Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Not-So-Hidden Inconsistincies in the Danish Cartoons Story

I’ll be honest, initially I didn’t really care. I thought the Danish newspaper was being disrespectful, and at the same time I thought the Arab reaction was exaggerated. Then I read Eman’s post, and by seeing the issue through her eyes, I started feeling more sympathetic with the Arab point of view.

So now after observing and reading I thought I would share my two cents. Hopefully this post sheds some light onto the hot debate. I’m going to dive right into the contents without an
introduction

The Danes refuse to apologize saying that the cartoonist was just practicing his freedom of expression. To that I say, there are limits to freedom of expression, and there’s proof of these limitations coming from the people who invented freedom of expression. Let me explain.

In 2004 a photograph of American coffins on their way back from Iraq, published in the Seattle Times, caused the photographer to lose her job. Here are some more details..

“Last Sunday a newspaper in Seattle, Washington, published a rare photograph of soldiers' coffins, each of them containing the body of an American who had died in Iraq.
The coffins, each draped with the Stars and Stripes, had been loaded into the back of a cargo aircraft for a final journey to the US, where they would be buried. There were at least 18 of them in the picture, which was taken by a 50-year-old civilian contractor, Tami Silicio.
On Wednesday Ms Silicio was sacked from her job, for taking the photograph and sharing it with news organisations.” [
Source]

The photograph was deemed “offending” by the Pentagon, a claim that was backed by
Bush.

I’m no religious person, but I can easily tell that publishing offensive, stereotype filled, disrespectful cartoons of a prophet, is much more “offending” than publishing A Photo of dead American soldiers.

Where’s the consistency here?

The other thing about free speech is that it shouldn’t be offensive to any culture, religion, or peoples. Call it political correctness, call it respect, call it whatever you want. We all hold our tongues at points, and we do it out of respect. It’s a quality that humans have, we call it thoughtfulness. Here I again I ask for consistency. Let me explain again.

Late 2005, Iranian president boldly and stupidly
denied the occurrence of the holocaust. Then, just after his denial, a worldwide uproar was heard telling him to apologize and take back his words. If you ask me, I think him denying the holocaust is equally dumb and appalling to publishing anti-religious cartoons. Both the cartoonist and the president are inconsiderate shallow pricks. But somehow, one statement is considered “anti-Semitic,” the other “freedom of expression.”

Where’s the consistency here?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

38 Comments:

  • At 2/01/2006 1:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    too many inconsistancies :-D

    where are you in southern ontario omar? windsor? london?

     
  • At 2/01/2006 2:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The difference is that the Danish cartoons were published by a private magazine, Omar. The pictures that were published were not supressed per se (obviously, you wouldn't be looking at them if they were), but the person that sold them for publication was a government employee and was violating military regulations. Thus, they were fired.

    The Danish government did not assert that the pictures had their approval or that they thought they were wonderful. They simply stated that since they were the work of a private publication, in a society that values freedom of speech, they had no control over the content. If the publication was government-controlled, the editor would have almost certainly been fired.

    The hypocrisy of the Muslim reaction to the cartoons was stunning, however. When I think of the government-sponsored publication of such anti-Jewish literature as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," (a ridiculous hoax document originally created by the Russian secret police and endorsed by Nazi Germany) by so many Arab governments (such as Saudi Arabia, yes the same Saudi Arabia that withdrew its ambassador from Denmark, for one), it seems absurd for them to complain about offending somebody else on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

    That is typical Arab double standards for you.

    Sincerely, Mike in the United States of America.

    (P.S. Despite my disagreement with you on this subject, I do enjoy your blog! Have a nice day, Omar.)

     
  • At 2/01/2006 5:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Mike,

    I think we dont need to pit point on who's a hypocrate or not, all of us are,and our leaders being on top of us all.

    Do I need to mention the American invasion on Iraq in the name of peace?


    Anyhow ,may I know your resources on how you know that Protocols of the Elders of Zion is goverment sponsored published in the middle east and precisely Saudi?

    I certainly didnt find it.

