PM is distressed

[Army Guy]

Betsy:

Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied

So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back.

Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens.

But your point is that it was a business making profit...and I say, so what?

If Western Standard made a point of standing up alongside European counterparts...and made a profit to boot...well, good for them! That's the beauty of free enterprise in a free country!

No actually my piont was that those media outlets were not standing -up for our rights, they were not protecting our freedom of speech or some other noble deed. They did what they did because of the bottom line "money". and strung along their readers by hiding behind Our freedom of speech. Thats the real beauty about free enterprise is'nt it. it's all about the money not about what is right or wrong.

Wait a minute here...as far as I know soldiers have been dying in the middle east even before this cartoon broke out!

Citizens have been taken hostage and beheaded waaaay before this cartoon scenario broke out! Let's not try to shift everything into this cartoon.

In fact, I bet these media who stood had finally had it and decided to do something about it!

Yes they were dying well before the cartoon broke out, but all those riots,killings that are happening right now that can be directly linked to the publishing of these cartoons directly have an impact on our Soldiers that are serving in Afgan right now. So ask a soldier serving over there now does he think all this grief is worth a few cartoons so some dick head can put a few more dollars in his pocket.

We don't need to unnessicarily give these crack head radical muslims any more of an excuses to kill than they already have. What have these media god's done except re-publish the same cartoons for profits. Ya that 's it i've had enough of this shit re-publish the cartoons that will show them we are serious.

Yeah they don't get that much pay..and the soldiers that died in other world wars did it for peanuts too...but they counted they were doing it for the freedom of this country....which now, some folks are taking for granted and slowly dismantling a little piece at a time.

Why don't you read a few comments made by soldiers, the same soldiers that have sacraficed so much for those freedoms you only talk about. These are the thoughts of a few of those that are serving over there now or who have recently returned from Afgan.

None of our current freedoms are in danger or being dismantled.

My Webpage

My Webpage

Whether I think those cartoons are news-worthy or not, is not the point. The point is, you saying and declaring that these cartoons are not news-worthy, therefore they should not be published.

I interpret that as you thinking and deciding for us all!

You have still not answer the question do you think they are news worthy, or where they printed to provoke a group.

Can anyone out there educate me on why these cartoons are news worthy when they were first printed , or do you think they were printed to provoke a response.

[betsy]

Betsy:

Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied

So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back.

Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens.

In this case, who did the bullying first?

"Bullying" is an understatement actually when you consider what happened to Rushdie and that movie guy who was executed.

And yes, the scenario does looked like children fighting in the playground.

But if you look at grown-up life and child's play....not much difference really.

[betsy]

No actually my piont was that those media outlets were not standing -up for our rights, they were not protecting our freedom of speech or some other noble deed. They did what they did because of the bottom line "money". and strung along their readers by hiding behind Our freedom of speech. Thats the real beauty about free enterprise is'nt it. it's all about the money not about what is right or wrong.

That is your perception. But mine is different. I can see that they were standing up for our rights.

And I'm sure there are those who really just dismiss this whole shebang coming from both sides as just another looney page in history.

But that's it. People have different ways of thinking...of seeing and analysing things...difference in opinions...

And coming back to what you said about having a good discussion, media and editorials do promote and encourage those discussions. But the facts had to be laid out. A good media never takes it for granted that the reader already knows what's going on.

[betsy]

We don't need to unnessicarily give these crack head radical muslims any more of an excuses to kill than they already have.

They'll find an excuse.

Even when we all unanimously bury our heads in the sand.

[betsy]

You have still not answer the question do you think they are news worthy, or where they printed to provoke a group.

Can anyone out there educate me on why these cartoons are news worthy when they were first printed , or do you think they were printed to provoke a response.

I guess you still have not visited that "Rest of the World" forum like I asked you to.

[Wilber]

"You have still not answer the question do you think they are news worthy, or where they printed to provoke a group.

Can anyone out there educate me on why these cartoons are news worthy when they were first printed , or do you think they were printed to provoke a response."

