Why do we keep making excuses for Muslim violence?

[FormerRepublican]

I guess I'm getting a bit frustrated by conversations I've had with people in various threads. I've watched news reports about people killed over cartoons with absolute horror, yet I read over and over again on DU that it's the newspaper's fault for publishing them. What - the newspaper pulled out guns and said "All Muslims, kill over these cartoons or we will kill you instead"?

Why do we keep making excuses for this kind of violence? If we were living in pagan Europe, would we be making excuses for the Celts when they engaged in human sacrifice? Would we give the Incas a pass as they sacrificed virgins and tore out living hearts? Do we make excuses for the Catholic Church abuses in the Inquisition? Why do Muslims get a pass when no other religion on earth gets that kind of treatment from DU?

Why is violence OK as long as it's Muslims who commit it?

[wtmusic]

1. I didn't know anyone was making excuses for it

or was saying that violence was OK :shrug:

[FormerRepublican]

10. Just wait. You'll see it in this thread.

Muslims are violent, but we're more violent so Muslim violence doesn't matter. That's the rationale. So Muslims are excused for their violence, which doesn't make ANY sense to me at all.

As soon as anyone mentions violent Muslim actions, the spiel starts on how violent and repulsive WE are.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. ding ding ding

See below.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. You won't hear that from me

I abhor all violence.

Peace.

[Wordie]

34. Often the objection is to those who act as if ALL Muslims are violent

terrorists, and fail to recognize that the majority of Muslims in no way participate in the violence. (And I think your OP verges on this, btw.) It would be as if all Americans were judged by the acts of, say, abortion clinic bombers.

So much of what you interpret as condoning the violence may instead be an attempt to bring balance to the discussion. I myself have seen nobody who said that they condoned the violence. But I've been uncomfortable with those who exploit the news of it to promote a biased agenda.

[FormerRepublican]

37. Then why not just say "all Muslims are not violent" instead of saying...

..."but look at what Bush does in Iraq"? The first sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. The second - no. And I think you're argument isn't accurate - what I'm doing is merely pointing out that if a violent act is committed by a Muslim, it's excused.

It's the equivalent of excusing EVERY American violent act, rather than just the violent acts of abortion clinic bombers.

And we ARE judged by the acts of our extremists - it's why we're judged for what Bush does, who certainly doesn't act according to MY values! We're also judged according to our media, which isn't an accurate reflection of American values either. Pat Robertson is another extremist that gives us a bad name.

And aren't the cartoon protests a generalization that ALL Danes sympathize with the cartoon publishers?

[Wordie]

52. I HAVE said that, over and over: all Muslims are not violent. And I

haven't seen any interchange like the one you say is so common. Again, if anyone does say that, the poster may be reacting to what he/she perceives in your post, which could be read to seem like that's what you are saying. It may not be what you intend, but there are other people who do try to imply that all Muslims are violent. You never hear anything from some people about Muslims that isn't tied to violence. I personally have heard way too much of that. Maybe those others you say you've run into are really fed up with it, as I am.

I would have to agree that others (both in the west and in the Muslim world) do make the error of broadly generalizing about groups about which they know or understand little. That's where this horrible episode started, with the cartoon making aspersions against the entire Muslim world, in its portrayal of Mohammed as a terrorist. I guess that's where I've put my focus: on the root of the problem.

But let me say it explicitly, in case you misunderstand my point: I don't think that aspersion justified violence.

[FormerRepublican]

56. I think there are some points where we agree.

The irony and frustration of how I personally feel is that I've often been one of the few who have defended and supported non-violent Muslims. In fact, in my bad old days posting to Free Republic, I was the ONLY person arguing against extreme anti-Islamic bias. (They wanted to bring back internment camps for Muslims and/or expel them all from the country - and they said they WERE all violent and advocating terrorism and the killing of all infidels, which means all of us).

I guess I'm a person who calls a spade a spade. If I see a violent terrorist act, I view it as a crime, not a political statement that should be excused. And I view a violent response to free speech (hateful though it might be) as unproductive and ultimately detrimental to the groups committing violence.

And, while Muslims were offended by the cartoons in Denmark, they happily publish endless numbers of cartoons grossly offensive to Jews and the Jewish religion. Does a day ever go by when Jews are not referred to as pigs and dogs? Their views of Christians are only slightly less offensive. There's some hypocracy going on there, too. Why should we conform to Islamic sensibilities, when they are completely unwilling to conform to non-Islamic sensibilities?

And since I'm a person who calls a spade a spade, I object because the whole argument is one sided. It violates my need for fairness and justice.

[Wordie]

74. I don't know how much we agree upon, or not.

I agree that bigoted statements are to be deplored, no matter which "side" they come from. But then you go on to mention that the "Muslims" publish cartoons offensive to Jews. Again, I'd like to point out, that seems to be a generalization. You say you defend Muslims, yet so many of your comments seem to be broad-brushing all Muslims, as if they were just one homogenous group, without the same sorts of complex differences within the group that occur within the group called "American," or "Christian."

And, another thing about that example, it is one-sided again. Have you ever thought about all the media portrayals of Muslims that we have seen in this country since probably the 70s (at least that's when I became aware of them), in which almost every single middle easterner was portrayed as a dark and swarthy and dangerous sort of person (there may be a few exceptions). Don't forget that US tv programs are seen throughout the world, so those in the middle east were well aware of this negative and derrogatory stereotype. Once again, I'm mentioning this not to condone any negative portrayals of Jewish persons, but to point out that there are errors made on both sides.

We in the US are so frequently are oblivious to both sides of the issues when it comes to the ME. And one needs to understand context and history in order to know exactly who we should reasonably support, if a quest for justice, as you say, is the aim. "Terror" is a violent tactic. When violence is used by relatively very powerful countries, it's victims are instead called "collateral damage." Does that make it any less a "spade," in your view?

As I talk to you more, I can see where the problems lie; as I try to explain the parts that I think are in actuality different from the way that you present them, I realize that given the way you've said you look at things, you could easily see me as falling into the group you first complained about.

Maybe this isn't a productive conversation, eh?

[FormerRepublican]

79. I agree that generalizations are often made on both sides of the issue.

Your response seems reasonable. Yet, given the scenario I described, how should I describe it in a way that is not overly generalized? I could list the cartoons that were published, and in which papers. We use generalizations to describe a widespread problem, which is what I was pointing out. This is not meant to imply that ALL muslims published offensive cartoons, but the problem is widespread enough to require a generalization. How does that compare to one set of cartoons in a Danish paper which has been generalized to an act by all westerners, including me, when I had nothing to do with it? It would be impractical to list extensive organizations involved in an activity when that activity is widespread. Perhaps I should have specified Muslims in the ME, since the problem is more widespread there. Perhaps I should have listed all the guilty parties. I don't know. That seems excessive, but it is more accurate.

This is at the heart of the issue I was raising:

"We in the US are so frequently are oblivious to both sides of the issues when it comes to the ME. And one needs to understand context and history in order to know exactly who we should reasonably support, if a quest for justice is the aim. "Terror" is a violent tactic. When violence is used by relatively very powerful countries, it's victims are instead called "collateral damage." Does that make it any less a "spade," in your view?"

No, the violent acts by both are a spade, and both are wrong. My point is that one is viewed as being wrong, while the other is viewed as being justified. Why? Americans have died in terrorist attacks in this tit for tat exchange of violence - so why are they not excused for a violent response, when Muslims are excused because Bush bombed and killed Iraqis? That's at the heart of my argument - it seems that everyone thinks it's OK if Americans are killed, but not Muslims. Why is a Muslim life more valuable than an American's? Do actions by Bush somehow change the value of a human life?

WRT conversation - can it ever be pointless to try to see another's point of view (even if it can be frustrating)?

[Toots]

131. Don't forget Blacks they can be violent as well

Maybe Asians also. Us White Christians though.....:shrug:

[shance]

2. Why is it okay to murder hundreds of thousands of Muslims for oil?

I think this is a more honest question considering what many in our government and this Administration have allowed.

