I will live unanswered all rude and offensive words you said about us westerners and about Arabs. Let us consider these words as a sign of your “ not ignorance” your enlightened superiority. What I want to explore is that passage:

“A weirdo is bombing a building in the us, another weirdo is issuing death sentences(fatwas) than all the muslim world is being responsible for this. A muslim’s atrocity can not be the reason or excuse for these cartoons.”

Really ?
Why not?
Is any examples off Muslims disassociating themselves form terrorism? There are no examples of protests against terrorism in the Muslim world
Cartoons were targeting Muslim religion FOR REASON not frivolously . and reason be is JIHAD itself as a GLOBAL TERRORISM WITH RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION. As long as you brought religion in terrorism your religion no longer immune from anything. I think it is fair game to target religion that used as a justification for mass murder.
Newspaper just REFLECTED DAILY REALITY of JIHAD , you must hold responsible those who created REALITY not those who REFLECTED IT. Instead you are mad on the MIRROR.
If your religion is high jacked it is YOUR responsibility to stop those who high jacked religion. You ,instead of trying to shut –up those who reflecting reality , want us to pretend that JIHAD is not happening because in your holly books written something else? I think that Danish newspaper and west is just more easy goal for you than your own terrorism ! any way I will insist that as long as JIHAD is around, it is fair game to do religious cartoons. Those cartoons are targeting religion because that religion allowed to be used as an alibi for terror . That is our way of NON VIOLENT RESPONSE on violent terrorism. You want to stop it? Stop JIHAD
I think it is a double standard when you offended by cartoons and in the same time not offended by terror created by the name of your religion. Normally Muslims would violently protest around the world not against cartoons but against terror by other Muslims.
what would you say?

omer wrote;
“but i want to see this respect to my religion, too.”

RESPECT?
You cannot force people to respect anything . Your friends are telling “Respect it , or you will be beheaded”! Respect must be earned , not extorted. And, one more, time again, are you seriously saying that in Muslim countries other religions and cultures are respected? Tell me what do you think about numerous anti Semitic, anti American and anti Christian cartoons and actions that routinely through decades are taking place in the Muslim countries! Burning flags ! Tell me something about that.
Your religion is Islam ours is a FREE SPEECH. You cannot demand respect of your rules with no respect to ours.

omer wrote;
“I am muslim, and our religion requires us to respect all the other religions(not only the trio of islam,christianity,judaism),”

Really ?
what about other religions? What about Buddhism for example? You are not ignorant like we are , are you ready to respect something beyond your imam told you to respect? What about demolished Buddha’s in Afghanistan?

You respect Judaism?
Really ?
anti-Semitic cartoons routinely published all over the middle east , may not in Turkey but I was Turkey at least once against that? You are talking about respect. How many times you burned American flag? Or you are looking for respect only for your self?
What about Theo Van Gogh killed by Muslim extremist? Is any Muslim protested any of those actions? No!!!

“There are millions of muslims in the world, some terrorists are placing bombs in your city, some muslims are burning consulates, and all the muslims are being accused. Not all the muslims speak the same language, nor they have the same culture.”

nobody said that all Muslims are terrorists.
What I am saying is that all terrorists who threatening world globally are Muslims.
It is interesting when it is convenient to you guys all over you pan Muslim solidarity. Only religion based interstate entity is Muslim ( Islam conference Association of 56 Islamic states which according to its mission promoting Muslim solidarity in economic, social, and political affairs http://www.oic-oci.org/ ) There is no Christian countries organization no Buddhists states organization, only Islamic. May be you are not supporting terrorism but you not against it either, meaning you are supporting it morally

“In Turkey, there were protests but they were very different than the ones you saw in the media. Turks always respected the other religions in this area.”
Talking about ignorance ,can you tell us about how In Turkey respected Armenian Christians from 1890 to 1922?

I won’t even talk about the freedom of press(I never believed the absolute freedom, it is not hard to see why that is impossible, one of the many examples which proves it:
Why not? This conflict what you are refereeing to will be resolve in court not on the streets and nobody threatening to behead nobody.