Heaven forbid someone should print a cartoon about a group that is dedicated to the elimination of everyone who doesn't share their concept of religion. Heaven forbid someone should offend people who put suicide bombers on crowded buses and in shopping areas to blow themselves up. Who do you believe it is OK to offend? Is there anyone? I can't believe I'm reading this stuff.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but how about the fact that these five month old cartoons were resurrected (by Muslims not Danes) right after Hamas was elected by the Palestinians. Just a coincidence and would I be offending someone by pointing it out?

[BubberMiley]

Of course it's a freedom of speech issue. The entire argument is whether news media should be free to print such things.

If the whole argument is whether the news media should be free to print such things, then I agree with you. They should be. But the topic line said the "PM is distressed." He expressed disapproval of printing it, but he isn't about to lock Ezra Levant up. Therefore, the press is still free and the debate is really about whether the press should print the cartoons. I think anybody who chooses to print them is not really concerned about the non-issue of freedom of the press (because that isn't really in jeopardy) and is more concerned with drawing offence in order to instigate a fight.

[Argus]

I disagree that the European newspapers which published the cartoons were doing so in order to sell newspapers. I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage.

That is too cheap and pat an answer. Yes, the media is a business. That does not mean that no one involved thinks of it as more than just a profit generating enterprise. Perhaps journalists and editors do not always do enough to live up to it, but there is a concept of journalistic bravery, integrity and freedom which many of them ascribe to.

No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

By using your logic if all europe had seen it as you do then why did they not all stand-up in solidarity, Why did'nt the european union stand-up and say enough is enough. because they are not united on this issue.

Actually, the European Union did pretty much say that. However, if you mean why didn't more news media print the cartoons, I believe primarily there were three reasons, and those were political correctness, the desperate and earnest desire not to be seen as insulting a minority group, fear of attacks on the newspaper and reporters, and fear of attacks caused by the stories, as in fear of terrorist attacks against that particular nation's people or soldiers abroad.

I find your belief that once they found the cartoons offended people they ought to have not published them to very troubling. Almost anything of substance offends someone. Virtually every major change in culture causes offense and controversy.

First off it was a cartoon, it had nothing to do with presenting a news worthy story, it's intention was to make fun of or show in a bad light a certain ethinic group. You've been defending your right to insult someone, or group when ever you want, and declaring your justified under freedom of speech.

It doesn't matter if it was a cartoon or not. It was critical commentary, essence of a political movement.

And printing them after the Danes had been attacked and threatened served the purpose of standing up for freedom of speech and the press, as well as illustrating what all the fuss was about.

If i as an individual say or do something that is offensive to someone or some group and that person or group of people inform me that it is offensive a "normal" person would chalk that up to a learning experiance and not repeat it. IE telling ethinic jokes in front of that ethinic group, either you did not know it was offensive or you are looking to provoke something.

That's not a proper metaphor. It's not like the cartoons were taken into Muslim homes and waved in their faces. Some women are offended by porno pictures in mens magazines. But guess what, they don't buy those magazines! See how cool that is!?

As for being rude, I agree that it would be rude to find myself a handy Muslim, walk up to him and say "You know, the prophet was a child molester". On the other hand, I believe I or others should have the right to point that out on forums like this, or in magazine articles, or in the media, even though some of those reading might be Muslims and might be offended.

Suppose I told you that talking about homosexuality was extremely offensive to Christians, and that the media must immediately stop showing homosexuals, talking about their rights and cultures, or advocating for things like homosexual marriage? I rather suspect you'd find that idea absurd. So how do you reconcile your ready willingness to offend Christians with your determination to not say anything or print anything which offends some other religious group?

Because we both know that in this country we are capable of sitting down and discussing almost any topic without being offensive towards both sides.

As they are in Denmark. And yet, now you're saying that the Danes have to govern what they say and print according to what offends people on the far side of the planet

So suppose the Muslims from Syria and Lebanon start rioting and burning things because they've heard we marry homosexuals, and this is strictly against their religion? They are deeply offended by us marrying homosexuals, and insist we stop, because the Koran says it's wrong. That really isn't much different than the case of the cartoons.