[WildEyedLiberal]

11. Why does the war in Iraq prohibit you from condemning violence?

That's so weak. "Their violence is okay because of our violence."

That's pretty much the excuse for every war ever. :eyes: "Group X is violent, so we can be too!"

You're either against violence or you're not. Make up your mind.

[shance]

25. So you condone the needless murder of thousands in Iraq?

I said nothing about what I supported or didnt support regarding violence. YOU DID.

Dont put words in my mouth.

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. HAHAHA NICE LOGIC

I oppose Muslim riots = I condone the Iraq War?

Are you that thickheaded?

[FormerRepublican]

29. Why is it necessary to mention Iraq in the midst of another discussion?

I think that's kind of my whole point here. It's almost as if we can't say "Muslim extremists are violent" without qualifying it first by saying "but look at what Bush did in Iraq." How does one excuse the other? What Bush did was horribly, miserably wrong. But so is the violence committed in the name of Islam (that really has NOTHING to do with Islam).

In other threads, if I mention terrorist attacks on Americans (whichever one - Khobar Towers, 9/11, the African bombings, etc.), I'm not allowed to condemn that violence without qualifying it first by saying it's all our fault. Even if we PROVOKED the terrorists, why does that excuse their violent acts? Why aren't Gandi and MLK offered up as a better solution to their situation? But we don't suggest that Muslims should respond with peaceful protest, we say that it's OK for them to act violently because Bush invaded Iraq, or because of Iran-Contra, or because of Reagan support for Saddam. We condemn American violence, why don't we condemn Islamic violence?

If what I heard was "we need to change American policy" - I'd be all for it. I want our foreign policy to be successful and not this horrible nightmare Bush has created. But what I hear is "it's OK for terrorists to kill Americans because Bush invaded Iraq" or something similar. That makes me angry because it's NOT OK to kill Americans any more than it's OK to kill Iraqis.

It doesn't make sense.

[Clark2008]

31. Because Iraq is yet another step

Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us for our actions. Occupying land, supporting fascist and oppressive regimes and on and on.

I'm not condoning violence, but that seems to be the only voice they've got left, thanks to the US of A, particularly under Bush.

[FormerRepublican]

33. They have oil. They have more bargaining power than you think.

This is all about a pissing contest to see who's the biggest dog on the block - who can dominate and take over the world. We KNOW how crazy Bush is, but how does that excuse the crazy mullahs who advocate and fund terrorism? Their actions are as provocative as ours are. I think there's more lust for power in their side of the equation than you assert. With them, as with us, it's the common people who get hurt in the middle of the dog fight.

[breakfastofchampions]

38. They want to take away our free speech

That sounds like hating our freedoms to me.

[Maru Kitteh]

44. I've got a little somthin' fur ya

SERIOUSLY

You're not DENSE enough to actually believe that those riots are really just over cartoons, are you? Even Condi don't buy that shit, she might want to get the word out to the Chimps imps, like Limpballs, O'Liely and Insanity though.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakfastofchampions]

89. Pineapples, spinach and salsa

WTF? your wierd.

[Maru Kitteh]

50. Come on Breakfast! Don't disappoint me! Afraid of Feminazis?

I'm a tree huggin', cow huggin', piggie huggin', chicken huggin', heterosexual feminist dyed in the wool LIBERAL from .........


CENTRAL NEBRASKA

Why won't you answer me?

[breakfastofchampions]

115. I'm all for women's rights

You don't get much freedom under sharia law.

[Maru Kitteh]

125. Still no answer eh? Very dissapointing.

:hurts:

[breakfastofchampions]

135. to what question?

[MakeItSo]

62. with due respect, are you for real? `

Your logic is miserably flawed, yet you seem not to notice that, or else you're trolling. Burning down embassies is a no-no. Bad Muslims. Bad! Invading another country at an estimated cost of as much as 2 trillion dollars, leaving more than 100,000 souls dead, untold numbers crippled, wounded, mentally scarred for life, a country polluted with depleted uranium for the next 500,000 years, is A LOT WORSE. So why don't you consider shutting off the self-righteousness and hypocricy spigots and moving on to something more meaningful.

[ButterflyBlood]

86. You're accusing him of using miserably flawed logic?

You're the one who appears to saying that he supports the Iraq war, with no proof of this at all.

You know what, yeah that is worse than burning down embassies. And both are a lot worse than throwing raw eggs at apartment windows like some asshole did to my apartment yesterday. Does that mean I can't criticize that dumbass? That as long as something worse is happening that means anything not as bad is immune from criticism or anyone criticizing is in support of it? Sorry, I ain't following this.

[ButterflyBlood]

81. Ah perfect logic

You must either support Muslim riots or the Iraq war. yoU Cna't oppose both.

Gee, I oppose all unneccesary violence. This includes the Iraq war and the riots. Consistency, what a concept!

[MakeItSo]

51. Violence is RELATIVE For Pet's sake!!!

You're being violent by saying someone's comment is "weak". That's insulting.

The Muslims are being violent by burning flags, burning some buildings, and getting killed by police.

The West is being violent by invading a sovereign nation with 100,000 now dead (mostly civilians),
torturing scores of Arab men, taking pictures of that torture and distributing those pictures, supporting Israel and thereby supporting the IDF, which has killed 3,500 Palestinians since the Intifadah began.

With all due respect, get some friggin' perspective. It really is absurd to make these analogies.

[CJCRANE]

126. Exactly: it's all about perspective.

The protests and riots by muslims are bad and to be deplored. But they are also being used to whip hysteria that the "muslims want to kill us all", "take away our freedom of speech" as if a few protesters can destroy the entire western civilization.

Muslims in Iraq had their country "shock and awed" based on a lie and now Iranians face the very real prospect of a massive pre-emptive air bombardment. The muslims are the only people in danger of having large parts of their culture literally physically vaporized.

[Maru Kitteh]

43. Who said it was O.K. to murder Muslims for oil? And whose honesty do you

question? The OP was asking why some were excusing the violence of Muslim protesters. The only thing I can surmise from your response is that you somehow equate, or believe that those who would condemn the Muslim violence must endorse the Western violence. IMO that is an intellectually weak position. One irresponsible violence does not negate or justify another irresponsible violence.

[mzmolly]

3. Who's "WE?" Fundi mentality leading to murder is wrong, no matter the

color of the wacko skin.

[MakeItSo]

54. You ARE culpable, don't kid yourself -- I assume you pay taxes?

Your tax dollars feed the War Machine that does the killing. We all have blood on our hands, much more than the Muslims burning flags and buildings, I'm sorry to say.

I'm not going to beat myself up about it; I opposed the war from the get-go. On the other hand, I'd be a fool to get all self-righteous on the Muslims who are burning flags and getting killed by cops.

[mzmolly]

72. Paying taxes does not equate with murder, sorry.

Though, I obviously dislike the idea of my taxes being used to fund the war.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

4. Good point!

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[napi21]

5. It's NOT! But you need to read some of the threads here on DU

in the Muslim forum. I didn't kanow we had one until a few hours ago when soeone suggested I go there and read some of the posts.

I suggest all of you do the same. The posts I read there I think showed the real Islam beliefs.

What we're deling with in the terrorists are the extremists, and they aren't much different than the extremists in our own Christian community as well!

[tn-guy]

27. Good point.

"What we're dealing with in the terrorists are the extremists, and they aren't much different than the extremists in our own Christian community as well!"

An excellent point. I was watching "The Beheading Hour, with Jerry Falwell" just last week when he and Ralph Reed announced the upcoming burning of the NBC and ABC corporate headquarters for defaming Christianity in their programming. They went on to have a lively discussion on whether homosexuals should be suffocated before being stoned or should they just be stoned to death right away.

Look, I agree that not all Muslims are fanatics or extremists. I agree that just a small percentage are. But I can also remember history. I know that in the 60s only a small percentage of white southerners were members of the KKK, but they operated because only a similarly small percentage would openly condemn them. They were not relegated to the fringe elements of society where they belonged because white society at large, at that time, was unwilling to publicly ostracize the Klan. Thus even those who abhorred the KKK, but did so secretly, were complicit in the stranglehold it and other racists held on southern society. The "moderate" Muslims who are not burning and beheading but are unwilling or unable to condemn those who are are similarly complicit in allowing such behavior to continue. The rioting Muslims are most definitely NOT on the extreme fringe of society where they live; to the contrary, they are condoned and coddled by that society.