    Now since books are mentioned i'd like to take the liberty in mentioning the book written by Bush (not the current one) named "Mohammeds life", where he described the Prophet as an "imposter" and Muslims as "locusts", and here's another quote of hte book:


    "If the sarzan empire (the Moslem) wasn't demolished then gods "will" won't be accomplished in the return of Jews to their home land the homeland of their ancestors "

    So lets set who and what and where people said and wrote what. Lets concentrate on the present, where we can actually make a difference and lets not dwell in our past:)

    Another thing, I'd appreciate you stating "the previous Nazi Germany", its offensive to relate the current Germnay to the previous Nazis. Or is it that the annual money that Germany is paying isnt enough?

     
  • At 2/01/2006 9:38 AM, Blogger Roba said…

    Oh, come on Omar! The American thing was internal. Shu dakhalna feehom.. they want to fire their people for taking pictures sure go ahead.. This is something completely different.
    Although I'm not arguining about a general inconsistency and Islamophobia, I believe we're only making it worse by reacting to the completely wrong thing! I mean for Gods sake, we have so many masayeb, mish la2yeen to have a cow except on this?

     
  • At 2/01/2006 12:59 PM, Blogger x said…

    Nas, thanks for visitng. I'm in the KW area

    Roba, whether the conflict is internal or external is not relevant to the point I was trying to make. My point was that there are limits in freedom of expression, even in democratic countries. The picture example that I mentioned is not the only one that I’ve heard of. I also wanted to clarify that just because I feel sympathetic about the situation, that doesn’t mean I support the boycott.

    On the other side of things, I'm surprised why people one the other side of the fence are not thinking rationaly. I had faith in the Danes dealing with the situation in a smarter way. The west should know by now how serious Muslims take their religion, and how radicals use religion to do all kinds of things. I would not be surprised if Osama mentioned Denmark in his future tape. Let’s not give him excuses, this is an easy fix. Let’s not provoke.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 1:01 PM, Blogger x said…

    Speaking of provoking.. read this
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

     
  • At 2/01/2006 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    One source for the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" information is the Wikipedia article on this subject. There are numerous links extending from this article.
    You can get to it by linking to:
    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

    The articles cites its sourcs.

    You may also want to check out article on:
    http://pytheasonline.blogspot.com/

    Read the article on the Saudi response to Denmark. The associated Saudi links have apparently been removed over the past few days - they were there previously, I saw them - but apparently the Saudi government is embarrassed by what this particular blogger found.

    You'll find a wealth of rather anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant information from this blog:
    http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/

    Many of the articles this blogger cites are quite disturbing in their portrayal of Arabs/Muslims. 2/3 of all rapes in Sweden are committed by its (mostly Muslim) immigrant population? Scary.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I apologize, I apparently excluded the link for the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" information, it is:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

     
  • At 2/01/2006 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The west should know by now how serious Muslims take their religion, and how radicals use religion to do all kinds of things. I would not be surprised if Osama mentioned Denmark in his future tape. Let’s not give him excuses, this is an easy fix. Let’s not provoke.


    Muslim reactions to being 'provoked' where the 'root causes' of the cartoons in the first place.

    If you don't want your religion portrayed as violent, then don't kill people in the streets of Copenhagen in the name of Allah.

    Until that time, get use to things like this.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 2:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And remember Omar, Muslims hate us because of our policies in the Mid-East, not because of our freedoms.

    In the west, we get to make fun of people that have been dead for 1,500 or so years. Especially if his followers murder us in our streets.

    Is that so hard to follow?

     
  • At 2/01/2006 2:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Omar, some Muslims are provoked by the very existence of non-Muslims. Osama, Zawahri, Zarqawi and friends don't need any provocation to murder people - it comes naturally.
    By the way, Omar, Al-Qaeda has already mentioned it wants to hit Denmark. That was before any blasphemous cartoons were published.

    It says a lot about the Danish Muslim population when they run off to complain about this issue to foreign Muslim despots in an effort to apply pressure to their own government. It says a lot about their loyalty to the Danish nation.
    An American who was offended by something internally would not attempt to garner support for their cause by getting some other nation such as North Korea or China or even Mexico involved. Just more proof that many Muslims cannot be trusted as citizens in their new countries.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 6:03 PM, Blogger x said…

    Mike, thanks for the comments. Your added info is greatly appreciated. By this post I'm not defending Saudi Arabia, or any of those countries who went overboard with their reactions. Saudi is all about double standards, not just from the west's point of view but also from an arab one as well.

    todd, you're a western equivalent of a Al-Qaeda member. You say that extremism was the root cause of the problem. So do we make it worse by allowing such cartoons to be published? Logically speaking, one would want to eliminate the root cause of the problem, to get rid of it, no vice versa. And please don't say things like "f you don't want your religion portrayed as violent, then don't kill people in the streets of Copenhagen in the name of Allah." You obviously don't know my stance on terrorism, and where most Arabs stand for for that matter. Don't generalize. There are roughly a billion muslims in the world, do you really think they all believe in Osama?
    In your second comment you admit that your policies in the middle east are the reason for all this hate, I couldn't agree more. In fact that's the root cause of the problem of all this terrorism, which happens to be the root cause problem for the cartoons.
    Is that hard to follow?