[Argus]

have you been following along here, Argus piont was that he seen it as the Media standing-up in solidarity for thiers and ours, freedom of speech, bullshit.... they did it for profit.

How much profit did they earn, then? In round figures, please. I mean, you state that with such absolute certainty you must have plenty of information - board room discussions on profits, tabulated sales results, etc. etc.

What is not dollar driven, The soldiers that are actually standing the line, overseas right now are not dollar driven "because if you think the pay is worth plus 45 degrees in an hostile enviroment your wrong." The same soldiers who's lives have been put in greater danger because some dick head decisded he and his paper could make a few dollars. Lets not forget the every day average citizen who may be taken hostage or worse killed so that some radical may prove his piont. All this over a stupid carton is it worth it.

I think soldiers believes in a Canada which has freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and would gladly fight for those concepts - concepts you evidently don't think are worth a nickel.

You have no right to judge for...or speak for us! You have no right to decide or make a "judgement call" for everyone.

I don't recall speaking for you,or deciding anything for you, or for that matter making any judgements for you. I have been quoted in saying most normal Canadians perhaps you don't fit into that catagory. But then again freedom of speech is only good if we all comply to your way of thinking. That we can insult anyone ,anytime because it's falls under our freedom of speech.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Perhaps you could put a little more thought into your attack on freedom of speech before you take advantage of it yourself.

[Argus]

Betsy:

Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied

So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back.

Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens.

Oh please. Your level of self-righteousness is just getting a little high to stomach. OF COURSE we do it as adults. Only we employ others to do it for us. If someone in our culture gets out of hand, we send large armed men to stop them. And if they won't stop, the large armed men beat them up and drag them off to a cage, or shoot them. All laws are ultimately enforced by brute force. All borders are secured by brute force. All nations defend themselves and their people with brute force. Sorry if this all seems rather backward to you, but the rest of the world seems not to have reached your level of smug enlightenment.

Mind you, if I start threatening to hunt you down and kill you because you are offending me with what you're writing here, I suspect that rather than stopping and apologising you'll immediately call the large men with the guns. So you really aren't any better than the rest of us.

But your point is that it was a business making profit...and I say, so what?

If Western Standard made a point of standing up alongside European counterparts...and made a profit to boot...well, good for them! That's the beauty of free enterprise in a free country!

No actually my piont was that those media outlets were not standing -up for our rights, they were not protecting our freedom of speech or some other noble deed. They did what they did because of the bottom line "money".

How much money is there in printing cartoons once? I mean, given the added security expenses you're going to incur?

We don't need to unnessicarily give these crack head radical muslims any more of an excuses to kill than they already have.

In other words, you're frightened, and you think we should all be frightened, and all our media outlets should clear what they want to print with muslim terrorists first to ensure they aren't offended and don't hurt us as a result.

[Argus]

Of course it's a freedom of speech issue. The entire argument is whether news media should be free to print such things.

If the whole argument is whether the news media should be free to print such things, then I agree with you. They should be. But the topic line said the "PM is distressed." He expressed disapproval of printing it, but he isn't about to lock Ezra Levant up. Therefore, the press is still free and the debate is really about whether the press should print the cartoons. I think anybody who chooses to print them is not really concerned about the non-issue of freedom of the press (because that isn't really in jeopardy) and is more concerned with drawing offence in order to instigate a fight.

I think that as journalists they are offended by the idea of religious wackos telling them what they can and can't print and want to make a point, and that they want to show solidarity with Denmark and the newspaper there which printed them. I also think the cartoons are an integral part of a large news story, and many journalists believe the coverage of the story is inadequate without showing them.

Freedom of the press and speech generally doesn't just disappear overnight, you know. It goes down bit by bit in more and more restrictive laws and censorship, as we've seen in parts of western Europe, where even a private individual can now be imprisoned for simply saying something racially, sexually, or religiously offensive.

[Wilber]

Of course it's a freedom of speech issue. The entire argument is whether news media should be free to print such things.