[napi21]

53. I think you're almost right. But...

I worked in a little town of Duncan SC in the mid 90's. I was the Director of Accounting for a mid size company there, and worked a LOT of hours, including most Saturdays. One Friday I heard on the news that the KK was holding a rally at the local HS which was about 2 miles up the road. Call me a chicken shit, but I told the CEO I wouldn't be working that weekend because I wasn't willing to drive through the area where those idiots were holding a rally.

I'm sure the southerners of the past were in the majority in hating blacks, but they aren't any more.

My point is, even if it's a minority who are rioting in the Islam community, they're evil enough to scare the rest of the people to not openly fight against them.

I'm not proud of hiding from the KKK in SC, but Iwas a 115# female, 50 years old, and just not up to physical fighting!

If you want to hate me and call me a chickenshit, so be it, I'm just not a combative person anymore.

[tn-guy]

127. It's not a case of fighting, social ostracism can work wonders

I'm not saying that everyone had to violently confront the KKK or today should fight the segment of Muslims who are fanatics but one does not have to condone them either. Social isolation works slowly but it does work. If the nut cases are truly a very small proportion of the population the being shunned by the rest will exert quite a bit of pressure over time. You would be ashamed to be seen in public with someone who was spouting racist nonsense and therefore would avoid contact with such a person. Moderate Muslims should similarly shun the nut-cases among them.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

6. I am not generally a conspiracy theorist, but...

The alternative to the violent protests, sponsored in part by the various middle east despots, would be a calm, cool, and collected boycott of the offenders, i.e., the west, a la the religious rights' boycotts of American Girl, and Spongebob Squarepants.

What would be the conssequences of such a boycott?

Now you know why there are violent protests over there that are being sponsored by the middle east
governments.

Visit my anti-war website, www.shockedandawful.com

[jedr]

21. Poor and ignorant people are being whipped into a frenzy;

By their governments because the war drums are beating here in the U.S. The Bush doctrine has failed and placed the middle east on the Verge of collapse. These countries are facing invasion , just as in Iraq . This outcome was predicted from the start. Stand by, this only the beginning and I have no trust in our leadership. This is one hell of a mess to say the least.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. There is a boycott already

Denmark's Arla bears brunt of boycott

Less than three weeks ago, the Middle East was a thriving market worth almost half a billion dollars in annual sales for Denmark's Arla Foods Group. Now, the milk and cheese producer has all but given up on its biggest regional customer outside of Europe.

The boycott of Danish goods by Muslim countries is costing Arla $1.8-million a day, and the company says there is little it can do other than encourage political dialogue between its country and the Muslim world. Even if the boycott is eventually lifted, Arla fears the damage may be irreversible.
...
The company, which is Europe's second-largest dairy producer, has been forced to cut 125 jobs and reduce the work hours of another 40 staff members. Arla is Denmark's biggest exporter to the Middle East, accounting for more than a third of Danish sales to the area. Revenue from sales to the Middle East accounts for about 8 per cent of Arla's annual sales of $8.8-billion.
...
The co-operative, owned by about 11,600 milk producers in Denmark and Sweden, published ads in Saudi Arabian newspapers last week, but the campaign had little effect. Now Arla is simply trying to keep up relations with retailer customers, suppliers and distributors in the region where it employs about 1,000 people.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060206.wdanishh0206/BNStory/Business/home

[Mythsaje]

7. It's not...

and I dare anyone to say it is.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. Short answer: It's Not.

Long answer...

Not all Muslims are doing this. It's a bunch of rabble rousers looking to provoke a reaction and create martyrs. I'm guessing they heard that BushCo and his Republicronies were looking weak in the upcoming elections and moved to shore up the Republicans so they can win and get more idiot plans in play... as part of the AlQueda effort to unify Muslims, they need the U.S. to do stupid things like invade Iraq and Iran... so they shore up the Republicans, the Republicans invade Iran, and more Muslims decide Osama was right and join the cause.

Recruiting tool. And the RW's are going to fall for it.

[Mike Nelson]

9. People always tie their zeal for killing to their...

...religious "beliefs." I guess they think their deity's approval makes it okay to kill. Bush does it too.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Let me try and explain

Muslims I know abhor the violence over these cartoons, although we all agree that the drawings are blasphemous. I do believe the cartoons were printed with the sole intention of inflaming Muslims, just as an anti-gay cartoon or a cartoon depicting an African American in a demeaning way would inflame those groups. If you want to know exactly why they are blasphemous, please visit the Muslim/Islam group here at DU; there are threads about it there that might help you understand how bad these drawing s are.

I think the point to think about is why these drawings, which were published earlier in an obscure journal, resurfaced now in a place where they were sure to be noticed. I think that someone did this intentionally just to stir up emotions-if you've followed the cartoon threads here, you know how those emotions have been stirred! :) I could see that al Qaeda elements may have been responsible, the idea being to get more recruits. I could see that neocons are responsible; paint the Muslim bogeyman as so violent we need to go and nuke Iran. Take your pick. But I think the point is that this was a set up, intended to create the violence. We should concentrate on finding out who did it and why.

[FormerRepublican]

24. Thank you for your explanation. But I think you point out clearly...

...why it's so critical that Muslims NOT respond violently to the provocation. They're being manipulated into doing something that ultimately will be detrimental to them. That's the whole point of non-violent response, not only in this case, but in ALL cases of provocation. It puts you in a better position to act for your best interests.

Nor do I think any excuses should be made for those who do resort to violence. Whenever I'm confronted with Muslims or others who advocate a violent response to something negative targeted at Islam, I always talk about an impression I had from reading something from the Koran. The incident was of the Prophet Mohammad, who came upon some men who were shooting arrows at birds - not killing them, but just for the fun of seeing what the birds would do when they were hit. He made them stop because what they were doing was cruel, and they should know better than to be cruel. How does that compassionate act for mere animals square with violence against people?

I think in any religion, one must find the very best of what is contained in it, and live one's life in accordance with it's utmost - because in my mind, that's what God is. That high and ideal goodness.

IMO, resorting to violence places us squarely on a dark and ugly Earth. In doing so, one rejects that high and ideal goodness that is at the core of belief in God. Excusing violence allows those who engage in it to continue to violate those high ideals. Does that make sense?

And in general, I find those who continue to act violently are acting not for the sake of religion, but for their own sake. The lust for power and control is a universal human desire, and it is the inevitable cause of a multitude of wars that have nothing at all to do with God.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

133. I agree

And the Islam I know is anything but violent. The Islam I know welcomes all, and honors and respects all paths to God-and treats even atheists and agnostics with respect and compassion, for it is not my place to judge the path of another. Personally, I have always been made to feel welcome around Muslims, even Sunnis (haven't met any Shia), and, sadly, that was not the case when I was a Methodist and visited churches of other denominations.

That being said, I sort of feel like a Quaker or other liberal, pacifistic Christian denomination trying to stop Fred Phelps from his hateful anti gay protests or the "right to lifers" who say they are Christians but bomb women's clinics and kill doctors. I can say that I feel what they are doing is wrong, that violence is wrong, but my words are not heeded by those who are acting violently.

Let's remember that, just as the religious right in this country is often manipulated by those leaders who have another agenda, the Muslims who are rioting are being manipulated by leaders who have another agenda, and that agenda is NOT Islam.

[Yupster]

36. Can a non-Muslim blaspheme the prophet?

In some parts of Christiandom, a person can be excommunicated from the faith for having heretical beliefs, but that's only Christians. The Christian religion doesn't have any influence over the bahavior of non-Christians.

Am I right in thinking that Muslims are trying to dictate what behavior is wrong for non-Muslims?

