especially under these ridiculous circumstances". The language of which carries meaning that is extremely disdainful and judgemental.
as usual good post,

but still the question remains:

i dont think anyone on this board sees violence on the whole as an absolute wrong. (accept for a few vegetarian types :p )

if the very leaders of the communities from which many of the riots stemmed are condemming these acts as senseless violence, how is it that you feel you can rise above their condemnations to imply that its simply belonging to a larger issue and thats that?

entertain me for a sec, if a group of muslim youths in toronto bombed a church in a danish area of town, would you wish to see thier sentences reduced out of sympathy for the plight of oppressed muslims abroad?
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
if the very leaders of the communities from which many of the riots stemmed are condemming these acts as senseless violence, how is it that you feel you can rise above their condemnations to imply that its simply belonging to a larger issue and thats that?
excellent question.
 

dig this

TRIBE Member
I really hope one day the each side can look back on this and laugh at the silliness of the situation:

Danes offer to publish Holocaust cartoons
Feb. 8, 2006. 11:22 AM


NEW YORK (AP) — The Danish editor behind publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that ignited deadly riots in the Muslim world said Wednesday he's willing to publish cartoons on the Holocaust from Iran.

"My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with the Iranian newspaper, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them," Flemming Rose of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten said Wednesday in an interview on CNN's American Morning.

The Iranian newspaper Hamshahri said Tuesday it would hold the competition to test whether the West extends the same principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide as it did to caricatures of the Prophet.

Meanwhile, the chief editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition, Jens Kaiser, said Wednesday it was quality, not content, that made him reject caricatures of Jesus three years ago, even though he told the cartoonist at the time that he feared "an outcry."

The cartoons had been sent in unsolicited.

Kaiser's e-mail to the cartoonist rejecting the drawings has been circulated to news media in recent days, apparently to question Jyllands-Posten's commitment to free speech regardless of topic.

In his e-mail, Kaiser told the rejected cartoonist that readers would not enjoy the drawings, which "will provoke an outcry."

Kaiser said Wednesday that he had actually rejected them because "their quality was not good."

However, he conceded that it "looks like we have opted for a line to publish Muhammad drawings and not Jesus drawings."

"I have been Sunday editor for 18 years, and I can say that 90-95 per cent of the unsolicited material we get is turned down," he said.

The cartoons of the Prophet were first published by Jyllands-Posten in September. As Muslim protests mounted, numerous European newspapers have reprinted them in recent days in the name of free expression, provoking wider and angrier protests.

Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, told CNN he came up with the idea of the Prophet cartoon contest after several local cases of self-censorship involving people fearing reprisals from Muslims.

"There was a story out there and we had to cover it," Rose said. "We just chose to cover it in a different way, according to the principal: Don't tell it, show it."

The drawings — including one depicting the Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb — have touched a nerve, in part, because Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad, even favourable ones, for fear they could lead to idolatry.

"I do not regret it," Rose said. "I think it is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at a discotheque Friday night.

"In that sense, in our culture, if you're wearing a short skirt, that does not necessarily mean you invite everybody to have sex with you. As is the case with these cartoons, if you make a cartoon, make fun of religion, make fun of religious figures, that does not imply that you humiliate or denigrate or marginalize a religion."

The Iranian newspaper said its contest would be launched Monday and co-sponsored by the House of Caricatures, a Tehran exhibition centre for cartoons.

The newspaper and the cartoon centre are owned by the Tehran Municipality, which is dominated by allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, well-known for his opposition to Israel and has questioned the Holocaust as a possible `myth.'.

Meanwhile, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, said Wednesday he had no intention of resigning over the issue.

He remarks came after Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen said on national radio that "when an editor-in-chief admits he made an erroneous judgment ... he should quit."

In a brief reply on the newspaper's website, Juste said: "I do not feel called ... in that direction."

Jyllands-Posten said on Jan. 30 it regretted it had offended Muslims and apologized to them, but stood by its decision to print the cartoons, saying it was within Danish law. Two days later, Juste said he would not have printed the cartoons had he foreseen the consequences.
Link
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
It's interesting, but not surprising, in Iran's revenge cartoon contest that they are dragging Jewish people and Holocaust themes into the mix. The Mohammad cartoon was not published in any Israeli papers; the Danish newspaper is not owned by a Jewish individual or controlled by Israeli corporations.

Wouldn't a more direct response be to mock Danish people or Lutherans who make up 95% of the Danish population?
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member

The Iranian newspaper Hamshahri said Tuesday it would hold the competition to test whether the West extends the same principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide as it did to caricatures of the Prophet.
this is rediculous. one Danish paper speaks for the whole West?

the fact is, the vast majority of the West doesn't question the holocaust, so why would the drawings be relevant.. therefore why would Western papers care to print them?

newspapers are out to collect a profit. they do this by printing things that are relevant to their audiences.

it's fine if there are those in Iran that question the holocaust, but there aren't many in Europe who do, so why would these cartoons be appreciated there?

..and how is it that Jews are being attacked when it was not Jews who drew the Mohammed caricatures?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Big Harv

Wouldn't a more direct response be to mock Danish people or Lutherans who make up 95% of the Danish population?
Makes you wonder what it is that they're really angry about, doesn't it?
 

dig this

TRIBE Member
I don't think there's much reasoning behind this... maybe it's a scapegoat.

I do know Europe is going through some turbulent times right now too... Anti-semitisism by no means has gone away and Muslims are second class citizens in many areas... Just look at the riots in Paris a few months ago. Germany and many other northern European countries are becoming racially divided. There is a reason for Muslims to stand up against Europe, but this is just a silly reason to.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Makes you wonder what it is that they're really angry about, doesn't it?
This Iranian regime obviously has a disgustingly anti-Israel agenda (holding forums questioning whether the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy and claiming Israel should be wiped off the map), and are using the cartoon published by a Danish newspaper without a Jewish connection as a pretext to further said agenda.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Those who EVER thought you'd hear these words....raise your hand! :)
It should actually be called the "Two Wrongs make a Right" contest -because of the double meaning of the term "Right".
 
Top