If the whole argument is whether the news media should be free to print such things, then I agree with you. They should be. But the topic line said the "PM is distressed." He expressed disapproval of printing it, but he isn't about to lock Ezra Levant up. Therefore, the press is still free and the debate is really about whether the press should print the cartoons. I think anybody who chooses to print them is not really concerned about the non-issue of freedom of the press (because that isn't really in jeopardy) and is more concerned with drawing offence in order to instigate a fight.

I see, they should be free to print them but they shouldn't print them. That's clear.

[BubberMiley]

I see, they should be free to print them but they shouldn't print them. That's clear.

Are you being sarcastic or thinking out loud?

[Wilber]

I see, they should be free to print them but they shouldn't print them. That's clear.

Are you being sarcastic or thinking out loud?

Be carefull you don't fall off that fence.

[betsy]

Of course it's a freedom of speech issue. The entire argument is whether news media should be free to print such things.

If the whole argument is whether the news media should be free to print such things, then I agree with you. They should be. But the topic line said the "PM is distressed." He expressed disapproval of printing it, but he isn't about to lock Ezra Levant up. Therefore, the press is still free and the debate is really about whether the press should print the cartoons. I think anybody who chooses to print them is not really concerned about the non-issue of freedom of the press (because that isn't really in jeopardy) and is more concerned with drawing offence in order to instigate a fight.

No matter what the debate is really all about in this particular topic, the arguments lead to the same thing: freedom of the press!

Just the fact that the press is getting unfairly whacked for printing the said cartoons is proof enough why this debate is about freedom of the press/speech!

[betsy]

None of our current freedoms are in danger or being dismantled.

If everyone thinks and decides like you, oh yes there is that grave danger! Thanks to the likes of Western Standard who have the courage to stand up to the point of risking public ire (and profit), in a very liberal-minded society.

Not only are you tampering with freedom of speech/press...but with your proposal, you are also tampering with freedom of choice.

No one is forcing anyone to see the printed cartoons. In fact, Western Standard had heralded printing them before the magazine even came out...thus, warning everyone what that particular issue may contain.

Obviously, the stores who opted to CHOOSE not to sell them had exercised their freedom of choice, the same with readers who shunned reading the magazine. Those who wish to see them for whatever reason have the same option.

But what you want is to eliminate that choice!

[scribblet]

None of our current freedoms are in danger or being dismantled.

If everyone thinks and decides like you, oh yes there is that grave danger! Thanks to the likes of Western Standard who have the courage to stand up to the point of risking public ire (and profit), in a very liberal-minded society.

Not only are you tampering with freedom of speech/press...but with your proposal, you are also tampering with freedom of choice.

No one is forcing anyone to see the printed cartoons. In fact, Western Standard had heralded printing them before the magazine even came out...thus, warning everyone what that particular issue may contain.

Obviously, the stores who opted to CHOOSE not to sell them had exercised their freedom of choice, the same with readers who shunned reading the magazine. Those who wish to see them for whatever reason have the same option.

But what you want is to eliminate that choice!

Canadians need to take their heads out of the sand, there's a good article here.

Even in Canada, not-so-veiled threats

Barbara Kay, National Post

Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

snip

Levant spoke of hiring protection against physical assault. He threw it out in a casual aside ("You get security ... you deal with it"), and in Europe or the Middle East it wouldn't cause a ripple of reflection. But for me it was a defining Canadian moment. To paraphrase an ignominious Liberal campaign ad: "A magazine publisher feels he needs security against possible acts of Muslim revenge for re-publishing political cartoons. Fear of violence by fellow citizens against his person. For exercising free speech. In Canada. I am not making this up."

snip

Mainstream Canadian Muslim organizations have publicly and explicitly repudiated the legitimacy of violence as a form of protest, a helpful and encouraging response to the tension. But other voices are being raised with more worrying views. On Sunday, 3,000 Muslims gathered in Toronto to protest the Danish cartoons, to call for bans against further similar material and to predict economic implosion in Denmark. One protester's sign spoke of a "countdown to justice" for the cartoonist.

He said "justice" meant only a jail sentence, not death. Call me a cynic, but I am skeptical.

