Saturday, February 04, 2006

Punishing Denmark: Taking on the Wrong Enemy

By Ramzy Baroud

Read full article...

Posted 02/04 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I am sure that if the cartoonists had a choice, they would just make this whole thing go away and wish that it never happened. You do know that they have rewards on their heads now. Today yet another reward of $50.000 was offered for anyone who kills one of them.

    You could of course argue that they should have been so wise to not draw the pictures in the first place, but you know what? Being a cartoonist myself, I would have drawn them, if asked. Everyone knows that there would probably be a reaction, but that the cartoon with the bombturban would actually become true - that is so utterly bizarre that it belongs in the twilight zone.

    Danish people are not muslims and should not be made accountable to your laws. How can it be that a little cartoon in a newspaper written in a language they dont even understand thousands of miles away creates such a furore, when people are being slaughtered in their own backyard? Do you want to be made accountable for the things you do under Danish law? Sure, it is easy to mock a little country with 5 million inhabitants, but when the big ones start printing the cartoons, there is no reactions and no boycotts, because how do we get our BMW, our Mercedes and I don’t even want to mention the weapons. What a pathetic little amateur boycott. Boycott Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand and so on, then you have my respect.

    And don’t ramble on about jew and Jesus carricatures and all that crap. Been there and done that. Those Mohammed carricatures were harmless and absolutely not hatefull towards muslims compared to what other religious groups, politicians and public figures endure in the press, so grow up and be happy. Islam just lost its virginity.

    And yes, you can continue your anti-muslim, lack of respect mumbo jumbo, but it will not change the fact that by carricaturing muslims they are now one of us and full fledged members of our society. They are our brothers and brothers can fight once in a while without having the whole damn town involved in a gigantic brawl.

    Posted by Mike from Langbortistan  on  02/04  at  10:00 AM

  2. Publishing cartoons of the prophet muhammad was an unnesseary offense of religious beliefs. Jyllands Posten is here the sole responsible and to correct Ramzy Baroud, Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
    has already personally objected to the cartoons.

    The Danish Government should under no circumstances be held responsible of the creation of a few independent cartoonist, neither should the workers of Danish industry loose their jobs due to a conflict in which they have no responsibility.

    In regard to the responses, burning down an embassy of small country is an outrageus act that should not be tolerated. If Muslim cartoonist had drawn a depiction of Jesus as a rude fat imperalist pig bathing in crude oil would westerners have responded with violence, no. Denmarks economic aid to Muslim countries is substanial so the boycot will sure go both ways. Also Denmarks is energy selfsufficient, actual is an exporter of natural gas. So a harm by a boycot will is minimal.

    There are a few benefits of the whole muddle as the previous commentator pointed out. Globalization has transfered the national public space into a global public space where media are held responible by universal standards. We are now all in this together. Muslims are truely our brothers and if we are able to solve the conflict I believe everybody will come out of this stronger and more
    respectful of each others cultures. The alternative is a prolonged trenched boycot with escalating violent, lets hope and pray for the former.

    Posted by Anders Midtgaard Hansen from Harvard University  on  02/04  at  12:25 PM

  3. Ramzy Baroud is wrong in his implication that the Danish cartoonist is lucky to face martyrdom on behalf of freedom of the press. Journalists and cartoonists everywhere would prefer not to be killed or have their lives threatened because of their work.

    Posted by Samuel Bell from Toronto, Canada  on  02/04  at  01:30 PM

  4. quotes from robert fisk article:

    “Furthermore in some European nations - France is one, Germany and Austria are among the other it is forbidden by law to deny acts of genocide. In France for example it is illegal to say that the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Holocaust did not happen. So it is in fact impermissible to make certain statements in European Nations. I am still uncertain whether these laws attain their objectives, however much you may prescribe Holocaust denial, anti-Semites will always try to find a way round. We can hardly exercise out political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about Secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.

    For many Muslims the “Islamic” reaction to this is an embarrassment. There is good reason to believe that Muslims would like to see some element of reform introduced to their religion. If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only cause reaction.

