General discussion

Locked

Tyranny of the offended

By MirrorMirror ·
I am looking for understanding, not flames. Seriously. I do not know any Muslims who can explain things to me. My son is putting himself in harms way to help bring freedom to Muslims. I have a serious stake in understanding what is going on.

Muslims around the world are offended by cartoons and are making threats of boycotts and violence. I have been watching this unfold, wondering where it would lead and am very dissapointed at the reaction from the Muslim world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/

If the media and the world gives in to the insane Muslim response then we will all have a much more difficult time in the future defending ourselves from anyone else who makes demands because they are "offended". Lots of things offend me, but I know that I cannot go around threatening people and governments over them.

Let me state that I do not believe that the Muslim reaction that is being shown in the media is the norm. However, where are the moderate Muslims denouncing the extremists? Someone, please, give me something to show me that there is reason and tolerance in the Muslim world.

When Pat Robertson stuck his foot in his mouth not too long ago with his insensitive remarks about Ariel Sharon, Christian moderates all over denounced what Robertson said. Is is possible that most Muslims believe that they should kill someone over a CARTOON? Take a look at the signs on Michelle Malkin's site...http://www.michellemalkin.com/

I do not understand how Muslims can seriously demand tolerance for themselves but will not tolerate anyone else. That is just plain delusional. All I can say is, support the Danish and anyone else who is not cowering down to threats.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I did say by the sword

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to unfortunatly this hasn't ...

By the cheque book, advertising, legislation, peer pressure, indoctrination of minors, state sponsored evangelism are simply an indicator of the enormous progress the church has made morally.

Tee Hee.

Collapse -

Freedom of Speech

by neilb@uk In reply to Tyranny of the offended

Freedom of Speech. One of the most precious rights that we have in the West. One of the rights that our forefathers fought and died for. OK, so I'm being a little ironic here but it is nice to be able to say what you want when you want. I do think, though, that what we say ought to be worth hearing.

So, what do they do with Free Speech (tm) in Denmark? They print a bunch of pathetic, childish - and they are pathetic and childish - cartoons lampooning the central figure of a religious group that they know has no sense of proportion and certainly no sense of humour. Then everyone is surprised when the Muslims react the way they did. Then the French follow suit and print them too. With their Muslim population, they ought to know better.

The culture editor of the newspaper that first published the cartoons says he did not ask the illustrators to draw satirical caricatures of Muhammad. He asked them to draw the Prophet as they saw him. He has insisted that there is a long Danish tradition of biting satire with no taboos, and that Muhammad and Islam are being treated no differently to other religions. Well, if this is "biting satire" then the Danish define it differently to me! One of the cartoons depicted Mohammed with his turban in the shape of an Acme bomb, black, round with a fizzing fuse. How crap. I was looking around for the Road-Runner.

All that has been achieved is that the Muslims now know that if they burn a few flags and invade a couple of embassies they'll get editors fired and politicians apologising all over the place. The time may come when we have something really important to say to the Muslims but they'll remember this little escapade and probably not listen on an occasion when the might really need to pay attention to the message.

Funny old thing, freedom of speech. The leader of the Far-Right British National Party Nick Griffin was cleared just yesterday of incitement of racial hate charges declaring this was simply freedom of speech. Griffin was cleared despite saying that Islam was a violent faith and of describing Asians as evil and asylum-seekers as cockroaches.

So, the most right wing racist party in the UK can't even get convicted of racism. What a pathetic bunch they are, too.

Still, at least I can say that. Thank you, forefathers.

Neil

Collapse -

When the fanatical wing of Islam. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Freedom of Speech

.....blows people up in the name of their religion and in the name of their prophet Muhammad, it is THEY who should "know better", and it is THEY who are "pathetic".

Collapse -

No winners here

by neilb@uk In reply to When the fanatical wing o ...

of course I don't disagree with you but the Islamist bombers are a completely different subject.

I no problems with the theory of Free Speech. The practicalities of it, however, are generally quite different. Most people take Free Speech to mean that they should be able to say exactly what they want with complete disregard for the accuracy of what they are saying and for the sensibilities of their audience. Most people also only want free speech for people who agree with them.

The Muhammed cartoons were crass - all of them. They were certainly not good satire. I'm not sure that countries that do not have a culture embracing satire would notice the difference. So - I ask again - why is anyone surprised at the reaction in Islamic countries? We've seen many times their tendency to react in ways that are totally alien to us. But it's what they do! It's their culture in their country. The problem is that incidents such as these cartoons will just result in more bombers. We're just not dealing with people who think like us.

They've gone a bit over the top in Syria, though.

We don't like them and they don't like us. It doesn't make us right. It doesn't make them right.

What has angered me, however, is that there was a demonstration in London on Friday with Muslim protestors carrying inflammatory placards advocating violence. This is illegal but the police made no arrests. I'd have put them all in the slammer straight away. What will really screw up relations in this country is when we see one law for the Muslims and one law for the rest of us.

I have no answers as to how we deal with Muslims. I don't understand them, either.

