Anyone know what the controversy about cartoons was last week?

[nicknameless]

I read a couple of mentions about a dust-up over cartoons last week (before all hell broke lose in CA).

Anyone know what that was about?

[nicknameless]

1. Nobody knows what it was about?

Maybe I didn't miss anything important after all. :)

[babylonsister]

2. Can you search google?

The whole world hates the US because of a Danish cartoon made 5 months ago, and we are at fault.
Google Dannish cartoon, and MUSLIM WORLD. BTW, the cartoon had to do with a guy named Mohammed, but I never saw it, because it wasn't showed in the US.

[nicknameless]

3. Thanks, babylonsister :)

I'll go look for it. :hi:

[greyl]

5. That's a bit extreme.

(and "a guy named Mohammed"?) :)

From what I know, the Jyllands Posten is a liberal paper - not right wing at all.
And if the whole world hates the US, it's not because of these cartoons. It's because of the real blasphemy of our invasion into the Middle East.

Here are two relevant links including the cartoons, which have been shown in the US, just not on television.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2006/week5/index.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html

[mandyky]

7. That paper might be liberal, but

the cartoonist's project was egged on by that neocon piece of doodoo, Daniel Pipes.

[greyl]

8. I don't think so. Where'd you get that idea? nt

[nicknameless]

19. Here's some info. that appears to tie Pipes to the story.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sugg02142006.html

[greyl]

21. It would appear to at first glance, yes.

However, the only connection asserted in the article is that Rose "communed with" Pipes in 2004.
2004.
What Sugg emotionally labels a communion with Pipes was only a journalistic interview with Pipes. Is everyone that has interviewed gw bush a right-winger? Of course not.

It's a published interview and has been accused of being too friendly to Pipes's morality, but it isn't at all. It was like when Phil Donahue had KKK members on his show.

2 more links to pages that accuse Rose of having a Daniel Pipesesque ideology but don't support it. They just mention the 2004 interview:

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/6/1374/105/
http://indybay.org/news/2006/02/1800832.php

[libhill]

12. The whole world

doesn't need a cartoon as a reason to hate us. Take a look at the most recent pics of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib, which our fucking neo - nazi government has tried their best to bury, and you'll see why the world hates us. The "support our troops" decal is coming off of my vehicle, and going in the trash where it belongs. I can't support sadism.

[babylonsister]

13. It's not us. it's the Danish, but it IS us.

They are angry about freedom of expression.
I spent 6 days in MX, saw the int'l news. There are many
people angry, people are dying, but I'm more confused, because
I was there 2 weeks ago, and people are still very angry and
dying, but no one hears about it here.
What the hell is wrong with this picture?

[libhill]

14. Well

the Muslim religion prohibits any depiction of their Prophet Mohamed. I think that the Danes, and the French, Germans, and Spanish who followed their lead, are trying to make the point that nothing can shoot down freedom of the press in the Western world. I agree in principle, but considering the world situation, I think it was a dumb ass time for the West to stand on principle. On the flip side, the Arab world seems to have no problem with Holocaust denial, or printing cartoons and pictures which are offensive to Jews. Which is highly cynical and hypocritical, but consider the source. As far as this not getting much coverage in the good ol' US of A, we're under the thumb of a fascist Administration that controls the media, and wouldn't want to stir up unseemly sympathy for the Muslim World. Unless there's a dollar to be made. The ass clowns didn't seem to have a problem selling American ports to their business pals in the United Arab Emirates. There's something seriously rotten in Denmark. No pun intended.

[babylonsister]

15. For me, this situation is intrguing, but complex.

I understand why it's so offensive to Muslims, but why hasen't that been
explained to the U.S.? Or has it?
All I know is, cartoons were made because of a challenge, they were done
"LAST YEAR" in response, and lots of people didn't approve of them.
Sorry, but I don't get what the issue is, but have not seen the cartoons.