    In any event it is not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Quran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do. The problem is that these cartoon portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so? “

    Posted by joell from Ga  on  02/04  at  10:12 PM

  5. It is a mistake to focus on the current violence as if it’s cartoon-centered. Of course the violence is partly a function of Muslims responding to what was published...and the related “aftermath.” However, what’s being neglected here is the cumulative forces/"dissatisfaction" behind the violence, the timing of confrontational events...and related matters. It’s not a THEY did this...and then THOSE GUYS did that situation. Nor should the main question be whether or not Muslims should be directing frustrations elsewhere. The cartoon “business” is obviously a (predictable) catalyst only.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/05  at  02:59 AM

  6. I’m not sure what Mr. Oxman’s comment means.  Several newspapers published cartoons that most of us would view as mildly offensive.  Now there are violent protests worldwide.  Embassies have been burned.  Rewards have been offered for those who kill the cartoonists.  A Muslim group in Holland retaliated by publishing anti-Jewish cartoons, including Holocaust denial cartoons.  Palestinians have thrown grenades and wrecked German and EU facilities in the Gaza Strip.  There have been flag and effigy burnings worldwide.  The wildly popular president of Iran blamed the cartoons on the Jews “who rule Europe” and called for their deaths.  The leader of Hamas said in an interview that the cartoonists should be killed.  There have been boycotts of Danish, Swedish, French, German and other countries’ products.

    Now if your point is that all of this is somehow the fault of Western countries, because we have somehow caused their dissatisfaction, then I think you’re dead wrong.  Even if your point is simply that they’re upset about a lot of things, and so they can’t be blamed for their unacceptable behavior, I think you’re wrong. 

    I have small kids who get very upset sometimes.  Sometimes it’s my fault that they’re upset.  Sometimes others are at fault.  It doesn’t matter whose fault it is, they’re not allowed to throw temper tantrums and break things. 

    People are responsible for their own horrible actions, no matter what their circumstances.

    Posted by Simon from Tennessee  on  02/05  at  04:37 PM

  7. The analogy is faulty. Muslims currently committing arson, or not, are not to be likened in any respect to children throwing temper tantrums. And, for the sake of clarity regarding my most fundamental points here, please note that I was submitting that the manifestations of anger being characterized by most media outlets as being primarily linked to the cartoon business/related government stances is very misleading; the linking is misleading...when the suggestion is that that’s the main connection. Rather, the cumulative hatred --indeed caused in great part by the West and its allies-- is what needs to be focused on. It’s quite The Distraction to try to deal with the arson, etc. in isolation, which is the thrust of virtually all media reports right now. Is that totally clear? Are there any objections to my position? Any value behind it?

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/05  at  04:46 PM

  8. It may be that Islamic countries have a lot of pent up anger because of past and present Western policies.  Maybe they’re still mad that Napoleon conquered Egypt.  I don’t know.  But the current behavior we’re seeing is still completely unacceptable.

    What have the Danes ever done to oppress these people?  Nothing.  They spend a lot of money on foreign aid to predominantly Muslim countries such as Mali:  http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6KXEVN?OpenDocument

    Now the Danish embassies in Lebanon and Syria have been torched, and people are burning Danish flags throughout the Middle East.  There’s no excuse for their behavior, and your efforts to excuse their beastiality because someone else has wronged them seem misguided.

    The leaders and Arab masses who blame all their problems on “the Jews” are just as bad.  They are the worst, the most vile racists and bigots in the world, and you cannot excuse their intolerable behavior by saying the West has been mean to them.

    Posted by Simon from Tennessee  on  02/06  at  12:20 AM

  9. Going back to the analogy of my children, when my kids are having temper tantrums, I DON’T CARE WHY.  The most important thing is to teach them that temper tantrums are not acceptable.  Ever. 

    Likewise here.  The cartoons and the reaction to the cartoons are of primary importance right now.  They aren’t a distraction from the underlying issues.  I don’t care about any underlying issues.  If someone is going to act like a child having a temper tantrum, they need to be treated like a child having a temper tantrum.

