I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

good luck with that.

The truest, most succinct comment posted on this thread.

So we now discover that the hideously offensive and blasphemous cartoons - so blasphemous that CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, won't publish them ... were reprinted last October. In Egypt. On the front frigging page. No one rioted. No editor at Al Fager was threatened. So it's official: the Egyptian state media is less deferential to Islamists than the New York Times. So where were the riots in Cairo? This whole affair is a contrived, manufactured attempt by extremist Muslims to move the goal-posts on Western freedom. They're saying: we determine what you can and cannot print; and there's a difference between what Muslims can print and what infidels can print. And, so far, much of the West has gone along. In this, well-meaning American editors have been played for fools and cowards. Maybe if they'd covered the murders of von Gogh and Fortuyn more aggressively they'd have a better idea of what's going on; and stared down this intimidation. The whole business reminds me of the NYT's coverage of the Nazis in the 1930s. They didn't get the threat then. They don't get it now.

MAKES YA THINK

thanks, M. White.

anyways, sorry fellers.

this can be lion voltron, or the vehicle one.

wasn't there an all-plane one, too?

heh heh, see what i did there? i said "nigger." ;p LOL

/leaving thread now

i'm also just a little tired of hearing these cartoons described in apocalyptic terms, "vile," "hateful," etc. i understand why people have been offended, but objectively, they're not that bad, for god's sake. and i'm bothered by all the oppobrium (did i spell that right?) being heaped on a secular newspaper in a secular nation for having the audacity to print satirical cartoons about religious figures. leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

yeah no shit andy: given the history of the muslim brotherhood in egypt, how could he POSSIBLY THINK that egyptian state media would EVER be deferential to islamists?!?!? what a fucking dumbass.

y'all have only JUST NOW noticed this tactic?!?

first, when you say "these cartoons," remember that you really mean a couple out of a dozen that were printed as a group, for a specific purpose that was given context and background by an accompanying essay that nobody has bothered to translate yet.

second, "offensive", i get. first, there's the prohibition on idolatry, which seems from the evidence to have been really overblown in terms of how offensive it really is, but still, it exists, so i can see where the offense comes from. i'm less clear on the "racism" charge, though, even though it has entered the discussion of these cartoons as a given -- "obviously they're racist." looking at what's actually in the cartoons -- and considering that there are muslims of many different races -- does someone want to expand on what exactly makes them "racist"? yes, muhammad is used in some of them as a symbol of radical islam, but how is that not a reaction to/satire of the way that radical muslims themselves present the religion? in context, is there any doubt at all that the cartoons were meant as a commentary on radical islam? is radical islam somehow above reproach or satire?

again, and i know i'm being repetitive, but i think the framing of this as xenophobia vs. multiculturalism -- while easier to deal with for guilt-ridden western liberals -- is off the mark. it doesn't square with the facts of the case. and i'll pre-empt the first obvious response -- "are you REALLY saying these cartoons aren't RACIST?" by saying, that's not my first reaction to them, no. but i'd like to hear a reasonable case for why they are.

i don't think either publication "should have" or could have known what kind of effect they would have, since in both cases a number of similar things had been published without sparking international crises. and i'm no more happy to have the media beat up on by people who i otherwise agree with than i am to have it done by people i completely disagree with.

Similarly, some article complained in passing about the stereotypial depiction of Muhammad with a curved sword, flanked by two veiled women, but doesn't those details just reflect what's reported about Muhammad in Islamic sources?

I am now convinced that not only is Islam fundamentally incompatible with Western-style liberal democracy, but so is the very presence of Muslims themselves in large numbers, and everything within reason must be done to bring all further Muslim immigration to the West to a complete halt. To do otherwise would, I believe, only serve to store up trouble for the future, by allowing the growth of a fanatical fifth-column which will not hesitate to subvert the very order which made its new home so attractive in the first place, just as soon as it has the critical numbers. In fact, if it were even possible to somehow repatriate a substantial number of the Muslims who find themselves within Europe’s borders, I’m afraid to say that I’m not at all sure that I’d really be against it.

I hear that Catholics and Protestants around Belfast way don't speak too kindlyof each other, could you do some research into this for me Glenn and report back?

Why not just discuss "repatriating" extremists of all religions and walks of life? Dom's just given a pretty ok example.

Can we just ban people republishing blog posts on ILE, btw?

BTW, just in case there was any confusion I meant the blogger, not Ally.

Gypsy, am I with you or against you? Have you realized yet that by siding with the Free Speech or Genocide crowd you're just as much of a sucker as you've accused the multi-culti "no offensive cartoons!" crowd?

i'm just disheartened by how quick people have been to gloss over the free speech/free press part of the issue and act like the danish paper did something unforgivable. i had one guy the other day tell me that publishing the cartoons was as stupid as invading iraq. i hate that one of the major emerging themes from this, implicit and in some cases explicit, is that even a free press needs to watch what they say about people's religions. to which my knee-jerk first amendment response is, 'i got yer religion right here, buddy.' everybody loves freedom of expression until they get offended -- but defending the absolute right to offensive speech is part of the deal. i know, nobody here is saying people shouldn't have the right to be offensive. but they ARE saying people shouldn't BE offensive, for this reason or that reason, and that's uncomfortably close to the same thing -- especially when you have even ostensible voices of reason like kofi annan making throat-clearing noises about the need to respect religion.

and also, like i keep saying, i think both the context of the publication of these cartoons and the actual level of offensiveness of the content have been grossly distorted. muhammad with a bomb in his turban might not be an image i personally would publish, but given the events of the last several years i don't see how it falls outside the bounds of reasonable political satire.

I see two people "glossing over the free press part of the issue" on this thread and about seven thousand people glossing over the "let's sink to their level and call it enlightened civilization" part of this issue