If so that would certainly be an outrageous demand.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

132. The point is not to impose Islamic religion on others,

it is to stop the stereotypical hatred that it seems more and more Westerners have towards Muslims. The depiction of Mohammed includes implying that the entire faith endorses suicide bombings and violence by placing the Shahada, the most important words in Islam, on a bomb.

I doubt if you would defend a KKK cartoon showing a gay person molesting a child which stated that all gays are child molestors, would you? Or a depiction of all black people as being lazy and on welfare?

The point of the cartoon is that it implies stuff about Islam that isn't true, and that it was drawn in such a way to show hatred and distain. The reaction I have got from some even here at DU is one that shows the campaign to show Islam as some evil movement with every Muslim being violent is working.

[reality based]

14. What you mean "we" Kemo Sabe?

[deadparrot]

15. Granted, I haven't been involved in the really flame-y threads

on this subject, but every post that I've seen have on the subject has been supportive of the right to protest, yet very much opposed to the use of violence. :shrug:

[MakeItSo]

17. Let's count the bodies, otherwise known as "pot calling kettle black"

Dead in Iraq -- 100,000+
Palestinians killed by Israelis since the Intifadah began --- 3,500
Dead in Muslim riots --- 10? (most killed by police)

Violence is NOT ok. Neither is hypocricy.

[wtmusic]

22. a little perspective always helps

Oh, and don't forget:

Number of WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Main reason we went to war: WMDs
Number of confirmed al Qaeda members in Iraq on 3/19/03: 0
Price of Iraq war/day: $137M
Ratio of those killed on 9/11 to those killed in Iraq: 1/30

Will those violent Muslims EVER learn?

[ButterflyBlood]

82. And who here is hypocritical?

Most DUers don't support the war or Israeli violence against civilians? What do you we have to apologize for?

Red herring.

[Taxloss]

18. I agree.

I've been horrified by the willingness of some DUers to pander to violent extremism.

[rooboy]

19. You think everyone drives a Ford and has cable tv?

Do you have any idea what the cultural environment is like in Arab countries? Do you think there's be violence if the New York Times ran a gratuitous cartoon of Martin Luther King getting screwed up the ass by Malcolm X? And if that happened, would the news stations show footage of the peaceful protests or the violent ones?

So what do you know about this situation beyond what you've been told by the newspapers and CNN?

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Violence isn't okay, but tarring over 1 billion people isn't either

The response to the cartoons is wholly disproportionate to the original offense and even then, calls for boycotts on Danish goods in general and calls for the government to apologize or censor the paper are completely misguided.

That being said, what many of us object to is this pejorative attitude that all Muslims live in the Middle Ages; that all Muslims approve of what's going on. Many of us object to lumping all those who were offended by the cartoons into the same groups that are demanding censorship and calling for violence.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't protesting, aren't tearing down embassies, and aren't calling for terrorist attacks, even if many are offended by the cartoons. They have a right to be offended, as long as that offense is expressed in peaceful, democratic ways.

Do you think that newspapers would sell much copy if they printed headlines that screamed "Hundreds of Millions of Muslims Don't Give a Sh*t"?

Here are some excellent Muslim-oriented blogs that have commentary on the subject:

http://www.aqoul.com/
A Muslim Blog that was name-dropped in the Financial Times.

http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/
Another good Muslim blog from the UK

http://www.safiyyah.ca/wordpress/
A great blog by a young Canadian-Muslim woman

http://www.farahssowaleef.blogspot.com/
This one's a little dubious - still, she's linked to by several more credible Muslim blogs; ostensibly, she's a highly Westernized Saudi girl. Whatever, it's interesting to read and it could well be real, although I have my doubts.

Also, read the articles on http://www.altmuslim.com

[applegrove]

23. It isn't acceptable. The oil money funded radical islamic suicide bombers

who procure children & poor men to kill themselves & civilians is inexcusable.

[president4aday]

26. We kill 100K Muslims in Iraq, muslims kill 10 in riots..see Mat. 7 3-5

3: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

4: Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?

5: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. It's only hypocritical if you excuse the Iraq war deaths

According to this "logic," you can't oppose BOTH. Which is why it's complete bullshit.

[ButterflyBlood]

87. DING DING DING someone gets it

So many logical fallacies I'm seeing here.

[FormerRepublican]

32. OK, then where does it stop? Bush won't stop - he'll push it until he...

...kills us all. And inevitably, a violent response will provoke a violent response. It becomes a cycle with no end, until no one can even remember what started it all.

At this point it needs mutual disarmament. That's not going to happen when both sides are playing military chicken. Someone has to blink.

[president4aday]

39. You're right! "Someone has to blink." Why can't it be ....us? !

Why should we wait for them Muslims to blink anyway?

Why should we always concede the initiative to "them"?


How 'bout it F R?

Think we big enough to blink?

[FormerRepublican]

41. Because we blinked before and it didn't help.

We've made concession after concession during the Clinton Administration, yet here we are. Clinton's blinking approach didn't stop the African embassy bombings. What do you suggest we do - turn over the US to ME control? This is ultimately a power struggle.

[Swamp Rat]

106. How about turning the ME over to ME control?

We have NO RIGHT to be there.

[FormerRepublican]

107. So that means we should expel all immigrants from the US...

...because they don't belong here?

Except for the obvious recent Bush catastrophies, we were invited into the ME, and our presence there is approved by the government. An equivalent here would be for vigilantes to organize and deport all immigrants, despite the government sanction of their presence. You might recall that a primary motivation for Al Qaeda attacks on Americans has been our military presence in Saudi Arabia, where we were invited by the Saudi government prior to Gulf War I. We were also invited into Lebanon, where our military was bombed by Hezbollah.

Isn't saying that Americans don't belong in the Middle East racist? Do we have cooties or something, so shouldn't touch the holy soil of the ME? Terrorist statements I've read seem to imply just that.

Having said that, I view Iraq as a ME country where we SHOULD get out, and in that instance I agree with your sentiment.

In general, the ME IS under ME control. We're not omnipotent, just meddling.

[Swamp Rat]

108. Too many fallacies in one post to answer

You guys having fun yet?

[FormerRepublican]

113. Hey, don't believe me - it's in Osama's declaration of war from 1996.

(You recall 1996, when Clinton was in charge.)

"The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist/Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were torn down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world. The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, the greatest incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places, the foundation of the House of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Kaaba, the Qiblah of all Muslims, by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. We bemoan this and can only say: "No strength and no power acquired except through Allah"."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden%27s_Declaration_of_War

The "land of the two Holy Places" is Saudi Arabia, so what he's saying is that our cooties should not be infesting Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that we were invited by the Saudi government. Note that our presence there was NOT an agression against Saudi Arabia, nor have we taken any military action against the Saudis since.

In short, Bin Laden had a political disagreement with the rulers of Saudi Arabia over our presence there, they ignored him, so he declared war against US (not the Saudis). His words, not mine.

I think people should read Osama's statements because they're very enlightening regarding his political (and racist) views.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Astrad]

35. It's neither okay or not okay

That's a false dichotomy to set up. Of course it's unfortunate that it's going on. But condemning it or not condemning it achieves nothing. To look at it that way makes it a 'you're either with us or agin us' kind of argument. All you can do is try and understand it. And to that end the first question you should ask is who are muslims? That's way too much of a generalization. That's like saying americans. Americans are vastly diverse as are muslims. So it isn't that illustrative to suggest that muslims are burning embassies. People with a particular though not homogenous feelings are doing it for a plethora of reasons: anti-west, anti-american, anti-poverty, sick of their lack of freedoms, sick of their tyrannical governments, and yes some for their (in my view misguided) version of Islam.

[FormerRepublican]

40. Does that make burning embassies right?

How can we look at criminal acts without making judgments? That's a means to making the criminal act acceptable in society, which I would not want to do. If I excuse those who burn embassies over cartoons, then I have to excuse neo-Nazis for burning Israeli embassies for racist reasons. How is that any different?

Criminal law is judgmental by it's very nature. And I'm not willing to say it's OK for Muslims to kill people, but it's not OK for Americans to kill people. IMO, it's not OK for ANYONE to kill people.

