Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Hidden agenda

February 8, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

My, how the headlines have changed.

Twelve caricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, depicting him and his religion as espousing violence, have brought on a maelstrom of response. Freedom of the press is the reason proffered, but the press' selectiveness in applying this freedom covers up the real intent behind the publication.

I have a Jewish friend who is a member of a small synagogue in a small city. He informs me that he and others, as local leaders of their area Anti-Defamation League, daily scan the local newspaper, TV, radio, lectures and area schools for any statement that they consider anti-Semitic. Should they discover a bias, that medium or school has immediate hell to pay. I saw a drawing of the Star of David metamorphosing into a swastika, which caricature would never be printed as a cartoon by any reputable paper under the guise of freedom of the press.

The 12 caricatures of Muhammad so publicized throughout Europe should never have been published as well. Displayed as "art" in a museum I would find acceptable. And so I find it lamentable that the Journal-World's headline "Embassies torched over caricatures" enforces the casual reader's opinion that Islam's followers are violent, radical and anti-Western. Every religion has its followers who, however small, would violently respond to a public degradation of their religion. There is something going on behind the caricature turbulence and the Journal-World has a responsibility to offer the reader more in-depth investigative reporting on this issue.

Ken Bubb,

Lawrence

Comments

Kodiac 8 years, 2 months ago

Great post DuQuesne. I always find your statements to be refreshing and enlightening.

Arminius,

What whoa. Careful Chris, Arminius is citing his resume. I find it curious how some people have to promote themselves as being intelligent. But then again we are talking about you aren't we Arminius. I can imagine 50 years from now you are still going to be posting that unbiased website concerning impeaching Clinton and still blaming him for anything that is currently happening in the world.

0

DuQuesne 8 years, 2 months ago

Muslims are offended. So am I. As a matter of fact, I am offended nearly every day. However, I have found that occasionally observing the sun rise and set puts my mind at ease with the assurance that, however offended I may be, the world continues on its predicted course. Muslims can continue to be the cultural trailer trash of the third world, but they are welcome to keep their fanatical sensibilities on their own, single-wide, side of the park. Peace be upon y'all. -Schuyler DuQuesne

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst:

"You can't get much more neutral than the freakin' library."

You have something against veterans at the American Legion? White claims he was a Marine and I was a Marine. Sounds like a neutral venue.

"Why don't you get a life?"

That's an odd question coming from someone associated with Chris White.

"I'm done."

Please come back after you have educated yourself a bit about history and current events. It would make the discussion more interesting.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

You can't get much more neutral than the freakin' library.

A debate between you and White would only invoke sympathy from the audience for you. You're simply not up for such a challenge.

You're absolutely exhausting, Arminius. Why don't you get a life?

I'm done.

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst:

"What did you do in the 1980s while serving in the military? Sit behind a desk? You weren't in the infantry."

No, I wasn't in the infantry. Any 02 is qualified to serve in the infantry (03) since all Marines are basic riflemen. Few 03's are qualified to serve as 02's. Only six in our boot camp company tested high enough to go to Norfolk for 0231 training. (Before you attempt to note a discrepancy regarding Norfolk, please be advise that I understand such training is now done elsewhere.)

BTW, I had no desk in my tent just a few miles south of the DMZ in South Korea or in the NPA-infested area I stayed in while in the Philppines.

"American Legion? How about the public library?"

Given that Chris and his leftist friends attempted to prevent Ann Coulter from speaking and even heckled a young man in uniform when he attempted to ask Coulter a question (he's the gentleman who turned around and reminded you that he also had First Amendment rights), I have little confidence that the public library would be an ideal forum. I like the American Legion, provided there is something to debate. I may follow the Krishtalka example and declare that there is nothing to debate.

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

bozo:

"'Arminius does a good job of documenting the pervasiveness of the threat assessment across partisans and across nations regarding Iraq over the last decade or so.'"

"Oh, puleeze, James, you can do better than that."

How more persuavive can the documentation be than this? http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/pollack.html

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Oh, what impressive credentials you have. Keep in mind, you're not debating Chris White on this site. I happen to share his opinions, but admittedly I do not share his knowledge or his credentials, which are also impressive.