[libhill]

16. I doubt that it has, at least not thoroughly

but considering the mentality of a lot of Red state Americans, it wouldn't matter. "Screw them thar A-rabs what done did 9/11". That's the mentality in a lot of areas of this country. They just don't get it. They never have, they never will. Consider all the hoopla and phony outrage over Clinton getting a b.j. Bush and company have committed a thousand atrocities that make Clinton look like a Boy Scout, but they still don't get it. But if some one in this country depicted an obscene cartoon about Jesus, particularly someone thought of as "Liberal", a lot of these Fundie assholes would be out in the streets rioting too, freedom of the press be damned. One of the cartoons, I think the one that appeared in Denmark, depicted Mohamed in a turban shaped like a bomb. The implication in Arab minds being that their main religious figure was being depicted by Westerners as a terrorist, or that all Muslims are depicted as terrorists. The U.S. State Department has bungled their response and is sending mixed signals to the world. The first response was along the lines of, "Shame on Denmark, we need to be sensitive to Muslim culture". Shortly followed with, "Of course, Muslim religious prohibitions are not bonding on Western society". Unfortunately, I'm afraid that extremists on both sides of the coin, and even some well meaning people are going to turn this into a full scale war of civilizations. Call me a tinfoil hatter, but that's my fear.

[greyl]

17. Trying to understand the violent outrage of some Muslims leads me

to the conclusion that they don't get their own religion. Similar to Jerry Falwell not getting what it means to act like Christ.

Mohammed's desire that he never be depicted by Muslims was in order to keep focus on Allah, and not him. That's clearly a suggestion specific to Muslims, not the entire world.

However, when there are quotes that still remain in currently used Korans that literally say "kill non-believers", and you add "fundamentalism" it all gets seriously confused and bloody volatile.

I don't think this is some black van operation by our government, but I don't doubt they will try to take advantage of the situation now that it's going on. It's in their interest to shift blame from their lack of diplomacy, rush to a careless and deadly war, and Abu Ghraib to the knee-jerk red state idea that "All Arabs hate us for our freedoms and deserve the death penalty".
It's the same sleight of word that appeals to the ignorant base that was present before the invasion when Saddam was so frequently linked to 9/11.

[libhill]

18. Agreed

That's what I meant when I said that I fear that some elements on both sides will try to turn this to advantage. Moderate Muslims have tried to calm things, even though they admit to being incensed by the issue. But idiots within both Islam and Christianity, and Judaism too , will try to exploit this to their advantage. Hard core over patriotic Israelis would like nothing better than to eradicate Muslims from the map. Over zealous Muslim fanatics feel the same way about Jews. And Christian communities add fuel to the fire with their "end times" scenarios, believing that Israel has to be attacked and Armageddon must be brought on, to get Jesus to return. And even though the European press which prints these cartoons is secular, in the Muslim world they're still considered Christians from Christian nations. Fucking religious fanatics of whatever stripe will be the end of us all. Damn all of them to hell, if there is such a place.

[CJCRANE]

20. Koran also

says "to kill one innoncent person is to kill the whole of mankind".

{on edit: and also "there is no compulsion in religion}

Just like the Bible, it has its paradoxes. And in the same way (as Christians do with the Bible) Muslims decide how they want to interpret it according to what suits their personality.

(The actual content of the Bible/Koran is virtually irrelevent once you get the preachers and imams weighing in with their patwas and fatwas).

[genie_weenie]

4. wikipedia has the whole issue as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

Please read and draw your own conclusions as to who started this, why and what is keeping the imbroglio going...
This has been the cause of some intense debate on the DU for a couple of weeks at least...

[greyl]

6. Good to see an objective response.

That wikipedia article has really expanded in the past week or two. Great link.

[nicknameless]

10. Great link. Thanks!

I was trying to piece it together from http://bibelen.blogspot.com

Wikipedia's write-up is much more clear. :hi:

[genie_weenie]

11. No problem

:toast:

[mopinko]

9. cia black bag job

imho. cia,nsa,dia, whatever.

[nicknameless]

22. A google search turned up a number of hits

for a Daniel Pipes connection. Whether or not he was involved, neocons always benefit from inflaming Muslims.

Here's one: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=227