The Islamic Cartoon Controversy -- In perspective

[editor]

From The Prague Post

Under siege

Good intentions are not enough in the uproar over cartoons of Muhammad: The mainstream Islamic mindset has proved inscrutable

February 22, 2006

By Andrew Steven Harris

The through-the-looking glass controversy over Danish editorial cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad is, of course, about much more than cartoons or Muhammad: It's a cultural Sept. 11-style strike against the values and institutions of the West.

Just as the 2001 attacks represented more than 19 criminals hijacking four airliners, this latest clash between democratic values and religious fundamentalism is an orchestrated ambush on an unsuspecting target unaware of the scope of the attack until it had already unfolded.

To many, the notion that a cartoon could provoke global riots, dozens of deaths, a $1 million assassination contract and vacillation among Western leaders seems like an abstract fantasy, a trip down the rabbit hole into a theater of the absurd.

But that perspective remains precisely what these protesters have attacked: the rejection of the idea that it's justified

[Jeebus]

Good article. One day these heathens are going to poke the wrong hibernating bear with their intolerance stick.

[RedScare]

Good article. One day these heathens are going to poke the wrong hibernating bear with their intolerance stick.

Umm...they're not heathens. That's pretty much the problem.

Oh, that they were heathens. Life would be sooo much simpler.

[nmainguy]

Good article. One day these heathens are going to poke the wrong hibernating bear with their intolerance stick.

[...somebody kill me...]

[Jeebus]

[...somebody kill me...]

Don't worry, they will if you ever give them the chance. Don't think that just because you wave a rainbow flag with a donkey in the middle that they will be able to distinguish you from the rest of us westerners.

Umm...they're not heathens. That's pretty much the problem.

Oh, that they were heathens. Life would be sooo much simpler.

The primary definition of heathen deals with Christianity, the secondary meaning does not. I was referring to the latter, as rioting over a four month old cartoon is uncivilized.

[westguy]

The uproar among Muslims in Denmark was very mild, probably limited to sign protests. I didn't see any editorial value to the cartoons except to insult an entire culture. I think its less a speech issue than a xenophobia/racism/class issue which Europe refuses to acknowledge. I guess everyone forgets that ghettos all over Europe were on fire last year.

[largeTEXAS]

Don't worry, they will if you ever give them the chance. Don't think that just because you wave a rainbow flag with a donkey in the middle that they will be able to distinguish you from the rest of us westerners.

Spoken by a voice of true tolerance!

With this attitude no wonder "us westerners" are so beloved by the rest of the world today...

[DJ V Lawrence]

Have you guys in the states seen the crazy protests around the world because of that cartoon? It's been mad violence in at LEAST ten countries. So many that I don't think U.S. news has mentioned how crazy, how many, and how often they've happened. Off the top of my head, I know Indonisia, Nigeria, Iraq, Egypt, and Kenya where they've gotten extremely off the wall. There's at least 5 others. How much media coverage of the cartoons have you seen in America?

[Gary]

Personally, I'm sick of tolerance where radical Islam is concerned. When are we going to grow enough balls and brains to realize that these people want to kill us and our way of life? Tolerance towards these people is not logical when considering the above.

[RedScare]

Personally, I'm sick of tolerance where radical Islam is concerned. When are we going to grow enough balls and brains to realize that these people want to kill us and our way of life? Tolerance towards these people is not logical when considering the above.

This thread is going nowhere. I want to hear some ideas. Gary, Jeebus, what do you guys think we should do? There's only a billion of them. Us intolerant Americans ought to be able to come up with something to put these malcontents in their place. What would you guys do to shut them up and make them realize how good they have it?

[Gary]

This thread is going nowhere. I want to hear some ideas. Gary, Jeebus, what do you guys think we should do? There's only a billion of them. Us intolerant Americans ought to be able to come up with something to put these malcontents in their place. What would you guys do to shut them up and make them realize how good they have it?

That's my point Red, there is no negotiating with radical extremist, which in this case happen to be Muslim. So, there's no point in trying to indoctrinate them to our way (democracy) of life.

What to do about it? That's a good question. I think losing the politically correct attitude towards these vermon is a start. There murderers, and here we stand trying to understand and sympathize with there feelings and plite.

[Jeebus]

The problem starts right here at home with those who would fight any type of action to protect ourselves. Things like secret wiretaps are met with so much protest its a wonder how we haven't already allowed extremists to start setting off car bombs & suicide backpacks in public places.