[MakeItSo]

55. Who is getting killed by the Muslims? Can you point to any story at all??

Everything I've read indicates that the few flag burners who have died have been killed by police! This really is absurd, comparing flag burning to non-provocated invasion, killing, and torture. Let he who has not sinned...

[FormerRepublican]

57. And again you justify violence with more violence.

You're making my point. If Manson killed Sharon Tate, does that make the Dahmer murders OK?

[MakeItSo]

58. you are comparing apples to oranges, repetitively I might add

Is the Hiroshima bomb blast analogous to a mugging in Central Park in terms of the net effect on humanity, in your humble opinion?

Aburd analogies get kinda boring after a while. So does misquoting people to make absurd analogies. I never defended violence, so your question is pointless.

Trolling for trouble here?

[FormerRepublican]

64. It is to the people affected by the violence.

How do you know what effect the person who was mugged in Central Park has on the world in the long run? What do we really know about all the links there are between people over the course of history? My parents were into geneology, and what I noticed is that there are certain people who seem to be parentage for a LOT of people, including those who have a vast impact on the world. Even the death of one person matters. Their actions matter, and we can't calculate the effects of a violent act on the world because we can't comprehend the ripples it creates in the world forever after the fact. I have PTSD, so I know how a violent act can change the world forever.

I fail to see how responding to a violent act with another violent act makes the world a better place.

[MakeItSo]

67. Statisically I can say with complete certainty that the impact of

100,000 deaths surpasses the impact of 1 death. But this is really getting beyond rational thinking. So never mind.

[FormerRepublican]

69. What if the 1 death is yours?

Is that still insignificant?

[FormerRepublican]

102. The flaw in this argument is that I never compared the two.

In fact, the whole point of this thread is my complaint that every time one issue is raised, Iraq is immediately raised as an issue by others. Why? Must we compare the two?

And I wasn't even talking merely about the violence over the cartoons. This occurs whenever we talk about ANY Muslim violence, including terrorist attacks. If someone says a terrorist attack is violent and wrong, a response immediately launches into a litany of Bush's actions in comparison. Isn't all violence abhorent?

Why can't we condemn the violence on both sides?

[Malikshah]

42. Not the first to ask, nor the last no doubt.... so far the answers

add to asbestos-suit attire requirements here...

but-- who the f&*^ is making excuses?

Or is this along the lines of

A source has said...

or

What is your opinion of "x" ("x" being something so completely off the topic of discussion or beyond the purview of the person being interviewed...)

Lovely framing here, though. Just wish the "picture" was worth looking at.

[Cleita]

45. For the same reason you can't blame every minority for

gang violence. The ones who perpetrate these violent crimes are only a small percentage of the community. So you can't blame the whole sub group of people for what a few do.

I personally dislike white supremists. They are every bit as violent as other terrorists. From my research, they are responsible for most of the crimes committed in Spokane Washington for example as well as other areas. However, most of the white people in Spokane are law abiding, so to blame all whites for what a few do is wrong.

[proud patriot]

47. No excuses from me

No Excuse for violence IMO

[BushOut06]

48. Seriously, how many people have been defending them?

Most of the posts I've seen on here have been defending free speech, and condemning the violence. Most of us recognize their right to protest and address their greivances, however. There might be a few here and there actually defending the violence itself, but I would think that's been a very small minority here.

[omega minimo]

49. And thank you for playing Really Bad Analogies!!!!!

If you think "we keep making excuses for Muslim violence" you are sadly mistaken.

[FormerRepublican]

60. OK, and how often do people on DU say yes, the abortion...

...clinic bombings are bad, but abortion clinics murder a lot of babies!

It's the same kind of analogy. It's justifying violence. Granted, we don't view abortions the way that right wingers do, but it's the exact reasoning they employ to justify their own violence. Is their bombing of abortion clinics OK because they are so offended by abortions? If not, then why is it OK for Muslims to commit violent acts because they're offended by cartoons?

And why does what Bush did in Iraq justify Muslim violence? Shouldn't we be condemning both? Why is one judged as being bad, and the other as good or acceptable?

Read through this thread and count how many times what Bush did in Iraq is offered up as justification for violent acts by Muslims. By that logic, I should be out murdering people left and right, since I have been victimized and discriminated against. Are you saying it's OK for me to go out and torch houses and murder people because I've been oppressed?

[MakeItSo]

63. I REPEAT: no one is JUSTIFYING what the Muslims are doing

We're just sick of self-righteous hypocricy, that's all! A sane and rational mind by its nature must weigh the relative significance of actions and events and balance their import accordingly. If you don't do that you might as well take a seat at the local Woolworth's coffee counter and serve up an ample portion of word salad until the guys in white suits come to take you away.

[FormerRepublican]

68. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

I'm saying that it's wrong to condemn one and not the other. Unless we want to be hypocrits ourselves, we must condemn them both.

Violence begets violence, and a failure to object to a violent act today can lead to a catastophically violent act tomorrow.

[MakeItSo]

73. Place finger horizontally between lips. Wave finger up and down. Hum.

N/T

[ButterflyBlood]

90. Where's the hypocrisy?

It's only hypocritical if someone suppoorted the war, and so far I have to see one such argument in this thread in favor of it.

[omega minimo]

76. Not once as far as I know--

If I saw a statement like that I would assume it's a frurker. Or a mindfucker.

Who do you think you are playing here? Any response to these outrageous statements is a mistake.

Red herrings. Straw men.

Homey don't play dat.

:evilfrown:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

84. I'll take the Word Salad, a side of Freedom Fries & a Victory Gin

:spray: :puke::puke:
:yoiks:

[FormerRepublican]

85. So someone has to agree with ALL your opinions or they're a troll?

Lord, you're starting to sound like Bush.

There are a lot of opinions on DU that I agree with wholeheartedly. This is one particular issue that causes me angst, which is why I opened it up for discussion. Isn't that the whole point of DU? And with regard to this particular issue, isn't it the primary reason why we're accused of being soft on security, and why Democrats are losing elections?

[Rex]

59. No excuse for violence, it is a primitive reaction, reptilian

maybe one day we will move beyond violence of all forms.

[T Town Jake]

61. No excuses from me, but then I believe in free speech...

...and assert that even if that speech offends people, those offended have no right to go on violent rampages.

A good many DU'ers seem to disagree - although I note that many of the ones excusing the violence over the cartoons were the same one screaming to high heaven, if you'll pardon the pun, about "censorship" when the Christian fundies got the show "The Book of Daniel" yanked from NBC a few weeks back.

It's a very telling hypocrisy.

[MakeItSo]

70. So your paper will publish a cartoon of Jesus wanking to web porn?

This isn't about free speech. It's about shouting fire in a crowded theater. The cartoons had no merit whatsoever. Blaming Mohammad for the the actions of Muslim radicals is as absurd and pointless as blaming Jesus for George W. Bush.

Pat Robertson and other Christian "leaders" have called for the deaths of people many times, by the way. Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians. All the fundies are cracked in the head, muslims, christians, and jews.

[T Town Jake]

71. I believe in free speech. You don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

(n/t)

[MakeItSo]

77. I'm all for free speech. This is manipulation, not free speech

These cartoons were distributed and published by people who had hidden agendas. These cartoons had no merit on their own, and at least one of the most offensive "cartoons" was not a cartoon at all.

World Net Daily reports that "one of three especially inflammatory but undocumented Muhammad images distributed by a Danish imam as an example of an "anti-Muslim environment" in the European country turns out to be a poorly reproduced copy of an Associated Press photo taken at a French pig-squealing contest."



Another two images which were erroneously added to the caricatures that were actually carried by the newspapers depict Muhammad as a pedophile demon and a dog raping a praying Muslim.

I hope you realize you are being played by a group or organization that is intent on fanning the flames of hate. Informing the public is not on their radar.

[T Town Jake]

94. World Net Daily, eh?...

... Now that's a reputable source, alrighty...they've got Ann Coulter right on the top of their web banner, even! :sarcasm:

That aside, you keep repeating this mantra that the cartoons "had no merit on their own," as if that justified anything. Sorry, Charlie, but that's not how free speech works: just because you or I might not think a book, an artistic expression, an editorial, or even a post on a discussion forum has "no merit" doesn't mean I get to go batshit crazy and start tearing stuff up because of it.