What did you do in the 1980s while serving in the military? Sit behind a desk? You weren't in the infantry. Let me guess...you were on covert intel missions. You're a true American hero.

Also, I did not see you presenting many facts to back up your arguments. You confuse fact with your personal ideology. The two are not the same.

American Legion? How about the public library?

Chris White has participated in COUNTLESS public debates in a variety of venues. I don't think you have to worry about him holding his own. He's quite capable.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

"If Iraq could have been trusted to be merely domestically bad, I might have been persuaded otherwise."

Saddam and Iraq didn't engage in any wars that were not encouraged and/or provoked by regional or other powers. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were both complicit in the war against Iran, and the invasion of Kuwait was a direct result of the souring of that relationship. The only difference between the leaders of those countries and Saddam was that he wasn't dishonest about his thuggery.

"However, Iraq's international focus on exporting evil prevented that "normal" course of action."

If full-scale invasions are the only cure for "exporting evil," then we'd better get ready for one ourselves. But we live by a different set of rules, don't we?

"Your approach, I believe, is ultimately nihilistic in that it refuses to make even elementary distinctions among different things."

Would adopting your double standards be better?

"Finally, I believe your comments on Pakistan are gravely in error: (a) the U.S. has provided (and continues to provide) significant earthquake relief to Pakistan,"

What constitutes "significant?"

"(b) terrorists were killed in the recent bombings (I didn't know anyone was disputing that point) as well as the civilians the terrorists were hiding among. Much as in Fallujah, I believe "cause" may as fairly be attributed to the terrorists as to anyone."

No doubt winning lots of hearts and minds in the process. Same ole, same ole just guarantees that nothing will change, but that's OK, because a permanent "war on terror" is good for bidness.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

"This is not that far from Bozo's "no perfect way so all less than perfect ways are equally bad" approach."

I don't believe killing up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians and plunging the country into civil war while putting our military in a quagmire that has killed 2200 American service people (and permanently maimed tens of thousand more,) so far, can be dismissed as "a less than perfect approach."

"It is literally a rejection of Western civilization itself, which is founded on the struggle to distinguish good from bad, or perhaps better from worse."

This is one aspect of Western Civilization. Conquest for empire, enslavement and genocide have managed to sneak in there, too, but apparently we can't talk about that in polite company.

"I don't believe anyone, other than fundamentalists, believe they have cornered the market on the "ONE right way." That says nothing however about identifying and naming evil as evil (to adopt W's terminology)."

Evil exists in many forms and in many places-- not just in the areas that happen to be sitting on top of our oil or other natural resources necessary to perpetuate our lifestyle or otherwise vital to our "national interests."

"While there are certainly marginal cases where it is difficult to balance the risks of taking action versus the risks of doing nothing (and humility dictates that those are the vast majority of situations), I do not believe Iraq was anywhere close to that scenario."

There were plenty of other actions available that didn't include full-scale invasion, and violence that will do nothing but continue the cycle. But that would require something beyond a grade-school "I dare you to knock this block off my shoulder" mentality that is administration, and most that have preceded it, are sorely lacking.

"Arminius does a good job of documenting the pervasiveness of the threat assessment across partisans and across nations regarding Iraq over the last decade or so."

Oh, puleeze, James, you can do better than that.

cont'd

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst:

Where would we debate? The American Legion?

If "Chris" (i.e., mefirst) doesn't have the facts to back up his arguments here, are you confident he could do it in a forum in which he cannot access information via the Internet?

I was a Marine 0231 during a very historic period (i.e., the early to mid-1980s), have degrees in International Relations and Southeast Asian Studies, and either was stationed or studied abroad for nearly five years. You might keep that in mind as you volunteer "Chris" for a debate.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Is that an invitation to debate? I'm sure Chris would be THRILLED to take you on in public. All you have to do is AGREE to it.