“when i talk an american about Turkey he can talk about Saracen swords, what the f.. man how many turks used saracen swords in the history, learn something about middle east you fat gameboy-playing nerd we do not have the desert architecture, we never spoke arabic,”
what do you know about history of Texas? What do you know about history of Cherokee people? What do you know about revolutionary war? I am sure not too much , why Americans should know what swards did you use ? Are you kidding?

What I want to say is that I think the reactions were planned to be exaggerated this time by some Middle Eastern regimes and are not mere public reaction.
And I think Syria and Iran have the motives to trigger such reactions in order to get away from the pressures applied by the international community on those regimes.

However, I cannot claim that Muslim community is innocent for there have been outrageous reactions outside the range of Syria’s or Iran’s influence but again, these protests and threats are more political than religious in nature.”

It what people “ on the ground” think. May be they less educated but I trust them. In my view all this situation has nothing to do, neither with free speech, nor with religion. It is about establishing Muslim’s exclusivity in the world. They can destroy Buddhas and burn flags and kill people by the name of God, they feel themselves entitled to publish anti-Semitic cartoons routinely with no hesitation but ,in the same time ,they are violently( I emphasize violently!!!) against anything that they uncomfortable with. Again, if you have something to share about that, be my guest, otherwise …. enjoy your education, very soon you will get a tenure in a local medrece .

I’m by no means equating the two, merely pointing out that Jeff Jacoby’s absolute support free speech is in fact contingent upon not offending his own religious and political sensibilities. Many people who have taken up arms on behalf of the Danes in this cartoon furor are only doing so because it suits their own agenda against “Islamofascism”.

While we who have always believed in the sanctity of the First Amendment and freedom of expression welcome new converts to the fold, we can’t help but be suspicious when our ranks swell whenever an easy target presents itself, and find it ironic that these folks are often the first to brand us traitors or terrorist sympathizers whenever we support a cause which rankles them personally.

Mention these examples, and NEA partisans grind their teeth. Most of the agency’s funds, they argue irritably, are not used to subsidize such gross and obnoxious “art.”

That attitude of hostility to mainstream sensibilities is entrenched within the NEA and its logrolling “peer review” panels. The NEA consistently rewards novelty over quality. Its grant recipients are often distinguished by little more than intolerance toward traditional standards and art forms. Artistry, beauty and craftsmanship are routinely rejected in favor of radical politics, victim chic and anger.

I agree that the media has been spineless on the issue, but you can’t stop there. What about those ultra-liberal commies at the Department of State?

The U.S. State Department has condemned the decision of newspapers in Denmark and elsewhere in Europe for publishing cartoon drawings depicting the prophet Muhammad, something that is offensive to Muslims. State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus told reporters, ‘Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices.’

So are President Bush and his cabinet a bunch of dhimmis in your book now, too? But I guess selective outrage is oh-so-fashionable these days…

Did the Iranians solicit the cartoons in the first place? No. But are they taking advantage of the furor to grandstand now that it’s gone global? Of course. There’s no doubt that Muslim leaders have deliberately stoked the fire on this issue by adding cartoons to the original published dozen and spreading additional rumors of Western slights against Islam to boot, but conflating all of this with the nuclear showdown with Tehran benefits no one. It’s fun to mix up all of these issues and pretend there’s a larger, more sinister scheme at work, but I think you give Muslim radicals too much credit when you do so. They’re a bunch of ignorant and violent yahoos who will glom onto any issue that will make the West look bad and give them license to kill and destroy in the name of their delicate religious sensibilities.

Please don’t confuse fortuitous coincidence with evil genius.

Madrassa U?

Good night all.

This article provides a great overview of the Islamonazi cartoon wars but also describes how some Danish MUSLIMS are showing spine as they respond to the radical Danish Imams who made the ME ‘tour’: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/758

Geez. Wouldn’t it be great to read/hear about these stories in the U.S., MSM? What’s it take, really? Isn’t falling on your sword better than getting your dhimmi heads cut off?