Free speech means people get to say, draw, and print things I don't like, and they accord me the same respect in return. That's 1st Amendment 101 - and it should be a practice respected, not threatened, everywhere in the world.

[MakeItSo]

98. The newspaper cartoons incited NO riots or anything else

...when they appeared in the Danish press months ago. These latest cartoons WERE FAKE and apparently part of a concerted effort to incite violence. One was of Mohammad getting fucked up the ass by a dog. These were presented, falsely, as having been published in European newspapers. They were never published in western newspapers.

You are living in la-la land if a) you think an equivalent cartoon would EVER be published in a major US daily. (Jesus giving head to the Pope? how about that?) and b) if for some unfathomable reason it DID appear in a major US daily, that it would not incite violence among some people.


Puleez. With all due respect, try to get a little real here.

[ButterflyBlood]

99. Actually, b is correct

How many riots and violence occured over The Last Temptation of Christ or the "Piss Christ" artpiece, or The Da Vinci Code, or the recent exhibit portraying Jesus as bin Laden?

Hell, here's a degrading image of Jesus I found on anothe rfourm. How much violence has erupted over this?

[FormerRepublican]

100. Here's a timeline that talks about how it all went down:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11238268/

Based on the above timeline, it appears the cartoons were protested relatively soon afterward, with no result. The problem escalated. The cartoons were republished later, but they had been protested in the interim.

The real question here is who is circulating the fake cartoons and why? Is it a US put up job? Is it Islamic extremists like Al Qaeda? And who is circulating the information to the populace to incite riots? In many of the countries where riots have occurred, the press is strictly regulated (and thus might not contain enough info on this to incite anyone). The answer to the question who is behind it is critical in deciding where to place blame.

While I want to immediately suspect Bush, there are plenty of other players who have an agenda that would be supported by this.

[ShortnFiery]

118. You beat me too it !

World Daily Net? :wtf:

Hyperbole is the FAV tactic of the FRINGE elements, both on the political left and right. One of the reasons it takes SANE AMERICANS more time to convince the masses is that it's a tempting and knee-jerk reaction to consider one's culture superior to others. That's probably why the two largest tenets of the vast majority of religions are to love God and love thy neighbor.

Hate and ostracism are the refuge of the poor, disenfranchised and misinformed. True acceptance of cultural diversity and a thriving Democracy can only be realized by a Country who enjoys an educated MIDDLE CLASS.

We must work to find common ground with the moderate republicans who still pride themselves on the separation of Church and State.

Armageddon should NOT be an exit strategy. I have hope that we can help bring the USA back to a Democratic Republic if only we can convince the moderate Republicans and blue dog Democrats that we are being ruled by warmongering corporate Noe-conservatives. After all, there are many other corporate interests beyond the Military Industrial Complex. 52% of our budget dedicated to death and destruction (Pentagon's war machine - private contracting war profiteering) is NOT acceptable to maintain a good consumer type economy. :(

[U4ikLefty]

65. pathetic flamebait

[ShortnFiery]

119. Yes, you are right there ...

This is NOT an issue of Good vs. Evil. The true criminals here are the leaders of both sides (RW Muslims and RW Western Imperialists) who whip the people into a frenzy through FEAR-mongering and HATE-speech.

Because the ME world contains large populations who live in abject poverty, I UNDERSTAND how their leaders are so successful in inciting violence from a few. Again, as many have said, there's no excuse for this reaction, BUT it is understandable.

Both Jesus and Mohammad have been hijacked by the extremists. The propaganda is more successful in the ME because the people are so dirt poor they have little to nothing to lose by acting out.

Unfortunately the Bush-Bots don't realize that despite our best efforts, it is only through long term efforts at relieving poverty and illiteracy, that there can be ANY hope for the ME countries to form true Democracies.

IMO, other than guiding them in the right direction towards mutual understanding and respect for human rights, us Western Peoples should cease imperial aggressions toward our ME neighbors. ;)

[Solon]

66. You need to learn history first, before being taken seriously...

Celts sacrificing people at altars, where do you get your info Julius Cesar? Not to mention that it was the Mayans and Aztecs that sacrificed people(NOT the Incas) but also they weren't virgins either, but war prisoners. Jesus H. Christ, where the HELL do you get off spouting like a fucking all powerful know it all when you know nothing. Not to mention the bigotry displayed. THE MUSLIMS? THE? You know what, using your "standard" for judging religions, Fred Phelps DOES represent THE CHRISTIANS, how do you feel about that. Maybe your aren't so "formal" after all.

[FormerRepublican]

75. OK, let's talk some history.

WRT Celts:

"The matter of human sacrifice by the Celts and the Druids is a topic that creates, at once, a sense of horror and wonder for us in this modern age. In our present age, separated from the phenomena of death as we are, even animal sacrifice shocks our senses. The much more controversial subject of human sacrifice is almost beyond our comprehension. We must endeavor to look beyond our immediate "surface reactions" to this sensitive topic. As we delve a little deeper into the primal Celtic soul and psyche, perhaps our study will allow us to understand why such sacrifices occurred."

http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/human_sacrifice.htm

And they didn't sacrifice on altars, then generally tossed them into bogs after slitting their throats - thus, the bog bodies.

WRT Incas:

"The Tanta Carhua Story
"Beautiful beyond exaggeration," is how one Spanish chronicler described Tanta Carhua. Carhua was a ten-year old Inca child whose father offered her to the Inca Emperor as a Capacocha sacrifice. She was taken by priests to Cuzco where she met the Inca Emperor, and on her return journey to the mountain where she would be sacrificed the procession passed through her home village. According to the legends, Tanta Carhua told the village: "You can finish with me now because I could not be more honoured than by the feasts which they celebrated for me in Cuzco."

Tanta Carhua was then taken to a high Andean mountain, placed in a shaft-tomb and walled in alive. Chicha, a maize alcohol, was fed to her both before and after her death. And in death, this beautiful ten-year old child became a goddess, speaking to her people as an oracle from the mountain, which was reconsecrated in her name."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/peru/worlds/sacrifice1.html

Are you trying to imply that a 10 year old girl wasn't a virgin, but was a war prisoner?

Lord, learn a little about history yourself before you jump all over ME!

Why, exactly, is it bigotry to object to violent acts? I didn't say all Muslims were violent, I said violent acts by Muslims were excused when violent acts by others were not. There is a difference. Learn it.

BTW, your assumptions about me are as bigoted as you claim I am.

[U4ikLefty]

80. You completely disregarded the contex of his argument

which is typical,

[FormerRepublican]

92. Perhaps because the context of his argument wasn't clear.

[Solon]

88. Dude, no offense, but pick a better source for the Celtic practices...

Not one that cites Psychic and Mystical Evidence. Also, the Incan practice is far removed from what you described in your OP, the idea that they ripped out the children's hearts, while still beating, etc. is FALSE for the Incas. Those were the Aztecs and Mayans before them. The Spanish literally found the pyramids of Mexico to be covered in the blood of the victims, usually with the blood of members of subservient tribes that the Aztecs conquered. Allies for the Spanish were easily found so they could conquer the Aztecs because of this. BTW: The fact that the child, by practicality, was a virgin was not the reason for the sacrifice, but the fact that the child was the child of a chieftain was the most important fact.

As for the Celts, human sacrifice was neither widespread nor common, and much debate has arose about the means of said sacrifices. Roman sources are obviously biased, and the act of killing criminals in a ritualized manner is probably the most common form, though not substantially different than any other form of Death Penalty. Not to mention that there were hundreds of tribes of Celts spread all the way from what was Germania to Spain and up to the British and Irish Isles, not all practiced human sacrifice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts_and_human_sacrifice

As to my other comments, violent acts committed by others are excused, quite often in the Media, just depends on where you look. The religion is irrelevant, and I have yet seen ONE post that has excused the violence here on this board. I don't care WHO is the perpretrator of violence myself, I condemn all equally, whether its the Muslims in this case, Hindus in India, IDF in Palestine, Christians in Iraq, I don't care, all are equally offensive, and all should be condemned, but they aren't. People will justify the most horrendious acts due to either supporting them outright or political expediency, they are just as disgusting as the perpretrators themselves.