People like NMainguy, West20th, and even yourself can call it McCarthyism all you want, but until we take drastic steps to secure ourselves, there's nothing to be done elsewhere. Of course the first thing I would secure is our borders. If this means a 20 foot wall that's 10 feet thick along both borders, with active Naval & Coast Guard patrols every few miles up our coasts, then lets do it. I'd rather hear of our US soldiers dying in a stand off against angry Mexicans at our border than hear of another G.I. dying from an I.E.D. in Iraq.

Once we've secured ourselves, we need to slash big business. They will either work with us as they did in WW2, or they will no longer exist. We need vehicles that don't depend on 100% petroleum anymore, especially foreign (read: ANY country) oil.

Finally, we need to make a final determination about church & state at the federal level. Either we are officially a Christian nation, or we are not. Either way, once we draw that line in the sand, radical Islam will have two choices: leave us alone because we are a nation of Christianity and will destroy them if they mess with us in the name of God, or leave us alone because we are a nation of all religions and will destroy them in the name of peace.

Red, there's my answer. Yes its an answer of action, and possibly violence. Yes it involves percieved isolationism. My thought though is that if we don't have to depend on other countries, then we will never have to negotiate with these countries. No more favors. Either we do business, or you leave us alone. At the end of the day, all radical factions around the world should realize that we are the one country that can eliminate them. Not only them being the terrorists, but them being their families, their neighbors, their towns, their economies, their way of life, their cities, their land, and even their country. Not since WW2 have we flexed the muscle of true power we hold. That's tolerance. Nazism & Facism warranted such a display. When will Radical Islam get its due? What I don't think many understand here, is that simple apology for our way of life is not going to apease these people. Not until our women are in burkas and not allowed to drive, along with all our gays hung, decapitated, and stoned in a public forum would they be happy.

Extreme? Maybe, but I have my kids, and one day their kids safety at heart when I type this. So is it the right answer? Depends on who is asking the question I guess.

[Gary]

Thank you Jeebus, well said.

People speak of our intolerance all over the world, when in reality we have been nothing but tolerant, and to a fault.

[RedScare]

Well, I'll give Jeebus credit for not wrapping his isolationism in some warm, fuzzy patriotic paper. He's willing to crash our economy, dry up our oil supply and completely change the American way of life for what he believes will make him and his family safe. And, he is right in one sense. When the US shrinks within it's borders and stops imposing it's will upon the world, militarily, and economically, others who feel slighted by that now will ignore us later.

I find it amusing to listen to those who think we've bent over backwards to be tolerant of others. American citizens may have tried to understand, but American business, with the help of American government has done nothing of the kind. American government runs roughshod over anyone who impedes or attempts to impede American business, whether through trade or oil needed to run American business. What we are witnessing is millions of desparate poor whipped into a frenzy by clerics, using them for their own needs. The reason it does not make sense to those of us who are watching, is that it is not a cartoon at the source of this, but power seekers, cloaked as imams. They are no different than our power seekers who use religion to rile up Christians. And it works, too. The only difference is the level of violence, which is not unusual in the ghettos in which these people live.

None of this makes sense to those who believe that the world's only superpower would never do anything bad to remain the world's only superpower. Think what you will, but don't waste my time saying we've been tolerant of others. And don't be surprised that others aren't buying it.

For those that think the US should start kicking some Muslim butts, feel free to join up. The Army is not making their recruiting goals, so they'll be glad to take you. Last I checked, there are more than 1 billion muslims. The number of Americans willing to put their M-16 where their mouth is appears to be a slightly smaller number.

[MidtownCoog]

They are no different than our power seekers who use religion to rile up Christians.

You just lost all credibility with that quote.

Typical lefty mentality.

[Gary]

Well, I'll give Jeebus credit for not wrapping his isolationism in some warm, fuzzy patriotic paper. He's willing to crash our economy, dry up our oil supply and completely change the American way of life for what he believes will make him and his family safe. And, he is right in one sense. When the US shrinks within it's borders and stops imposing it's will upon the world, militarily, and economically, others who feel slighted by that now will ignore us later.

I find it amusing to listen to those who think we've bent over backwards to be tolerant of others. American citizens may have tried to understand, but American business, with the help of American government has done nothing of the kind. American government runs roughshod over anyone who impedes or attempts to impede American business, whether through trade or oil needed to run American business. What we are witnessing is millions of desparate poor whipped into a frenzy by clerics, using them for their own needs. The reason it does not make sense to those of us who are watching, is that it is not a cartoon at the source of this, but power seekers, cloaked as imams. They are no different than our power seekers who use religion to rile up Christians. And it works, too. The only difference is the level of violence, which is not unusual in the ghettos in which these people live.

