betsy

This topic is about Europe. Trying to understand why those cartoons had re-surfaced yet again, inspite of the protest voiced out after they got published in Denmark. I do not believe that there is no reason behind what seems to be an intentional action on European media's controversial reaction. DEFIANCE is the word that springs to my mind right now. I remembered reading a murder case a couple of years back about a movie person murdered by a Muslim who found offense with his movie. In that news articles, members of the press were quoted about their concern for freedom. This might have something to do with what had caused the media to "provoke" the Muslims. This is just an excerpt. --------------------------------- November 07, 2004 Trifkovic: Europa Delenda: Muslim immigrant murders Dutch maker of a movie about Islam The threats on van Gogh's life started ten weeks ago, after the premiere of his film. It was scripted by a Somali-born woman, Hirsi Ali (34), who grew up as a Muslim but has denounced the cult. She is now a Dutch national assembly deputy, and vociferous in her criticism of Islamic obscurantism and violence. She says the goal of the film was to draw attention to rampant but concealed violence against Muslim women, including those living in Europe, who are routinely subjected to rape, incest, forced marriages, and the suicides. "Muslims deny it," she says, "and many Dutch are afraid of taking it on, of causing religious tension, of being called racists." Van Gogh insisted that he could not see why so many Muslims expressed outrage with his movie. It opens with a Muslim prayer; the narrator then tells stories of four women who ask for Allah's help to lighten their suffering. One was forced to marry a man she hates, one was raped and made pregnant by her uncle, one was whipped after she had sex with her boyfriend, and one is repeatedly beaten by her husband. The women feel abandoned by Allah despite their devotion to him. As a close-up shot of a battered and bruised face appears, the narrator says: "Oh, Allah, most high. You say that men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because you have given one more strength than the other. Yet I feel at least once a week the strength of my husband's fist on my face." In addition to his film, van Gogh also wrote columns about Islam that were published on his website and in the Dutch newspaper Metro. All that appears to have sufficed for a fatwa, a death sentence, and an execution-style murder, in broad daylight, deep inside the Western world. There but for the grace of God go I. Lord have mercy. Mijnheer Balkenende seems to be implying that "this brutal murder" will be deemed less "unacceptable" if it turns out to have been caused not by "a difference of opinion" but by some more profound reason—by the sense of pain and grievance in the Muslim community, perhaps, caused by the late filmmaker's insensitive and inappropriate words and actions. His reference to Van Gogh's "outspoken opinions" is already echoed in a hundred obituaries describing the victim as "controversial." This brings to mind a Dutch journalist's New York Times obituary of Pim Fortuyn, which called his views "a curious mixture of right, center and left." In today's Holland, no less than in America, it is obvious that notions described as "outspoken," "controversial," and "curious" denote thoughts, as opposed to programmed responses. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003828.php

This latest prominent incident with Jill Carroll. CTV even showed comparisons of her three videos..."the first one shows her talking to the camera....the second one shows that she's weeping....the third one shows her pleading..." I mean...what is this? Her reactions to her situations are normal given to any other who finds themselves facing death. Tis true, they've seem to lessen up...and now only pick and choose those that are "news-worthy" and ratings-spiking victims. But when they were at it , starting with the horrible Berg killing....no one criticized these media for their irresponsible, insensitive, offensive, inciting actions. Nobody criticized their profit-driven free publicity stunt for the terrorists. The same media btw, who all profitted and exploited these beheadings...are the same ones now who try to look "principled". So why this sudden big lecturing and criticism of the Western Standard? I hope it has nothing to do with the simple reason that it is a right-wing magazine. Maybe if we just let them be and move on...they'll end up like the others who've been there and done that (those beheading coverage)...and let their own conscience dictate and let them decide for themselves.

Oh, not to mention the violence when they go rampaging and vandalising after a terrible loss! They've even indoctrinated their kids into this cult! Dads doing the religious training on their brats on every streets all over the city. I'm sick and tired of the bouncing ball repeatedly pounding the pavement outside my house. I looked out and observed this young boy just tossing and bouncing his ball.... non-stop...as if mesmerized...toss up and down,bounce, catch, toss up etc.,, I'd swear he was in a trance! Oh, they have their own "idols" alright. One of them is called "The Great One".

I was debating points you made. You were questioning the judgement of the media. I meant questioning their judgement in showing the people who were abducted pleading for their lives. Because I don't think there was any big deal made on those coverage...which actually also exploited the sufferings of the victims.