    Anonymous, "Just more proof that many Muslims cannot be trusted as citizens in their new countries." I can't believe how ignorant you are! I'm glad you said that though, it serves as proof of the ignorance out there.

    Lastly, I want to mention that the apology by the newspaper is all I needed. No need to close embassies, boycott goods or any extreme measure for that matter. See guys, you didn't need to get all worked up on this issue, personally I wasn't demanding much was I?

     
  • At 2/01/2006 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No omar, I am not the western equvilant of Al Qaeda member.

    If I was, I would be advocating your death, which I am not.

    I am simply defending the right of others to mock a person's beliefs.

    And absolutely, American policies in the Mid East are faulty, to say the least. However, when people boycott countries, make death threats ect over other people drawing a cartoon, some people may wonder if our 'freedoms' are not part of the problem.

    BTW, glad to see you comparing me to AQ and the like, it just shows what an asshole you are, and how fucked up your mind is.

    Also, don;t tell me what to say and what not to say, I will say what I please.

    And I don;t believe Theo Van Geogh's death and a damn thing to do with American policies in the ME. He was exercising his freedom of speech and insulting Islam. That is what got him killed.

    The West has already bleed defending our freedom of speech. If you want to make us bleed some mor

     
  • At 2/01/2006 6:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    you see Omar, people who criticise the fact that you are wanting to curtial freedom of speech, don't really compare to people who murder others in the name of God.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 6:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I must apologize.

    I have no idea about Omar's beliefs, and I insisted on using personal pronouns when I posted.

    But let's face facts, some muslims believe they have the right to murder and kill because thier religion has been insulted. Other muslims believe these people to be 'witnesses' to their faith.

    These are the people I was addressing my earlier post to, and not to Omar personally.

    Again, for what it is worth, my apologies.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 6:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    let me try to put it another way, more civl this time.

    Jews are a culture, a religion, and a people.

    Some Jews think that god gave them the land of the levant, and it is thier forever. That is thier belief.

    i make fun of thier belief by mocking thier god. I ask if yaweh was a real estate broker, how much commission he made on the land deal and stuff of that nature.

    It is over the top and offensive, more than likely to a large number of jews.

    however, I say it to make a point, as I believe the cartoons were done to make a point.

    The point trying to be made is that people have the right to criticize a religion or a belief. More so if crazy people will attack them for exercising that right.

    Some muslims believe that the Prophet can't be drawn. I don't believe that is true.

    What makes a muslims belief any more valid than mine?

    Is it because he's willing to kill me for it?

     
  • At 2/01/2006 6:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    one more thing, and then i will leave.

    In your second comment you admit that your policies in the middle east are the reason for all this hate, I couldn't agree more.



    My policies, Omar?? It seems you are making the same mistake that I did earlier, which is make generalizations and ascribing things to me that don't really pertain to who I am.

    It is easily done when trying to type quickly on a blog. I will accept your apology (if given) if you will accept mine.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 8:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Although the Danish newspaper apologised, many European newspapers have reprinted the slanderous cartoons. Some have called it solidarity, I call it collective slander. Apparently much of Europe does not realise the difference between ‘freedom of speech’ and unacceptable slander. At least Great Britain did not jump on the bandwagon like the rest of these losers did.

    While supposed ‘freedom of speech’ advocates chant on one side and Muslims argue for an apology on the other, I wonder whether this row would be so popular if it had not centered on Islam. The media has already proven to be islamophobic, and reading comments on this issue at this blog and others will evidence that many backing the newspapers are also against Islam.

    As stated by Omar and Aquacool, the inconsistency is that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust there was an uproar and calls for him to retract his “anti-semitic” words. When a photograph that showed American coffins on their way back from Iraq was deemed offensive there was an uproar and the photographer lost her job. In each case action was taken against the so-called transgressor and the world did not come together to reprieve them, chanting freedom of speech and expression as a justification.