None of this makes sense to those who believe that the world's only superpower would never do anything bad to remain the world's only superpower. Think what you will, but don't waste my time saying we've been tolerant of others. And don't be surprised that others aren't buying it.

For those that think the US should start kicking some Muslim butts, feel free to join up. The Army is not making their recruiting goals, so they'll be glad to take you. Last I checked, there are more than 1 billion muslims. The number of Americans willing to put their M-16 where their mouth is appears to be a slightly smaller number.

Red, why do you assume that Jeebus is promoting isolationism? For the most part I agree with his sentiments but I don't believe in isolationism as it would be a finacial catastrophe at this point in our country. I do however think that we've got to stop always being concerned with who we piss off or offend.

Now in reference to the clerics you addressed. True, they are poor. True they are misguided. Also true they are murderers. Also true that they are impossible to reason with. How then would you bring about reform with these people?

As far as joining the military? Already been there.

[RedScare]

Red, why do you assume that Jeebus is promoting isolationism? For the most part I agree with his sentiments but I don't believe in isolationism as it would be a finacial catastrophe at this point in our country. I do however think that we've got to stop always being concerned with who we piss off or offend.

Now in reference to the clerics you addressed. True, they are poor. True they are misguided. Also true they are murderers. Also true that they are impossible to reason with. How then would you bring about reform with these people?

As far as joining the military? Already been there.

First, let me dispatch Midtown Coog's one sentence reply with one word....whatever.

Gary, I called Jeebus' response isolationism because that's what it is. Putting up 20 foot walls along 5000 miles of border, positioning the navy in the oceans, and shutting down multi-national corporations is isolationist. And, yes, it would bankrupt a country that became powerful by going global.

The clerics are not the poor I refer to. It is the rabid demonstrators who are killing themselves and burning embassies who are poor. The french muslims who burned the cars last summer are poor. The insurgents in Iraq are poor. And ALL of them are being used by the clerics for their own political purposes. And the more rabid and insane the poor protesters appear, the more afraid of them Westerners become. It is its own form of terrorism. And worse, since they are telling the protesters that thwest, specifically the US, is trying to wipe out Islam, every attack in the Middle East appears to prove the clerics right.

So, maybe Jeebus' isolation will work. We will no longer be attacking Islam. We won't be attacking anyone. But, the price paid is that the US is a fraction of its former self.

How to deal with them? Look inside the US. Muslims here seldom demonstrate, and they never riot. Why? Because of our tolerance of them and their integration and assimilation into US culture and economy. There are no muslim slums in the US. Therefore, there are few US breeding grounds for protesters. If the rest of the world was as tolerant (including Europe) as we are here, many of these problems would disappear.

Amazingly, while we practice tolerance in the US, the government puts an intolerant face to the world. So, even though we see it work at home, we don't do it abroad, and worse, no one can see it work here at home. So, we end up looking far worse than we actually are.

[MidtownCoog]

In an attempt to give Red an ounce of credibility...

You are saying Pat Roberston is no different that Mullah Omar?

Lets just say you are correct on that.

But there is a HUGE difference between Pat's followers and Omar's.

[RedScare]

In an attempt to give Red an ounce of credibility...

You are saying Pat Roberston is no different that Mullah Omar?

Lets just say you are correct on that.

But there is a HUGE difference between Pat's followers and Omar's.

If you take the violence out of the equation, the similarities abound between Pat and the Mullah. Similarly, if the violent demonstrations are removed from the equation, most of each man's followers believe fervently in what their leader preaches, both are very conservative in their beliefs, both believe there should be more of God's word in government, and most importantly, both sides believe they are absolutely right, and the only ones going to heaven.

Pat has even espoused violence, in that he is an avowed supporter of the death penalty and has called for assassination of government leaders. The huge difference is that Pat's followers do not then take to the streets and burn buildings.

[DJ V Lawrence]

None of this makes sense to those who believe that the world's only superpower would never do anything bad to remain the world's only superpower. Think what you will, but don't waste my time saying we've been tolerant of others. And don't be surprised that others aren't buying it.

One of our biggest mistakes as Americans (as a whole) is that we consider ourselves the only Superpower. We sometimes make the mistake that we feel that the world revolves around America, and we also make the mistakes as humans to generalize.