As I understand this first printing happened in Denmark and there were some protest. Then after a few months these cartoons re-surfaced from different parts of Europe. I don't know, Army Guy, why the European media would stubbornly do this. I am not familiar with the situation in Europe. But it is definitely a statement of some sort that the European media is trying to make. Now, about this being for profits...what media does not exploit and make profits or high ratings from the misfortunes of others? Just take a look at the coverage they'd given abductions and beheadings. They even show victims pleading for their lives. Not only do they exploit these shocking news....in a way they're encouraging the terrorists by giving them full publicity. I don't think I remember any big debates or questioning of the media's judgement over this. Something positive though in the news today. Thousands of protesters held a peaceful rally in Pakistan and in Iran. I'm surprised with Iran.....maybe, the media sticking together and pushing back a bit did some good after all.

Did Western Standard say why they printed them? Obviously, they have a reason important enough for them to risk public ire and offending Muslim Canadians. There's nothing wrong in questioning a judgement. This is a free country after all. I actually have silently questioned why the media had covered abductions and beheadings, showing prisoners pleading for their lives...for in doing so, not only do they take away the victim's dignity...but they've also aided the terrorists in spreading terror by giving them publicity. Don't they incite in a way? In this instance, inciting the terrorists to do more? Did anyone question the judgement of the media? Or maybe there was an uproar that I've missed.

No, never heard of that one. I haven't been following the news lately. So there were WMDs?

Showing that freedom cannot be suppressed through intimidation, is what was gained IMO. I think that was the message that resounded all over Europe. What message do you think will we give to everyone if we back down and capitulate and give up some rights just because a group decided to intimidate us through violent means? That violent intimidation works! It wouldn't be long before other zealot fanatics...not necessarily muslims...but every other group fighting for whatever cause they're fighting for will be following this violent means! Look at those bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors! Look at those anti-fur people who throw paint on fur-wearing celebrities! Maybe next time around, it wouldn't just be paint! Look at Green Peace and its anti-whaling crusade! Didn't it endanger lives of whalers at one point? What about that crusader against seal hunting who was trying to incite others to inflict bodily harm on the hunters! The truth is: backing down and capitulating only encourage more of this to happen. What have most Canadian outlets lost from not printing them? Credibility. If you're a media specializing on politics and current events....and you decided not to do your responsibility to inform your readers on what is a crucial global issue, then you can't be relied on to bring us unbiased, uncensored news.

In this particular scenario you gave, both of you are wrong! But the one who punched you is even worse! He should've just let your comment slide and let common sense prevail...and just assumed something's wrong with your marbles. After all, there was no real harm done, right? Do we punch anyone who give us a finger when we're driving out there?

How can you pass judgement on what is offensive to someone else. Only they can make that judgement. And I will respect their judgement because it is their judgement, not mine. My point is not a matter of passing judgement. My point is about our rights and freedom.

It offends Muslims. Not only Muslims around the world,but Muslims here in Canada. I do hope these Canadian muslims appreciate the fact that we're fighting for rights and freedom...the very same things that had lured them to Canada...mostly to escape oppresion from their homeland. I would bet the mainstream Canadian Muslims, which are moderates, does not even think much about those cartoons.

No, Betsy. It's not okay to do that. But it's also not okay to provoke people to do that. Do you see it as a "provocation" because of the reaction? Then if those anti-abortions reacted in a violent way (bombing clinics and sniping doctors)...because they deemed they are being "provoked" by those who insist on doing abortions...doesn't that fall under the same thing?

Some of them are mocking the prophet, some of them aren't. The one with the bomb in his turban certainly is (even if that's a relevant statement for Islam today). I've seen that picture of the prophet with a turban/bomb right on the placard of a protester. Their main argument is that "it is forbidden to draw any images of the prophet!"

Are Canadian Muslims lunatics, because they don't like it? Why can't people respect the fact that it offends Muslims. You don't think there is anything wrong,but that's you. It offends Muslims. Not only Muslims around the world,but Muslims here in Canada. How can you pass judgement on what is offensive to someone else. Only they can make that judgement. And I will respect their judgement because it is their judgement, not mine. If it is that blasphemous and offensive, why did a placard depict a caricature of a man wearing a turban-bomb? Isn't it, they're forbidden to draw any image of their prophet? That's waht this hoopla is all about. That said placard was being waved around by a protester. So, they''ve done the very same thing they're rioting about. It's just political! They're using their own prophet for political reasons!

And we have to be vigilant in protecting these freedom. Once you start dismantling these freedoms...a little bit at a time...you wake up one morning with nothing! Countless soldiers have died for these freedom.

And the radical muslim warmongers are saying the exact same thing to the rational muslims who say "but it's just a stupid cartoon!" But don't you see....you're talking of "appeasement". I don't get it. Can you explain why that's "appeasement?"