Then there's Khalid Qasim, a protest organizer, who said of the cartoons, "This is a continuing process of humiliating Muslims and we cannot take this humiliation any more." "Cannot take"? "Any more"? Call me paranoid, but I hear a threat.

Most disquieting of all, Sheik Ahmad Shehab, a Toronto imam, said to a cheering crowd: "We will watch the oppressors burn their economy down. We will watch them drown in their own blood ... The oppressors will see what type of a turn their affairs will take. It will take a terrible turn."

Call me a pessimist, but when I hear the words "burn," "drown in their own blood" and "terrible turn" bandied around by the spokesman of a protest, and cheering ensues, I don't assume it's just rhetoric, and I worry that in a supportive crowd of 3,000, at least one listener may decide, perhaps because of the Western Standard's republication of the offending cartoons, that Canadians are also "the oppressors."

© National Post 2006

http://www.liquidlewis.com/barb/archive/20...enincanada.html

[Army Guy]

Argus:

Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied

So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back.

Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens.

Oh please. Your level of self-righteousness is just getting a little high to stomach. OF COURSE we do it as adults. Only we employ others to do it for us. If someone in our culture gets out of hand, we send large armed men to stop them. And if they won't stop, the large armed men beat them up and drag them off to a cage, or shoot them. All laws are ultimately enforced by brute force. All borders are secured by brute force. All nations defend themselves and their people with brute force. Sorry if this all seems rather backward to you, but the rest of the world seems not to have reached your level of smug enlightenment.

Mind you, if I start threatening to hunt you down and kill you because you are offending me with what you're writing here, I suspect that rather than stopping and apologising you'll immediately call the large men with the guns. So you really aren't any better than the rest of us.

I'm i really being self- righteous when i and other soldiers "you know the group of large armed men" have said that they do not appriaciate the added dangers that we will have to face because of some stupid cartoon. printed to provoke a response. Because the some of the media has not shown alittle common sense and respect. These are the same men and women who hold the line and defend your freedom of rights daily. And when these radical muslims actually do restrict any of your freedoms they will gladly take the fight to them no questions asked.

Yes they were dying well before the cartoon broke out, but all those riots,killings that are happening right now that can be directly linked to the publishing of these cartoons directly have an impact on our Soldiers that are serving in Afgan right now. So ask a soldier serving over there now does he think all this grief is worth a few cartoons so some dick head can put a few more dollars in his pocket.

We don't need to unnessicarily give these crack head radical muslims any more of an excuses to kill than they already have. What have these media god's done except re-publish the same cartoons for profits. Ya that 's it i've had enough of this shit re-publish the cartoons that will show them we are serious

In other words, you're frightened, and you think we should all be frightened, and all our media outlets should clear what they want to print with muslim terrorists first to ensure they aren't offended and don't hurt us as a result

No i'm not frightened, more like very concerned that a Canadian soldier may have to pay with his life, because some stupid cartoon enraged some radical muslim, and i don't think that price would be worth a cartoon, just so we could prove a piont.

[betsy]

Would we be able to have the same conversation if a news paper depicted a cartoon depicting naked gay man bent over a table with a wedding gown on and another gay man jamming him up the arse with a tuxedo on.

But of course that particular kind of cartoon belong to a particular type of magazine that caters to those who wish to view those sex cartoons. Actually the National Post had sort of tested that water when an article extolling the creativity of "slurp rails" in a gay bar in Toronto in a very explicit way, appeared on the front page alongside headlines and current events. I bet this same newspaper is now among the "principled" who refuses to print...not because of noble causes....but because of guess what? PROFIT!

They're afraid to anger and outrage their very liberal-minded target clientele.

Gays slurping anonymously on penises was okay to describe graphically on the front page...since guess what, the "gay agenda" had been adopted and being valiantly fought for by our liberal-minded society.

So there goes the profit theory. It just occurred to me actually.

[BubberMiley]

So when you saw these slurped penises, were you offended? Did you think the Post should have printed these penis slurpers?

[Army Guy]

Argus:

How much profit did they earn, then? In round figures, please. I mean, you state that with such absolute certainty you must have plenty of information - board room discussions on profits, tabulated sales results, etc. etc.