    If I could, I’d spank them all and send them to their rooms without dinner!

    Posted by Simon from Tennessee  on  02/06  at  12:33 AM

  10. By all means, let’s spank the kids who have no “legitimate” reason to lash out against Papa.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/06  at  02:48 AM

  11. The Robert Fisk CPunch article posted today at http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk02062006.html should be sufficient for anyone interested in really addressing what’s being bandied about here. At least for serious starters. On a peripheral point, please note that the issue of “childishness” (or not) is brought up...and dealt with definitively.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/06  at  07:58 PM

  12. Re: the Fisk article. Fisk is wrong in saying that this is not an issue of secularism vs. Islam. In fact, that--or more broadly liberal secularism versus religion-- is exactly what it is, in Europe at least. In the Muslim world however, it seems clear the cartoons were interpreted as an attack on a people. The failure of each side in recognizing the different takes on this conflict is aggravating the situation.

    Fisk refers to Westerners screaming about anti-Semitism, etc. This is beside the point; if screaming was all the protesters were doing, that’d be fine. Even demands that European countries pass laws to prevent similar events would not be entirely unreasonable.

    But as we’ve seen, some governments have responded with disproportionate umbrage, pandering to the same fanatics in their society that have torched embassies, are threatening the lives of the cartoonists, and as their placards praising 9/11 suggest, condone mass murder. It is with these people, and with their governments, not the majority of Muslims who peacefully protest the cartoons, that Westerners object to so vigorously. 

    At least once, Fisk’s sloppy reasoning suggests an overeagerness to make his case. Here’s a quote: “If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only caused reaction.” Based on the reaction, Fisk finds proof for his idea of what the intent of the cartoon was. By this logic, the swooning recipient of a wedding proposal could reasonably accuse the proposer of intending to make her unconscious. There was no way of forecasting this reaction. And had this issue been limited to Denmark or Europe, it just may have begun a healthy debate.

    Posted by Samuel Bell from Toronto, Canada  on  02/06  at  11:41 PM

  13. I invite readers to review the Fisk article themselves to determine whether or not the author has a point in underscoring that the agon that’s being described is based on Secularism vs. Islam. And also...whether or not Fisk is sloppy in his reasoning. I believe it’s easy to see, for one, that Fisk’s point about the cartoons being “dumped on” an already transparently volatile situation has merit. And that the response (beyond “screaming,” admittedly) was to be expected...considering the way in which Fisk delineates the difference between how Muslims and Westerners embrace their religions. It seems quite clear that the particular type of secularism which we’ve tried to impose upon Muslim countries --succinctly described in the Fisk piece-- is what has created a time bomb, NOT “broadly liberal securalism.” The recent explosions --unbeknownst to the writer above, apparently-- are very much in the interests of the Western Powers, serve the agenda that’s now being pursued; more and more confrontation. Mr. Canadian Bell seems to think otherwise, talking about healthy debates being possible in the context of a history that’s not taken place on a level playing field, and in a general present day environment which is taking advantage of the 2001 Aftermath disingenously, selfishly, and maniacally. The West has never been “The Good Guy” --a notion which runs counter to Bell’s premises, obviously-- and is simply continuing the disgusting goals which are inherent in its lifestyle. The cartoon confrontation is one blip along a very clear path...clearly outlined by Fisk. In general, Fisk, I know, does not fully share my extreme view of The West, but...I invite the reader to review the piece in the context of the current issues being discussed here nonetheless.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/07  at  01:08 AM

  14. Mr. Oxman,
    You are still missing the point.  Mobs are burning embassies, making death threats, lobbing grenades.  It isn’t excusable.  Even if Fisk can find a few isolated, mild incidences of violence by Westerners, it STILL isn’t excusable. 

    Fisk makes the “we do it too” argument.  But Westerners have NOT done anything on the scale of the barbarity we’ve seen in the last few weeks, and even if they had, it would be no excuse.

    You and Fisk also don’t acknowledge that the mobs are not attacking those at fault.  The newspaper editors are the ONLY ones at fault.  Not the Danish government, not the UN, not the Jews. 