[FormerRepublican]

96. Point taken - I should have spent more time hunting up links.

They do exist, but I was lazy and didn't hunt them up. And in my original posts, I was not attempting historical accuracy, but was presenting examples (close enough so you understood what I meant). There are more Inca sacrifices who are not children, by the way. Did I really need to list them all to make the point that the Incas did sacrifice?

WRT to excuses for violence - what I usually see is something along the lines of "yeah, they rioted over cartoons, but BUSH KILLED 10 BILLION PEOPLE!"

The reason why that bothers me is that yes, Bush killed 10 billion people, and I abhor that, but it doesn't make the riots any better. Perhaps I'm seeing justification for violence where none was intended, but what's the point in the immediate contrast to American acts if not as a justification?

Where else do you see that knee jerk reaction when violent acts are discussed? If we were discussing the church fires, would we automatically launch a litany against horrible Bush acts after Katrina?

I end up feeling as if people are telling me it's OK to kill Americans, but not OK to kill Muslims. That's what gives me so much angst. It's not OK to kill ANYONE (including Celtic bog bodies, Incan virgins, or anyone else). That's the bottom line. Nor do I believe that all Muslims are totally blameless in global events, as seems to be implied by that same knee jerk response.

[ButterflyBlood]

83. Because there are people on this forum who sseem to think

That anything against Bush is automatically good, even if they are deranged religious fanatics who make Pat Robertson look sane and that criticizing anyone opposed to Bush means that you support his policies like the Iraq war. Don't get the logic, but we see it right here, with the people saying that critics of the riots somehow are supporting the Iraq war.

[Yollam]

91. A lot of us don't.

I condemn Palestinian suicide bombers, Syrian embassy burners, Israeli IDF Likudnik thugs on rampages and Bush mudering Iraqis equally.

But that doesn't excuse Bushco or their media whores for using the recent problems as a fearmongering tool, or as tinder for stoking sentiments for war with Iran.

To be fair, I don't think anybody really has condoned the violence. What they've done is condemn the cartoonists for sparking it. Personally, I disagree, but I understand the reasoning, and I think you are being somewhat unfair to say they are condoning it.

[ButterflyBlood]

93. I completely agree with your first two paragraphs

But to the second one: no one here said it did! If someone didn't think these people were awful, they wouldn't be on this site! I don't see the point in preaching to the choir.

[LSdemocrat]

95. Why do you believe the media hype about the violence?

First, most of the people who died were protestors shot by police.

Second, you're assuming that media depictions are actually accurately describing what is happening in the Muslim world.

[FormerRepublican]

97. So is this a more accurate interpretation:

"Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday that publication of the caricatures was an Israeli conspiracy motivated by anger over the victory of the militant Hamas group in last month’s Palestinian elections.

“The West condemns any denial of the Jewish Holocaust, but it permits the insult of Islamic sanctities,” Khamenei said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11233372/page/2/

The cartoons in question have been linked to here at DU. Does that mean it's OK for someone to set fire to the servers?

Police action has led to further violence because the crowds have gotten out of control and have been threatening buildings and people of foreign entities - embassies, UN aid organizations, etc. Are the police supposed to just watch it all happen and do nothing? Police fear riots more than any other situation they must respond to.

"KABUL (Reuters) - Protests flared in several parts of Afghanistan on Monday against cartoons depicting caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad and one person was killed and two wounded when shooting erupted in an eastern town, police said.

Hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Mehtarlam, capital of Laghman province, and police fired into the air after protesters threw stones at a police station, a police official in the town, Yar Mohammad, told Reuters by telephone.

He said instigators in the crowd linked to the Taliban and al Qaeda had also opened fire and one person had been killed and two wounded.

"There was some firing from within the crowd by Taliban and al Qaeda members, too, in order to enrage the protesters," he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060206/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_afghan_dc

WRT accuracy of the media - no, I don't trust them. But pictures tell a thousand words, and there are plenty. And here's an article from the Arab world to back them up (with an opinion that I support 100%):

"The fallout from the Danish cartoons gets worse: 11 demonstrators now dead in Afghanistan and Norwegian soldiers there attacked, an attack on an international observers’ mission in Hebron, Bangladeshi demonstrators trying to attack the Italian Embassy in Dhaka. The editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that started it all, has a lot on his conscience. The situation is dangerously out of control. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has little credibility in the Muslim world but we can agree with him on one thing — that this is now a “global crisis”.

The air is being poisoned with blanket accusations and counter allegations — by Europeans that Muslims who are increasingly intolerant, by Muslims that it is the Europeans who are increasingly intolerant. That is a gross exaggeration on both parts. There are hundreds of dailies across Europe; only a handful reprinted the odious cartoons. Others could have done so; they chose not to. Most Europeans have not seen them nor wish to. Likewise, while Muslims worldwide are deeply offended by the cartoons, their protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful and dignified. Yet both these sides to the affair are ignored. Instead, the image of an unbridgeable gulf between Muslims and the West is being drummed up, not just by extremists on both sides out to hijack the row but by politicians and sections of the media who should know better. The way that this crisis has stirred up had done more to set back relations between Islam and the West and promote the dangerous “clash of civilizations” theory than anything in living memory. The decision by a French weekly yesterday to republish the cartoons, adding a few more of its own, throws further fuel onto the fire. That it did so purely to make money from the crisis, from Muslim hurt, makes it the most outrageous and most offensive of all the publishings.

What is needed now is some calm. We do not want see a single extra death as a result of these odious cartoons. Boycotts, yes; that is a personal choice. Demonstrations, yes, providing they are peaceful. Violence, attacks and threats, no.

It is significant that the plea for calm comes loudest from Muslims in Europe. Their voice needs to be heard because this row threatens them uniquely. If this row grows in violence, and with it the perception of a widening gulf between Western and Muslim cultures, they are going to be under intense pressure to come out and say where they belong. That would be intolerable."

Link to article

Hopefully this very admirable sentiment will prevail.

Edited to fix the above link.

[MakeItSo]

101. NO REPORTS of physical violence against individuals by protestors!

The embassies that were torched were vacant; NO ONE WAS INJURED.

ALL deaths reported so far have been at the hands of police. I challenge ANYONE here to link to a story that describes an incident in which a PROTESTOR has committed a DELIBERATE ACT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE resulting in the death or injury of another individual.

[FormerRepublican]

103. Mob attacks Norwegian soldiers in Kabul

"Norwegian soldiers in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan were pelted with stones on Tuesday by a crowd, Norway's defence ministry said.

The attack occurred three days after Norway's embassy in Syria was torched by Muslim demonstrators angry at the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in Danish and Norwegian newspapers.

Two Norwegians were reported slightly hurt in the attack by about 200-300 demonstrators at the Meymaneh camp of the ISAF international peace force, a ministry spokesman said.

"The demonstrators are throwing stones and have broken through the gate," the ministry said in a statement. "Materiel has been set on fire," it added."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1619341,00050003.htm

OK as an example?

[MakeItSo]

105. DING DING DING: "Two soldiers...slightly injured" with stones!

What an orgy of violence! Boy, next thing you know Iran is going to nuke Israel!

[Behind the Aegis]

104. .

<snip>

In Bagram district, a peaceful protest in the morning turned violent when around 300 "bandits and gangsters" tried to enter the US base, local police chief Mawlana Sayed Khel told the BBC.

A shoot-out with police left two protesters dead, and six police officers injured, he said.

<snip>

source

[sepia_steel]

109. dupe

self-delete

[sepia_steel]

110. Violence, especially over cartoons = bad

I can't believe this is even an issue. Odd.

[ShortnFiery]

122. The only positive fall-out from this is that ...

The RW Muslim extremist frenzy over these cartoons sure helped to SHUT-DOWN the Joint Chiefs of Staff from an orchestrated propaganda campaign against Ted Rall.