Oh, and speaking of dhimmis, there’s also PBS in Dallas: http://www.forward.com/articles/7303

excerpted from an article by Steve Muscatello
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/SteveMuscatello/2006/02/06/185285.html

The latest issue of Rolling Stone depicts rapper Kanye West as a Christ-like figure in a crown of thorns with the title: “The Passion of Kanye West.” The cover shot is a disgusting affront to Christians, and certainly as blasphemous as the cartoons were to Muslims.

As a result, no one was surprised when Christians firebombed Rolling Stone headquarters in New York.

Oh wait, didn’t happen.

Okay, well no one was surprised when Christians threatened to firebomb the building.

Nope, didn’t happen either.

Rarely does history provide such a perfect point of comparison, and the contrasting responses could hardly be more telling: When faced with a nearly identical situation, one faith resorted to violence, threats and rage like unruly savages; the other was civil, responding (if at all) with letters to the editor, calls for a boycott and many public denunciations.

Second, the rage of the Muslim world again lays bare radicalism for all the world to see. A similar fervor was set off in 2005 in response to purported Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. People died then, many of them Muslims. But it didn’t matter. The rage is as overwhelming as it is contagious.

Victor Davis Hanson has called this the “lunacy principle,”

(Jeff, as a sidenote, how did you end up with a comments section that is somehwere north of Mars and a little to the right of Free Republic?)

Eileen, if you’re going to mention my name have the good grace to read my posts and then respond to the contents of such and not respond to what you hoped I had written. It’s not too much to ask.

“There is of course a world of difference in between how the fundamentalists complain (one relatively peaceful if really, really annoying and another burning down embassies).

But the motivations are the same – the imposition of your sensibilities on the rest of the world.”

My Eileen, someone might thing you had rigged a computer to just automatically type your posts out regardless of what was posted before you.

I wasn’t drawing attention to the world christian community, rather your own hypocrisy in demanding that things be removed from television that offend you but deciding you’re now a free-speecher. To believe in something you have to have principles not simply an interchangeable set of beliefs that you can adapt to either defend Bush or attack muslims. Otherwise you just don’t get taken seriously. Sorry.

Ravo,
of course no one is condoning the violent behavior. I personally would have printed the cartoons if i was a newspaper editor if only to show some solidarity with those who had and also to demonstrate that freedom of speech is non-negotiable.
But again I do tire of the “oh-my-god-someone-is-gay-on-television-and-
-i-had-to-look-really-hard-to-find-the-show-but-i-did-and-now-i’m-outraged” crowd who have the gall to seek to remove from air what they don’t like and are now crying free speech.

As MSM does its damndest to protect and promote the agenda at all costs, all they’ll wind up achieving is causing their customers to go elsewhere. Hiding the truth never ends up working well in the long, anyway. And that is why the taqiyya talkers will also, ultimately, fail.

What sublime irony!

As for the Franky’s out there who perpetually try to defend Islam by suggesting sane analagies with ‘fundamentalist Christians’ exist, you need to buy a clue. When you can provide even one citation for an article, photograph or video which shows thousands of Christians across the globe burning embassies, shouting “Annihilate the Non-Believers”, “Behead the Non-Believers”, or leaving notes pinned by knives into chests to protest artistic expression, you might have a point. There is NO equivalency to be made to Islamonazi thugs. None.

Efforts to distort and deny reality – or change the subject – never cease to amaze. The more Islam reveals its lunacy the more the U.S. MSM’s agenda and left wing apologists are also revealed. If there is any upshot to the ever increasing ‘demonstrations’ and ‘protests’, that would have to be it.

Agreed.

I’ve heard of Falwell, of course, but never heard him speak or watched his show. I watch very little TV

There is a difference though, in simply not liking something, and have someone distorting what is sacred to you. The first I’d ignore, the second I’d express my objection and personally boycott if possible.

(Though I hope I’d have the good grace and sense of fairness to not protest if I had been doing the exact same thing to the other party)

What I wouldn’t do is act less civilized than cavemen or beasts.