Collapse -

My dilemma

by maxwell edison In reply to No winners here

(Disclaimer: I know I'm grouping ALL press together, which is obviously a flawed view, but only for the sake of discussion.....)

My dilemma: I despise both sides -- The radical Muslims who invite and condone violence, and the press who, in this case, incite violence. It begs the question, what else might the press incite?

It's no secret around here what I think of the press, in general, and the freedoms they take with the truth. (Note: Actually, in this case, I think the press is right-on. Thus, my further dilemma.) They get away with things that would otherwise be libel, slander and defamation, all in the name of freedom of the press. The obvious answer is a regulated press, but that's even worse.

In my opinion, Neil, you have a more critical view of the United States and our current president because of an irresponsible and inaccurate press inciting ____ (fill in the blank). And what really gets my goat is when you and/or people like you apply a dual standard to the press. You think they're irresponsible, in this case, but you give them a free pass in others. (Am I doing the same thing? Am I getting my own goat?) The press has defamed our president, for example, in your country (and in mine as well), shown him in an inaccurate light, but you "believe it", so to speak.

Not too long ago there were some absolutely disgusting editorial cartoons depicting Dr.Condalisa Rice (current Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor) dripping with racist stereotypes and slurs. Well, the press gave the press a free pass on this one. Why is that? What if they would have depicted Maxine Waters in such a way? (I realize that you probably don't know who Maxine Waters is.) The New York Times actually ran the Condalisa Rice cartoons, but that same newspaper would have surely condemned the Washington Times had that newspaper done a similar thing with Maxine Waters.

(Reference for those who don't know: http://www.house.gov/waters/ - Democrat Representative from California.)

I just can't decide if "they" are doing more harm than good.

I guess I'm in the same boat as you in this case, Neil. Except, of course, I'll apply my disgust with the press equally, in all cases, not selectively. At least I try to. (Or my dilemma, maybe I'm not!)

However, I'll fall on the side of the press on this one. Not only is it an accurate depiction of what's going on in the world, but those who are targeted are actually proving it to be true.

Collapse -

Reading my own message. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to My dilemma

.....it seems that I don't know if I'm coming or going! (Coming)

Collapse -

Reading my own message. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to My dilemma

.....it seems that I don't know if I'm coming or going! (Going)

Collapse -

The press and Radical Islam

by neilb@uk In reply to My dilemma

I have a "more critical view of the United States and our current president" not necessarily because of the press but because of the ill-considered reaction to **1. Tony Blair is even more culpable in this by the way because, under British law, the invasion of Iraq was probably illegal. But that's all for other discussions.

Most goverments, yours and mine included, find it useful on occasions to foment hatred of a particular internal or external target for political expediency. Islamic governments use The West with particular reference to the USA although their more ignorant population now probably think that Denmark is one more of the States. Your government currently use, nominally, International Terrorists but everybody knows you mean radical Islam. That's interpreted by some of your citizens as any person with a turban.

Unfortunately, you/we invaded a Muslim country (still there) and then we invade another one and impose our ideas of democracy on them. Then we shout and stamp our feet at a third Muslim country for wanting to do what we all already do - have nuclear plants and weapons - whilst at the same time we ignore North Korea. Doesn't anyone realise how much more easy, more obvious that demonisation of The West and the USA becomes. I also have to admit that it actually starts to seem legitimate for Muslims to fear the west! As an aside, I would suspect that the majority of the riots are government instigated although some of those governments are probably a bit upset at how out of hand it's all got.

None of the press here published any of the cartoons in question and I don't think that any will, now. I'm going to wait and see what the reaction is to the demonstrations here - especially the one of Friday and I'm hoping for some serious condemnation of the Muslims who demonstrated and the police who let them do it. As for hitting at political figure. Here, anyone is game but I would normally expect the government of the day and its members to be the primary target so, in the case you mentioned, Ms Rice would be the logical target here. We have our partisan press here, too, although most are anti- the current government and many more are right rather than left-wing (our right!). The press are out to sell papers and it's the government that people are interested in.

Collapse -

Standing still, scratching my head

by neilb@uk In reply to My dilemma

is what I'm doing!

Collapse -

US/World Press anti conservative.

by X-MarCap In reply to My dilemma

I am a conservative ex-Marine captain...

What I have percieved is that the press is anti-conservative no matter where they come from... Bush said much of what Clinton did on the same info. Clinton gets a pass and to call Bush a liar without getting gigged by the press. Clinton is probably a rapist, certainly a perjurer, and he is loved by the majority of the press.

Truth is in short supply, or slanted when gleaned from the mass media outlets. Slander such as Bush lost in 2000 has not been punished... The point is we have an Electoral college for many good reasons. The press doesn't know how to read about it. The court selected Bush... The Florida Supreme court tried to unfairly pull a quick one in heavily Democratic areas. The answer was to allow all military votes, not have their votes wait until they would not be counted. (They should have been counted as being absentees)not flushed as Dems around Florida petitioned. The final military vote put Bush firmly ~5000 ahead. There was a large ~4500 majority for Bush that had been mobilized to the Enterprise and the Independence Sunday before the election...

Pensacola Marines will now vote absentee...

Related Discussions

Related Forums