You have a piont, i'll give you that one, as i don't have that info and my comment was base on opinion. but it works both ways you've said they the media was united and standing -up for our freedom of speech, when in fact not every media outlet in Europe or for that matter in Denmark published those cartoons, so they are not united and not all of them believe it's a freedom of speech issue.

What is not dollar driven, The soldiers that are actually standing the line, overseas right now are not dollar driven "because if you think the pay is worth plus 45 degrees in an hostile enviroment your wrong." The same soldiers who's lives have been put in greater danger because some dick head decisded he and his paper could make a few dollars. Lets not forget the every day average citizen who may be taken hostage or worse killed so that some radical may prove his piont. All this over a stupid carton is it worth it.

I think soldiers believes in a Canada which has freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and would gladly fight for those concepts - concepts you evidently don't think are worth a nickel.

At no time did have i said that any of our freedoms are not worth fighting over or preserving. And if you actually read the above quote it clearly suggests that our soldiers are not in Afgan for the money but because they believe in freedom and what they are doing in Afgan. Why don't you read those links i gave you they were written by soldiers who don't think that this "so called errosion of our freedoms" as you have suggested are worth the risk as they don't see it as a errosion but a media stunt to earn more dollars.

As for me not thinking our freedoms are worth a nickel, thats your opinion. I have served this country for 26 years and am still serving ,I've have been on 8 tours of world shitholes. I've seen first hand the aftermath of caused by men fighting over freedoms.(real problems) So when i say that one Candian soldiers life is worth more than one damn cartoon or what some precieve as an errosion of our freedom of speech i think i know what i'm talking about. But hey thats my opinion, and thier like A$$holes everyone has got one.

QUOTE(Army Guy @ Feb 22 2006, 11:49 AM)

QUOTE

I disagree that the European newspapers which published the cartoons were doing so in order to sell newspapers. I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage.

That is too cheap and pat an answer. Yes, the media is a business. That does not mean that no one involved thinks of it as more than just a profit generating enterprise. Perhaps journalists and editors do not always do enough to live up to it, but there is a concept of journalistic bravery, integrity and freedom which many of them ascribe to.

That is too cheap and pat an answer. Yes, the media is a business. That does not mean that no one involved thinks of it as more than just a profit generating enterprise. Perhaps journalists and editors do not always do enough to live up to it, but there is a concept of journalistic bravery, integrity and freedom which many of them ascribe to.

Is it a cheap and pat answer, i will agree that there are editors and journalist that do live up to those ideals you have discribe. and perhaps i've become jaded with my experiances with journalist in a war zone, who's only interest was getting the graphic story or pictures that sells papers. they want to see bodies not the re building of schools or hospitals.

Actually, the European Union did pretty much say that. However, if you mean why didn't more news media print the cartoons, I believe primarily there were three reasons, and those were political correctness, the desperate and earnest desire not to be seen as insulting a minority group, fear of attacks on the newspaper and reporters, and fear of attacks caused by the stories, as in fear of terrorist attacks against that particular nation's people or soldiers abroad

So common sense and respect play no role in thier decision, Just fear.

[betsy]

So when you saw these slurped penises, were you offended? Did you think the Post should have printed these penis slurpers?

Doesn't that kind of article belong to the likes of Penthouse or gay mags? I was offended...especially when there was no warning at all that what I was about to read while having my breakfast was something about slurping penises. Who would have thought that you'd see that on the front page...never mind, anywhere in that paper alone? But I let it go. Who knows, maybe someone wrote criticising the competence of the editor for letting that slide by....but readers will decide in their own way. It's business after all. We simply did not re-new our subscription.

Western Standard is a political and current events paper. They did not publish anything out of their premise.

And they had the decency of warning the public what was about to come out from that particular issue.

[betsy]

I'm i really being self- righteous when i and other soldiers "you know the group of large armed men" have said that they do not appriaciate the added dangers that we will have to face because of some stupid cartoon. printed to provoke a response. Because the some of the media has not shown alittle common sense and respect. These are the same men and women who hold the line and defend your freedom of rights daily. And when these radical muslims actually do restrict any of your freedoms they will gladly take the fight to them no questions asked.