    The first consistency so far in this issue is that Managing Editor of France Soir, the paper which has reprinted the cartoons, has been sacked. No doubt many will argue this is wrong, when the reality is that this should have been the standard from the outset.

     
  • At 2/01/2006 11:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To protest the Danish government over this issue is ridiculous. While the head of the Danish government indicated he did personally feel that the cartoons were not appropriate and were offensive, he also made clear that the Danish government has no control over the publication in question. Unlike so many Muslim countries, Denmark believes in freedom of speech. Any nation that believes in freedom of speech cannot have the government punish its citizens for satirizing a particular religion. Period. As above posts indicate, the governments of Muslim countries defame Christians and Jews routinely. This defamation of non-Muslims is carried out by government institutions - things that responsible heads of states anywhere could control - unlike the situation in Denmark. Muslim people, as a whole, have not objected to the slandering of Jews and Christians.

    I don't know what concrete step Muslims expect the Danish government to take to prevent their "feelings from being hurt." Current law in Demark gives the government no control of the content of the offending publication. I keep hearing vague references from Muslim organizations about the Danish PM being expected to take action and ensure that this doesn't happen again. The only conclusion I can reach is that they expect Denmark to enact some sort of law that curtails freedom of speech. This is unacceptable to anyone who values this right.

    Mulims constantly complain about how the laws and customs of their nations are not respected by the Western world. They constantly berate the West, telling us that we need to "respect" their societies. Frankly, this incident simply highlights Muslim hypocrisy on this issue. It is clear that many Muslims do not respect the secular system of government that Denmark has long had. If Muslim citizens of Denmark cannot accept that Denmark is a society governed by secular rather than Sharia law, then they need to leave permanently. The same applies to all Muslims living in Western society.

    I welcome those Muslims who appreciate the freedoms of a secular, historically Christian society and who respect the right of others to say what they want, worship as they choose and largely live as they wish; I want those who want to impose their backward anti-democratic customs to go home. The Western World has become as powerful as it is in the world over the past few centuries to due freedom of discourse. I don't want those Muslims who come from societies that are unfortunately in many ways backwards imposing their dysfunctional habits on the Western World.

    For a population that produces such a large number of suicide bombers, militant terrorists and other fanatics, it is surprising to see how much infantile sensitivity they express over this issue.

    The above poster mentioned Ahmadinejad. As far as Ahmadinejad's comments are concerned, this is a different situation. Ahmadinejad is the head of a government. If anybody in a nation should be responsible for their words, it is the head of state. Private (as well as government) institutions in Iran routinely defame non-Muslims. The Danish prime minister by contrast has not defamed Muslims. If he had, this would justify diplomatic actions against Denmark. No one complains about private institutions in Iran defaming non-Muslims, in part, because no one expects anything more from the Iranians than that sort of ridiculous behavior.

    Muslims are perfectly justified in not subscribing to the Danish publication that offends them, in boycotting those who advertise in the publication in question, writing letters to the editor of the publication, in making their feelings about this issue clear to the public at large and other measures that are specific to the publication itself. In other words, civilized measures of protest. It seems ridiculous to punish
    the Danish people or a secular government over this issue. Furthermore, it is completely intolerable to be making bomb threats against embassies, to advocate the murder of the cartoonists (as I hear some Pakistani-based organization, I believe it was called Jamaat-e-Islaami or something similar, is offering to pay people to do), to make death threats against the publication's staff, etc.

    One particular form of protest people in Arab countries are using is, of course, flag-burning; attacking the national symbols of Scandinavian countries. Flag-burning seems to be a rather popular form of protest in the Muslim world. I think Muslims suppose that this offends Westerners more than it really does. Most Westerners shrug it off as typical Muslim ridiculousness. What is interesting about flag-burning however is that it illustrates what a difference exists in civility between Western countries and Arab countries. You didn't seem Americans burning Saudi or Egyptian flags after the September 11th attacks, did you? Even though, 14 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, the American people, by large, don't hold the entire population of Saudi Arabia in contempt for the actions of a few individuals. If any event should have triggered a vindictiveness out of the average American, it was this. The average American refrained from such behavior. The Arab world, on the other hand, can hardly contain itself from these absurd displays whenever it feels offended over some real or imagined slight over practically anything.