Generalization kills humanity, yo. That's probably the reason why the cartoon started so much controversy. Most people, including myself, never even heard of the newspaper that printed the cartoons, but after some were offended, word of mouth came quilckly to an entire religion, and now the cartoon is seen as insensitivity to not just the newspaper, but to all of Denmark, and apparantly all Westerners (as some call Europeans and Americans.)

Once individuals stop generalizing groups, the world will be safer. But that will never happen.

Also, you ever notice that when we call somebody an "extremist", or a "radical", somebody else calls them a "leader", or "passionate"? People need to take control of themselves. Including ourselves. The secret is to know what's real and what's far-left or far-right propoganda. The world is fustrating. I mean, we're nervous about UAE owning ports because they're an Arab nation, yet they had nothing to do with the war on terror? People are protesting by the millions and dying in protests because of a cartoon? If you're far-left, the far-right are out of touch? If you're far-left, the far right are dumb?

Okay, I'm finished. If you're far-left or far-right, you're far-off. Now if you excuse me, I need a beer

[west20th]

Finally, we need to make a final determination about church & state at the federal level. Either we are officially a Christian nation, or we are not.

or leave us alone because we are a nation of all religions and will destroy them in the name of peace.

Which is it? Are we "officially" a Christian nation or are we a nation of "all religions"? Destroy them in the name of peace? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[MidtownCoog]

Islam is the root cause of the backwardness of the Muslims.

And ignorance and poverty is the enabler.

[Gary]

First, let me dispatch Midtown Coog's one sentence reply with one word....whatever.

Gary, I called Jeebus' response isolationism because that's what it is. Putting up 20 foot walls along 5000 miles of border, positioning the navy in the oceans, and shutting down multi-national corporations is isolationist. And, yes, it would bankrupt a country that became powerful by going global.

The clerics are not the poor I refer to. It is the rabid demonstrators who are killing themselves and burning embassies who are poor. The french muslims who burned the cars last summer are poor. The insurgents in Iraq are poor. And ALL of them are being used by the clerics for their own political purposes. And the more rabid and insane the poor protesters appear, the more afraid of them Westerners become. It is its own form of terrorism. And worse, since they are telling the protesters that thwest, specifically the US, is trying to wipe out Islam, every attack in the Middle East appears to prove the clerics right.

So, maybe Jeebus' isolation will work. We will no longer be attacking Islam. We won't be attacking anyone. But, the price paid is that the US is a fraction of its former self.

How to deal with them? Look inside the US. Muslims here seldom demonstrate, and they never riot. Why? Because of our tolerance of them and their integration and assimilation into US culture and economy. There are no muslim slums in the US. Therefore, there are few US breeding grounds for protesters. If the rest of

the world was as tolerant (including Europe) as we are here, many of these problems would disappear.

I'm with you on not isolating ourselves, it would be financial suicide to do so. However, there must be a line drawn in the sand at one point or the other. We can't let things continue as they are regardless of whether these people are decieved or not.

Your point regarding US Muslims and there civilty is an interesting point. Still we have the problem of creating this mindset with these radicals, which so far has shown to be impossible. Thus we must have a plan of either eliminating them in one form or another, or do the impossible. Rehabilitate an insane blood thirsty culture.

[Jeebus]

Which is it? Are we "officially" a Christian nation or are we a nation of "all religions"? Destroy them in the name of peace? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

No, instead of another lame-duck attempt to insult, why don't you actually explain how rediculous my statement sounded. You get bonus points if you can give a complete post without help from Red or Nmain. Good luck.

Red I'm not suggesting Isolationism, I'm suggesting Independence. We are far too dependant on certain countries for certain products. This is why we're in the Middle East in the first place. When speaking of forcing big buisness to cooperate or be shut down, I'm speaking specifically of two industries: Oil & Automotive. They are far too self-serving to put the true needs of this country and its people first. I think Oil & Automotive are far more evil than Tobacco ever was. Of course this is all opinion.

In dealing with the border, what do you suggest we do to keep radicals (and all illegal elements for that matter) out of the country? I don't know if building the great wall of the Rio Grande is the right answer, but you asked for an answer, so I gave one.

As for our discerning opinions on tolerance - they are just that: opinions. I'm all for a debate, but don't ask for suggestions and then crucify those who provide answers.

[west20th]

No, instead of another lame-duck attempt to insult, why don't you actually explain how rediculous my statement sounded. You get bonus points if you can give a complete post without help from Red or Nmain. Good luck.