How many of these "other soldiers" are we talking about? Do they speak for the whole army?

When and where did they say anything about the shared kind of sentiments you're talking about? I have not read or seen anything on the news about this.

Actually, I don't think this particular reasoning is painting a very flattering picture of our military. You're giving a mental picture (ala satirical cartoon) of a trembling soldier desperately putting a finger to his lips and hissing "Shhhh!" while he tried to be as quiet as possible in a little corner, hoping he'll go un-noticed.

I think they'll appreciate more what those back home are doing....those who try to uphold our freedom...doing our own little "battles" to keep them. The responsibility of protecting and preserving our freedom does not lie solely on our soldiers' backs.

[Army Guy]

Betsy:

How many of these "other soldiers" are we talking about? Do they speak for the whole army?

No, they are not claiming to talk for the whole army, just themselfs.

When and where did they say anything about the shared kind of sentiments you're talking about? I have not read or seen anything on the news about this.

i did post the links in previous posts, but if your having troubles with the link feature here is the whole story below. I'm sure if you really tried you could find more.

Story number one.

RUSSELL D STORRING:

Canadian soldiers and the cartoon controversy

CBC News Viewpoint | February 14, 2006 | More from Russell D. Storring

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell Storring is a Master Corporal with the Canadian Army, and has been a signals operator for the 14 years he has been in the military. He recently returned from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having served there previously in 2003, and with the UN in Rwanda in 1994. His columns give a first-person account from the field and the life of a soldier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like many people in Canada and around the world, I have watched in horror and disbelief as Islamic riots are waged over the printing of cartoons of Muhammad.

From Europe to the Middle East, Africa to Indonesia, thousands of protests have been staged; many becoming violent as Muslims denounce what they believe is the defamation of their Prophet Muhammad. In Afghanistan, upwards of ten people have been killed with scores injured (including NATO soldiers), as police battle unruly crowds in an effort to protect foreign embassies, personnel and NATO bases.

The Taliban have gone so far as to place bounties of gold on the heads of the cartoonists and NATO soldiers from Denmark, Norway and Germany -- those they consider the chief offenders in this controversy.

Having served two tours of duty in Afghanistan with the military, I have seen first hand how people often do not actually associate a flag with a nation. Rather, all western soldiers are viewed as exactly that – "western soldiers." Sure, once people had an opportunity to talk to us, they recognized that we were Canadian -- but the difference might be moot in a frenzied moment. When someone is looking for a target to hit, whether with an improvised explosive device, a suicide bomb, or something as simple as a well-aimed rock, they are looking for a "western soldier." Whoever generally matches their target ends up their prey.

I had hoped that Canadians serving overseas would avoid most of the brunt of this cartoon controversy as mainstream Canadian media opted not to run the controversial cartoons. Everyday life can often be risky enough for our soldiers (at least in Afghanistan).

I followed the flow of comments about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and how western countries shouldn't be afraid of protesting or rioting Muslims; that it's our inherent right to print those cartoons. But I couldn't help noting that this slew of "freedoms" come from people who take for granted what our fathers and grandfathers paid for in blood, and what our own soldiers pay for today.

Freedoms are something many people here in Canada and around the world take for granted; the minute someone perceives that those freedoms are being infringed upon, a whole movement begins that can quickly snowball out of control.

I am a soldier that believes deeply in freedom, and by virtue of service for my country I have and am willing to put my life on the line for what my country believes in. With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices.

Deciding to not print those controversial cartoons has nothing to do with being cowed by fear of Islamic retribution; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense that Canadians have always been known for around the world.

When we as soldiers move into another country, whether to keep or enforce the peace, we respect the fact that the host country is unique in its beliefs and culture. We try to leave the country (at some point) with minimal cultural impact.

We respect their holidays and events; we go so far as to try not to eat or drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan out of respect for their culture, even while in our own camp. This has nothing to do with fear of offending them, but has to do with respect and our ability to live in a multi-cultural environment -- whether overseas or here in Canada.