    In any event, by choosing the current course of action, Muslims are choosing to give themselves a black-eye. They could have chosen to rally Danes (and other Europeans) to their side on this issue. They could have demonstrated that people of Islamic faith can protest things in a mature and civil manner. They could of made it clear they support freedom of speech but simply wanted respect. Instead, by misplacing the source of their anger, by resorting to threats of violence and by proposing the curtailing of liberty, they have instead chosen to alienate the freedom-loving world. So be it.

     
  • At 2/02/2006 12:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    One site that is doing a pretty good job tracking developments in the Danish/European cartoon situation is:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/

    In particular, the section:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

    Of course, most will find this site is certainly biased in favor of the 'protect free speech' versus the 'punish infidel blasphemy' point-of-view.

     
  • At 2/02/2006 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    i'm muslim from thailand.. just read ur blog , feel good and waiting for the next ( sorry ...my language 's weak )

     
  • At 2/02/2006 6:28 PM, Blogger Lasto-adri *Blue* said…

    so wisly said ya omar bgd ya3ni..... so wisly said...

     
  • At 2/02/2006 6:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In more graphic terms, check out this picture of a schoolgirl from Indonesia - you need to navigate down the page a while to see it:

    http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

     
  • At 2/02/2006 9:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Uh-oh. I looks like the whole Mohammad caricature thing is being taken to the next level. Now there is a 'photo' contest going on. Look at these:

    http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C

     
  • At 2/02/2006 9:42 PM, Blogger elendil said…

    Bollocks. Saying that the Americans are being hypocritical is neither remarkable nor relevant. One's values should not be determined by what others do. You start limiting expression because it's "offensive", and before you know it we're limiting all kinds of information -- not allowing us to see about what really happened at Abu Ghraib, for example, because it might inflame passions, or as you pointed out, not letting the public see the true price of the war that they're paying with their children's blood.

    Here's an idea: take advantage of that freedom of expression to fire back. Send the editor an angry letter anouncing your boycott, remind a Christian Quran-basher that their religion permits the rape of women captured in war, write a scathing essay on how Orientalism and the mythology of the "White Man's Burden" shapes middle-America's ignorant views, and greet a bigot with a big smile and a "Happy Holidays, inshallah". Just don't suggest limiting freedom of expression, because you'll only hurt yourself.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 12:40 AM, Blogger x said…

    As usual, you make some valid points elendil.
    I wasn't saying that just because the Americans limit freedom of speech, we should as well. I was merely highlighting the double standard.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 9:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    just because the Americans limit freedom of speech, we should as well.


    then we are in agreement, who cares about some cartoons about Mohamet anyway?

     
  • At 2/03/2006 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    speaks volumes about Muslim hatred of the West and how insincere the piety of many of these so-called devout Muslims really is.


    come on, I am against this whole 'ban free speech' thing myself.

    but the actions of a few doesn't speak 'volumes about Muslim hatred of the west' it only speaks about the mind set of the people who fabricated the pictures.

    relax, you are doing the same thing muslims are, blaming the whole group for the actions of a few.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 5:57 PM, Blogger x said…

    Jawaher, that was quite disturbing. Thanks for giving another example of the sheer ignorance out there

     
  • At 2/03/2006 6:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You can see the article "Iraqi Churches Bombed: Link with Danish Cartoons?" on the url:

    http://jihadwatch.org/

    I don't know whether or not there is a link between the cartoons and the attacks on churches. I do know that the wanton destruction of churches doesn't provoke nearly the outage in the Arab world that drawing a few Mohammad cartoons does . . .

    "At least three people, including a 13-year-old boy, were killed and an estimated 16-20 people injured. According to some reports as many as seven churches were bombed."

    I also know the murder of a 13 year Iraqi Christian by his Muslim countrymen won't provoke the shrieks of outage that the death of a Palestinian child at Israeli hands does.

    "The bombings were condemned by some Muslim political leaders including Ali al-Adeeb (Shi’a) and Naweer al-Ani (Sunni)."

    Gee, its a shame the religious authorities among Iraqi Muslims can't control this sort of extremism in their communities before people have to die . . .