    Fisk also says that Muslims care about their religion, but we don’t care about ours.  (A) This doesn’t excuse their behavior, and (B) there are many of us who care very deeply about our religion, but we don’t commit violent acts.  So I see Fisk’s article as a weak, logically flawed effort to excuse the inexcusable.

    If it were Americans making these violent attacks, you and Fisk would have no problem condemning us.  It’s your anti-Western biases that prevent you from seeing the obvious wrongdoing here.

    Posted by Simon from Tennessee  on  02/07  at  08:34 AM

  15. All readers should jump into the fray here. At least with respect to the point about who the greatest perpretrator of violence on earth happens to be. By far. With regard to human beings ‘cross the board AND Nature. Of course --and Fisk would agree with this, unquestionably-- violence is to be avoided. However, statements like
    “Westerners have NOT done anything on the scale of the barbarity we’ve seen in the last few weeks, and even if they had, it would be no excuse.”
    beg to be torn apart at the seams. First in terms of the opening “inaccuracy,” and secondly with regard to making a distinction between “excusing” and characterizing what’s “inevitable” (given the circumstances created by the West). Furthermore, Fisk does NOT say we “don’t care” about religion in the sense you suggest, rather that we don’t embrace religion --generally-- the way in which Muslims do worldwide. “We” don’t commit violent acts. Goodness, me. To what degree!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/07  at  11:45 AM

  16. As per http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings some of the protesters seem to be in synch with sentiments in the Baroud article. Without wanting to give the impression that I support violence, I recommend that some readers take another look at the piece...rather than continue going down the road that they seem to be on at present.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/07  at  01:08 PM

  17. Now don’t go twisting my words around. 

    With rare exceptions, Westerners (America, Canada, Europe, Australia) DON’T throw grenades when someone insults their religion.  They DON’T burn down embassies when someone says something mean.  They DON’T issue death threats because of cartoons.  Mr. Fisk came up with one example of violence when Mel Gibson’s movie about Jesus came out, but that act pales by comparison (and was also wrong).

    You STILL won’t admit that burning embassies is an inappropriate response to publishing a cartoon. 

    You STILL won’t admit that attacking the Jews because a newspaper in Denmark published a cartoon is wrong.

    You STILL won’t admit that firebombing churches in Lebanon is immoral, no matter how many mean things the newspapers in Europe say about Muhammed. 

    If you can’t agree to these simple, obvious points, you have no business trying to impose your beliefs on the rest of us.  If you want your writings to have credibility, you must be willing to condemn immoral behavior no matter who is doing it.

    Posted by Simon from Tennessee  on  02/07  at  11:14 PM

  18. Impose my beliefs? Not condemn immoral behavior? Simply re-read what I said above...and you should see that I quite clearly stated that I didn’t want to give the impression that I condoned violence. I trust that that’ll STILL you on all of your “STILLS” above, Simon. Also, however, if you look at what I’ve written above...you’ll note that I recommended that readers review what Baroud, hoping that people such as you would think about what the author was getting at when he pointed out that Muslim protesters are attacking the wrong target, the REASONS why they should be attacking...someone. Or, rather, the reasons why everyone should understand that there’s plenty of cause for Muslims to want to tear apart The Powers who have been trying to dictate their lives for so long. US bases, I believe, were cited as more legitimate targets than, say, the embassies currently under attack. Well, to argue the niceties that you want to put on the table is to clearly distract discussion from what’s most germane here. To wit, that Muslims have been under very violent attacks from The West for too long, that the current foci for discussion are irrelevant, and that ensuing violence --which is, of course, horrid-- is the result of cumulative damage done to them, rather than a function of their religion (which is what’s still being suggested by those speaking on behalf of the Western reaction). There’s a causal relationship you’re avoiding...which has little to do with the specifics you insist upon ranting about.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from Los Gatos, CA  on  02/08  at  01:24 AM
    19. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Evolution IS Intelligently Designed

    Previous entry: The Case for Bush

    [ads]

    Support Press Action