Some publishers here in Canada have used their "freedoms" to inflame an already volatile situation in order, they say, to make a point. If now, like so many European countries, our troops become targets over what boils down to so-called freedoms of press or expression, where will be the position of those Canadian publishers then? If one of our troops is killed as a target of "blasphemy," I highly doubt those publishers will thank the soldier's family for allowing their magazine to express their belief.

Canada has always been a country of tolerance, a country of compassion and a country of moral standards. Now we risk all that for the sake of a few cartoons. I have my doubts that any media organization here in Canada would run a series of anti-Catholic cartoons that the Vatican felt were strongly offensive.

By infringing on other people's freedoms of belief, religion or thought, as an expression of our own freedoms -- what have we accomplished? I truly hope that this isn't the kind of society that we are becoming.

Story number two.

Making it worse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completed a seven-month tour of duty in Afghanistan and we in the Western world are not well liked there. We are in enough danger as it is, and this little publicity stunt by the Western Standard is probably going to get more of our soldiers killed.

The current threats our troops face on a daily basis in the new region, which is now in the middle of the Taliban and al-Qaeda resistance, is already enough risk without adding more fuel to the fire.

If publisher Ezra Levant is so brave to publish the cartoons, why does he now need personal security? If this is just freedom of expression, why is he scared?

I hope his stunt was worth it.

Sgt. Stephen Piccolo, Edmonton

Actually, I don't think this particular reasoning is painting a very flattering picture of our military. You're giving a mental picture (ala satirical cartoon) of a trembling soldier desperately putting a finger to his lips and hissing "Shhhh!" while he tried to be as quiet as possible in a little corner, hoping he'll go un-noticed.

How you got that out of what i said i don't know. But heres the mental picture i got some soldier being pulled out of a burning veh because some radical muslim decided to put an RPG round into the side of it. Because he's be inflamed by some cartoon. I'm sure his buddie who his busy stuffing his best friends guts back in his belly will feel better that you and the media are keeping up the fight back home. when it all started over some stupid cartoon.

I'm i really being self- righteous when i and other soldiers "you know the group of large armed men" have said that they do not appriaciate the added dangers that we will have to face because of some stupid cartoon. printed to provoke a response.

Here is a few links below, maybe it will paint another picture other than the one of a soldier pissing his pants. there are dozens more if you want them.

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

[BHS]

How else can these people make up their minds, without the news claiming that they are offense and you can't see them?

Give me a break Geoffery,you know and I know if you want to see these cartoons you don't need to see them in a newspaper.There is no reason to print them with the Internet to give you and anybody else all the cartoons you want.

I've seen a lot of variations of this argument.

I'm jumping into this argument late, and maybe this has already been said. Gratuitously printing material that's known to be offensive is contemptible in any case. But you can't write about this story with any seriousness if you aren't going to print the at least some of the cartoons at least once. A story about political cartoons that doesn't offer a sample is preposterous. These cartoons are not in themselves offensive by the standards to which political cartoons are normally held in the Western media. Most aren't even as offensive as the drecht printed in MAD magazine, which has a target audience ranging from children to young adults. The notion that a mere image of Mohammed is offensive is also preposterous, given the long history of Islamic art in which the prophet has been depicted numerous times.

Further, Mohamed with a bomb in his turban is an apt image for West's fear of religion-inspired terrorism, and conveys more about that fear than most 800 word essays could. If Christians were engaging in similar acts of terrorism it would be just as apt for a political cartoonist to illustrate Jesus on the cross with a bomb in each hand. Such an image would also be just as offensive to Christians as the Mohammed image is to Muslims, but creating offence is part of the political cartoonist's art. In every cartoon the shock is intended to illustrate a deeper point. In the case of these particular cartoons, the only difference is that the offended parties are perceived to be more likely to bring harm to themselves and others. But that perception, or indeed fact, doesn't suddenly make the cartoons illegitimate for public viewing or discussion.

Muslims are taking offense at these cartoons because they want to be offended, which is illustrated by the fact the cartoons were printed months before the Islamic world took notice, and then only after they were taken on a tour of the Middle East designed specifically to fire up resentment.