Remember folk? All members of this high level group of leaders took time to sign a letter of PROTEST to the troop depicted with no arms or legs. I can just see if this tradgedy had not eclipsed their misinformation efforts, we'd be having the RW nut cases in 'merika banning all Toons save for Marmaduke.

Fortunately however, although their planned campaign would have laid another blow to free speech, e.g., these poor generals had nothing better to do, most working and middle class people KNOW that Rall's insult fell exclusively on Rumsfeld and other Pentagon warmongers.

In America, we are truly blessed to have the opportunity to understand the complexity of a situation. Why? Most of us are not living in abject poverty and have time to RESEARCH many sources to arrive at a more true and objective analysis of an issue. That is, for us average intelligence type sane Americans, our emotions and religious fervor are kept in check though the gift of reason and a genuine sense of humanity.

[rman]

111. I don't think we do keep making excuses

What makes you think we do?

[MrSlayer]

112. I'm puzzled by the whole radical Muslim thing.

As puzzled as a I am by the fundie Christians here. I do not view this intense, deep religious faith to be anything less than insanity. If you are so fucking crazy that a cartoon drives you to firebomb buildings and act like a maniac maybe it's not such a bad thing if you get shot.

I don't know, I must be missing something.

[moondust]

114. No excuses but

I don't think the populations of these closed Muslim societies are very well conditioned to free speech. Contentious things pop up in the West all the time and you learn to deal with them or you go nuts. Bottled up frustration and anger would probably make it easy for a few extremists to incite hysteria.

[JCMach1]

116. Why do we keep making excuses for our own (U.S) violence...?

When it is not justified?

Trying to understand what is causing the anger IS NOT excusing violence...

[rucky]

117. Because we have to see both sides if we want peace.

You don't have to agree with it to understand where it's coming from.

[T_Matamoro]

121. a lot of ignorance here...........

i noticed that some poster was trying to corect you about your "history" of sacrifice like you got it wrong. Meanwhile he was the one who got it wrong. MOST cultures of the past including the Incas and maya and Celts all had human sacrafice as a belief. Maybe he should've googled before his spoke up.
Second a lot of people here are basically naive and mean well but do not understand others cultures. they seem to take the multi-culturalist "were all the same deep down" stance. I went to the Amazon in college on a anthropological "summer trip" to visit the Mehnaku, yanomamo and other tribes the professor would guide us on . You dont realise how different people can be from you until you go into "culture shock"!! After the trip i realised anthroplogy was not for me ;) I was in tears after about 2 weeks of seeing how they live. And these were the Civilised ones! Slavery, Raids, warfare, Rancher intrusion, kidnapping, (tribes if they lose a child in a raid will kidnap "replacements") etc.
you cant understand it until you see it. MY point? well suffice to say that some of the tribes were very "warlike" they were violent,dangerous and lived a hard life. And guess what? thier Culture and religion reflected that harshness! would anyone hear call a professor a liar if he came back with reports that some tribes were peaceful and others more warlike? So now i propose, why do you have a hard time accepting that Muslims might have a more violent culture than us? More so when it has to do with a cultural taboo? (i.e. the cartoons) Do you really think this has to do with Isreal? When a person riots in Damascus or Ankara and cry about Palestine, is it really affecting them? or do they just want an excuse? When Christians are killed in Sudan do we riot? Why not? To me it's clear, once you accept that they are for the most part more violent in their temprament you have to adjust accordingly. BUT that does not give them the right to tell western countries what to do. I find polygamy and their treatment of women to be highly offensive but do i riot? do i threaten to kill their people here? Should i boycott their goods? should i punish all of them for the actions of a few? this is the main difference between Islam and the west. I think some of you have to WAKE UP and relise that you should'nt make excuses or in ANYWAY justify their actions, more so if it is over a cartoon insult. There is no "other side of the coin" in this incident.

[ShortnFiery]

123. Yes, let's just forget about that little event called "The Inquisition"

Shhhh! It was so long ago, noone with European ancestry could be so DAMN brutal.

Oh, and then there was the French Revolution. Shhh! Imperialism is a much more palatable way to kill the enemy. We're so much smarter than those tribal barbarians. But dammit, unlike our congress, these ignorant people can NOT be blackmailed. :sarcasm:

Who is considered the ROGUE idiot-nation within the world community now?

We may have GOD and the figurative "moral high ground" on our side but our blessed children are returning from the ME in caskets or physical/mental scars that will leave debilitating marks on our culture for generations. Well until we forget history and start yet another Iraq-Nam?

[T_Matamoro]

129. OI VAY!

:eyes:
FIrst off i'm talking about TODAYS muslims, maybe 500 years ago they were really peaceful. (actually i know the history, take my word, they were'nt) second do you know anything about Spain? look at my user name, it's Spanish. Ever hear those stories about how children who are abused grow up to be abusers themselves? Well Spain had been under the heel of Islam for 700 years! When they finally drove out the last Caliph they esentially went MAD. Do you remember South African Apartheid? Well thats how Muslims run their countries in reguards to "infidels" except instead of being based on Skin color it was based on Faith. And NO, this has not changed today they still do it because the laws they belive in (Sharia) are written in the Qu'ran and are immutable. The Majority Christian population was maltreated badly, their women were raped and they were enslaved. So basically they went on a "ethnic cleansing" campaign. If you were a Muslim you could stay IF you became Catholic and they wanted to make sure these people were genuine converts and not fakes, hence the "inquisition" (the question). Guess where they learned the "convert or leave" concept from?? i'll give you a clue, it's starts with an "I". Did what they do was right? NO. But just like the Muslims trot out excuse after excuse so do I. YOu say we were bad in the medeval period, well thats my point. We CAN change and we have. We are the Post 60's generations. Belive me the middle east never had a "Beatles" :hippie: to break them out of their stifling culture. Maybe they can change but until then what? let them immigate here and overrun us? Most leftist I know hate the "fundamentalist" religious Christian bigots who oppress thier women, breed like rabbits, are ignorant of science (creationism) and are sexually repressed, yet i think these Mulism are 1000X worse than any Evangelical i ever met. And yet somehow by some people they are percieved as third world "freedom fighters" raging against western imperialism! What a joke. Just as ignorant Neo-con fools blended Iraqis with al-queda you seem to think a afghani taliban is as rightous as a secular paestinian figthing for a homeland. IOW don't confuse the Whole Muslim world threating us with beheadings over these cartoons with the quagmire of Iraq. To me they are two seperate things.

[ShortnFiery]

130. Nope, they all link into the predjudices of racism, nationalism and

religious extremism on both sides of the instigators of violence.

Our Side: Rightious WHITE Christians defending themselves against those DIRTY BROWN Arabian Muslims.

Their Side: ALL Muslims unite to chase out the INVADING imperialist infidels from THEIR Middle east homeland.

IMHO: Promoting Armegeddon is not a viable EXIT STRATEGY.

[LWolf]

124. "We" don't.

It doesn't matter to me who perpetrates violence, or why, I don't condone it or make excuses for it.

It doesn't matter to me which faith is committing atrocities; I'm not going to defend any of them. I'm not going to be silenced by any of them, either.

[Stockholm]

128. You know it is perfectly possible to condemn the violence AND

the choice to publish the cartoons?

French President Jacques Chirac expresses my thoughts perfectly:

"Anything that can hurt the convictions of another, particularly religious convictions, must be avoided," he said. "Freedom of expression must be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.

"I condemn all manifest provocation that might dangerously fan passions."

more http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4693628.stm

The Guardian have put together a place for all their reports on the cartoon business:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/0,,1703418,00.html

Collection of articles in english regarding the cartoons:

http://www.topix.net/world/denmark (Btw how come Topix does not cover DU)

[porphyrian]

136. I reject the premise of your assertion.

The violence isn't Muslim, it's just violence by extremist leaders who use religion as a form of population control. "We" aren't making excuses for any kind of violence, we have a broad range of opinions about everything here, and you're guaranteed to disagree with some of us eventually. However, just because some people feel differently than you do about the comics issue, doesn't mean they are excusing, endorsing or ignoring the violence.