    "On the same day, 29th January, Christian students at Mosul University were beaten up by Muslim students. Some days earlier a number of fatwas had been issued by sheikhs in Mosul, acting in reponse to pressure from Islamic militias in the city. The fatwas called for their followers to “expel the crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools and institutions because they insulted the person of the prophet in Denmark”."

    Oh, I see, its because so many of them encourage it.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 6:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm sorry, I forgot to title my last post.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Two typos (I should have edited before I posted):

    1) It should have said '13 year old' not just '13 year' when referring to the age of the Iraqi Christian.

    2) It should say 'outrage' not 'outage', I'm missing the 'r'.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Some cartoons without Muhammad:

    http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/as_arabmedia_lebanon_03_05.htm

    http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/egyptian_cartoons.asp

    http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2001/jews_as_nazis.asp

    http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2001/jews_controlling_usgov.asp

    http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2001/caricatures_of_jews.asp

    http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/egpress1.html
    (this last link is a whole gallery of cartoons, just keep clicking 'next')

     
  • At 2/03/2006 10:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Links to the 3 fabricated cartoons that were inserted into the booklet by the Danish Muslim delegation when visiting Arab countries:

    http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

    http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg

    http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg

    As you can see, these are more offensive than anything that appeared in the original paper.

     
  • At 2/03/2006 10:56 PM, Blogger x said…

    Mike, please don't focus on this story to highlight the ignorance of the Arab world. First of all, I don't deny that these events have happened, but these were carried out by radicals who are looked down upon.

    Second of all, the same terrorist who bombed the church, and beat up Christians, are killing muslims everyday in Iraq. So don't make it a religion issue. I'm sure you are aware of the high number of casualties everyday in Iraq, the majority of which are muslims. So the people that you're highlighting are killers, period. You've got them in America too.

    Please don't publish any comments here if they do not relate directly to the post, Mike. I have stopped replying to comments from you and Todd, for the reason that you guys are going way off on a tangent, and because it's clear that you guys are using this blog to spread hatred against muslims. You're only focusing on the few, the few who get 24/7 media coverage. The intent of this post wasn't to point fingers at anybody, but rather to show people the contradictions in the world we live in. I could have deleted your comments, but I don't like to censor too much on this blog...

    You're a well read person (unlike others who commented here), and I respect you for that. But it seems to me that you haven't opened your mind to the other side of the story. I would love to reply to every comment you made, but I just don't have the time!

    I ask you to listen/read to anything coming from our end with an open mind. I also ask you not to generalize. For example, when I hear of the American casualties in Iraq, I can't help but feel sorry for the young men who gave their life away for non-existing reasons. I could have easily generalized them and related them to the soldiers who abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but I didn't. I didn't because I know for many of them it wasn't they're choice to take part of the war. They didn't know any better. And because they're people like you and me. Simillarly, you have to look at suicide bombers, and the anti-Americanism and ask your self, why would someone blow himself up? what would drive him to do such an act? why is everyone against us in the region? Do you really think America would have been attacked in 2001, if Americans had a fair foreign policy? Do you think that Arabs are happy with the current situation?
    Lastly Mike, with all this talk about free speech, I would like to direct you to this story
    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FA5DC791-B0D3-418E-9946-87162E6C6EC1.htm
    Apparently the US government was planning on attacking Aljazeera, the CNN of the arab world. All because Aljazeera gives Arabs another side of the story, a side that Bush wants to keep quite. A quote from the article also points out
    "In April 2003, an Aljazeera journalist died when its Baghdad office was struck during a US bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a US State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake.

    In November 2002, Aljazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Aljazeera's office."

    If you ask me that one great way to enforce censorship, don't you think?

     
  • At 2/03/2006 11:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    All right Omar, I will try and stay on base. I am not going to dissect everything you just said. I realize this is not a forum, just commentary on your postings. I should try and keep focused.

    BTW, I don't hate Muslims. Please don't say that. I don't hate you, Omar, and I realize that most Muslims are normal people not a bunch of nuts. I just find the nuts really disturbing and am often puzzled by the reaction of more moderate Muslims towards these wackos. That and I find Muslim governments rather hypocritical. I've said my piece. That is all I'm going to write about this subject. Thanks.

     
  • At 2/04/2006 12:30 PM, Blogger x said…

    Thanks for taking time to comment on this issue Mike, and everybody else :)

     
  • At 12/18/2015 8:09 PM, Blogger 柯云 said…

Post a Comment

<< Home