Insult? Asking you to explain contradicting statements in the same paragraph, that's an insult? As far as "destroying them in the name of peace" being ridiculous. Well, that kind of echos the same line of thinking as those loons who praise Allah while chopping off their hostages head. If we destroy anyone it will be for self preservation, peace has nothing to do with it. Doing it in the name of peace is a little too close to destroying someone in God's name, again a little too close to the terrorists way of thinking for me. As far as needing help from Red or NMain (not that I wouldn't welcome it) , my you are petty.

[Jeebus]

If we as a society believe that peace is the key to self preservation, and we kill in the name of self preservation, then aren't we stilling killing in the name of peace?

Don't try and disguise the truth just so you can feel better about your morals. They're just the same as mine, except I'm okay with them.

[RedScare]

Red I'm not suggesting Isolationism, I'm suggesting Independence. We are far too dependant on certain countries for certain products. This is why we're in the Middle East in the first place. When speaking of forcing big buisness to cooperate or be shut down, I'm speaking specifically of two industries: Oil & Automotive. They are far too self-serving to put the true needs of this country and its people first. I think Oil & Automotive are far more evil than Tobacco ever was. Of course this is all opinion.

In dealing with the border, what do you suggest we do to keep radicals (and all illegal elements for that matter) out of the country? I don't know if building the great wall of the Rio Grande is the right answer, but you asked for an answer, so I gave one.

You'll get no argument from me there. Corporate greed has caused many problems, not just in the Middle East. And government pandering to that greed causes many more.

My stance is strictly based on realism. It is not a political answer. In fact, both parties pander to the corporations.

I am not suggesting any answer is "right". But, I do believe that to suggest a particular solution, one must be willing to suffer the consequences of that solution. For instance, those that want a military solution to everyone who disagrees with us must be willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters to the cause. They must also be willing to endure world-wide scorn and eternal war, for there will always be those who disagree with us, especially if we attack everyone who disagree.

Closing the borders may keep out some terrorists, but it also keeps out workers. To suggest this as a solution, one must be willing to accept a smaller economy, possibly much smaller.

My suggestion is that rather than threaten and attack everyone who disagrees with us, diplomacy is less deadly and far more economical. If we are helping a country drill water wells, become self-sufficient and otherwise put it's citizens to work, there is less reason or incentive to attack. These countries and people are no different than we are. We appreciate help and bow up to threats. The same theory applies on a national scale as it does on a personal one. And if the standard of living is increasing for these demonstrators because of our help, no amount of anti-American by an imam will change it.

Now, I also admit that it is hard to get the aid to those that need it when corrupt governments steal it. But, I also admit that that is no reason to stop trying. We must find a more effective way to get the aid to where it is needed. Globalization was supposed to help lift all boats in this regard. In some places it is working. In others, it is only further enriching the wealthy, doing nothing for the poor.

Once again, as long as we wish to be an economic juggernaut, using one-fourth of the world's oil with 1/20th of the population, we must also be prepared to fight to stay there and prepared to fight to get the oil. I don't think it's worth it. I sense you don't either. But, this is our reality.

[MidtownCoog]

One common thing you see in this thread, and other ones like it, is people making excuses for the bad guys.

And blaming ourselves for their problems...

No doubt we are imperfect. They are not perfect either.

But we sure have a quite different way of dealing with imperfection.

If we are helping a country drill water wells, become self-sufficient and otherwise put it's citizens to work, there is less reason or incentive to attack.

Tell that to the kidnapped NGO workers.

[RedScare]

No doubt we are imperfect. They are not perfect either.

But we sure have a quite different way of dealing with imperfection.

Tell that to the kidnapped NGO workers.

Coog, you are absolutely correct. But, we have to ask ourselves the question...who has more to lose, us or them? Like I said earlier, you can propose whatever solution you like, just be realistic about what you're getting with it.

[west20th]

If we as a society believe that peace is the key to self preservation, and we kill in the name of self preservation, then aren't we stilling killing in the name of peace?

Don't try and disguise the truth just so you can feel better about your morals. They're just the same as mine, except I'm okay with them.

No we are not still killing in the name of "peace". Your thinking is so convoluted I really don't know how to respond to it. Except to say that I feel that high ideals such as "peace" have an almost religious conotation to them. Again, I don't see much difference in "destroying in the name of peace" and the fanatics that kill in the name of God. And could you please explain how we can be an "official" Christian nation and a nation of all religions at the same time. Which is it?