We've got pornography laws. So even if the press would want to...they aren't allowed. Besides, why would a Home and Garden magazine want to print Hustler stuff? They've got their own market. But you know what, if it's okay for Muslims to go an a rampage and violent protest over religious beliefs that they deemed is offensive, then... It is okay to throw bombs and murder doctors in abortion clinics for they practice something which is not only offensive to some religions....but deemed as murder of helpless innocents. We can even include mothers who go to such clinics! If violent protest is okay for one...then it should be okay for the others. One way or the other you'll do as we say....or else.

We would not have attacked Iraq as it was irrelevant to even the least obvious of observers. We would have gone to the UN and secured the proper authority and allies to conduct an assault into Afghanistan where the enemy was. And since we undoubedtly would have had more allies than the US, we just might have been able to capture Osama and undermine his movement. So if you've been sure all along that the enemy was confined only in Afghaniztan, why didn't you volunteer that valuable information to intelligence? It would have saved Saddam a lot of grief...not to mention the courtroom spectators, of having him show protest in his dirty underwear. It is easy for us to criticize because it was not us who was directly hit by those planes. We were not the ones who were directly challenged right on our shores.

And the sad thing is that there are a number of Canadians who feel the same. Maybe those Canadians prefer to look at reality squarely on its face....so they'll know where and how to fix the problem. Some of us do not feel good about us patting ourselves on our backs. With how the Liberal government behaved in handling the US, no wonder we're viewed as a nation of hockey players (with emphasis on brutality in this sport)...and beer-drinkers (since diplomacy was alien to the Liberals in what seemed like a drunken frenzy shadow boxing). Talk about pathetic displaced "nationalism". The commentator on CBC was gushing that one Olympic gold winner from Australia was actually born in Vancouver! Was she trying to take some credits for the Australian's winning? Or trying to say that we've got a part on that gold.

I don't think so. This quote, Canada is a member of more international organizations than any other country in the world leads me to believe we are very well accepted in the rest of the world. Check out this link. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/04/cp-rc2_e.asp Who comprise most of the members? Countries looking out for more monetary donations! Dictators and corrupt governments. Of course Canada, under the Liberals, is very well accepted indeed. Image-wise globally, they prop each other up.

Well, the media is applauding the the rest of Harper's appointments. Some are even pointing out that until the new rules on Ethics are in place...Harper had not broken anything by doing what the other parties had been normally doing. And they couldn't get enough of Wilson's being the ambassador to the US! Especially when Washington pundits say Bush administration actually wants Harper to succeed in his endeavors....so they're counting on positive results on Softwood, and border crossings. That should alleviate some depressions over rising job loss rate.

I agree with you. Just watching the mass of angry people bent on violence is scary. But I think whatever the real reasons are why these cartoons had re-surfaced....it is a good thing in a way, because it showed us what we have to deal with if ever there comes a time when we really have to deal with something like this. If not the cartoons, there will be something else.

So one who writes something which causes offense is as guilty as one who resorts to arson and murder when one is offended? Nice concept. Maybe you'd prefer living in a nice theocracy somewhere. No, what I meant was their motives are the same: both sides--the wacky fundamentalist islamics, and the people who feel we must never back down from printing goofy cartoons that only serve to get the wacky islamics' dander up--just want to fight, and they're using this to drag peace-loving moderates into it. But don't you see....you're talking of "appeasement". If you don't make a stand early enough...if you show that you can easily be bullied...do you think that will be the end of it? What next? What if they suddenly take the notion to think like the Hamas...of not wanting to recognize Israel's existence? So what happens when they do declare that letting infidels live is the greatest insult to Allah?

No to beat this to death, but EVERYONE has a friend with the net, and most if not all libraries have the net. If you want to see them bad enough, it ain't hard. But I happen to want to peruse a magazine. Not the net. As long as we still have freedom of the press and free speech, along with all the freedom that comes with a democratic country...then I'll exercise my freedom to choose.

When a story is pornographic in nature I don't see the newspapers or magazines printing the pictures that go with the story in the news, because it's "news". When the word FUCK is used by someone in a news story I don't see them printing the word FUCK to quote the person. Why all of a sudden is printing cartoon pictures that cause riots and death around the world a "freedom of the speech issue". Why is showing someone with his brains blown all over the place "in bad taste" or using the word FUCK in "bad taste" or a showing intercourse or nudity in "bad taste". These cartoons are in bad taste to the people who's culture says they are in bad taste. Why can't western society accept this culture's disgust of these cartoons and stop trying to instantly change these people to western thinking. The process will take time to change,why force it. Only animosity,hate,destruction and lives lost will be the outcome...and for what.....cartoons? It's not worth it. Those cartoons were published in Denmark. And re-published in Europe. Not in Middle-Eastern countries. What about Salomon Rushdie? He wrote a book that the muslims found blasphemous and they put a price on his head! Now they're going a big step farther! What? Are you just going to let freedom go just because some lunatics from another country wanted you to?