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst:

That was a nice, coherent and substantive response. It's difficult for me to believe that Ann Coulter actually ate your lunch at the Lied Center. You're such a skilled debater.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Arminius--you've got a ONE TRACK mind. You're like a rat caught in a maze...you're one big RERUN. You repeat the same drivel until you begin to believe it. You're dangerous.

0

Ember 8 years, 2 months ago

Okay, now here's a scary thought.

Saddam was quoted more than once since the Iran-Iraq War that he still intended on invading and conquering Iran.

Now that Iran is pushing towards being nuclear powered, are you sure it's still a bad thing that Saddam is no longer in control of things over there?

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 2 months ago

"Jamesaust--all your blathering still doesn't addres the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Why do we, as we pretend to differentiate between good and evil by dropping bombs on poor nations, continue to ally ourselves with some of the most oppressive regimes on this planet? Someone please answer that question?"

I see no point in providing discourse on these questions as it would just be "blather". If you have no desire to gain answers, why ask the questions?

0

rightthinker 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst, you don't want the America we know today to continue on, do you? Please explain why you don't understand radical Islam fundamentalists want us wiped off the face of the earth....they've said it over and over. What do you need to hear to change your socialist, anti-American views? Why are you on the enemies side, are you someone that would support the enemy with direct aid if offered the chance? Just who are you really, mefirst?

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Chris White has nothing to do with this argument. Your obsession with him is disconcerting. Continue to personally insult him. It only makes you look childish and incapable of engaging in an adult debate.

0

craigers 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. We were peacefully existing with Saudi. Whatever, I will leave you to talk to Arminius.

0

Arminius 8 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

kcwarpony 8 years, 2 months ago

"Islam's followers ARE violent, radical, and anti-western."

"The riots just prove the point that Muslims have violent tendencies."

And I believe that all Christians are like Fred Phelps.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Corruption comes into play by asking people what they need? That doesn't stop us with our arms trade. Hey Israel, what do you need? Well, Uncle Sam, we need $3 billion a year in military aid to kill off these pesky Palestinians. Do we concern ourselves with corruption in those deals? No, only when food, water, and other necessities are concerned do we worry about corruption.

Saudi Arabia wasn't a threat? Mst of the people on the plane during 9-11 were from SAUDI ARABIA!!! Do you not see the gaps in reasoning? There was NOT ONE Iraqi on that plane.

Rightthinker--were there terrorists in Fallujah before?

Why do rightwingers always fall back on the tired, worn-out "Why do you hate America?" retort. Don't you get tired of repeating that old line? Has anyone ever come out and said, "I hate AMerica because...." Probably not because this criticism isn't about hating AMerica. It's about being frustrated with this administration. It's about feeling as though people with my views are NOT being represented. It's about feeling that my tax dollars are funding wars and other initiatives that I don't agree with. It's about concern for the future and how we're going to pay for all this war and destruction because things aren't getting better. They're getting worse. We're creating more terrorists with each and every innocent life lost over there. They're killing a handful of terrorists for every group of innocent civilians.

Have you ever read 1984? You clearly don't understand Orwell, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

0

rightthinker 8 years, 2 months ago

"There were no terrorists in FALLUJAH before this war on Iraq."

mefirst--You must be in the CIA or be privileged to some pretty highly classified stuff to know that, wow!

mefirst, why do you hate America so much? Why don't you renounce your citizenship if you hate America that bad. For me, I'll only renounce if (and it's a big if) the libs somehow down the road get their way and we wake up one day and find ourlseves in some surreal sort of Orwellian, Stalin-ish, third world-ish type of situation. That's, I suppose, is when you, mefirst can say, "Hey, I finally got what I wanted!"

0

craigers 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst, that is where the corruption comes into play. We didn't really have friends in Iraq and therefore since they were a threat, the US attacked. However, since Saudia Arabia is not a threat, they have precious oil and they aren't threatening us why force them to change? I am not blind enough to see why they don't go after other countries with similar problems and that is because oil is a valuable resource to the country. You combine the threat of Saddam along with the way he was treating his people and the chance to make another friend in the oil world, you have motivation to go to war and liberate the people of Iraq. I know oil is a part of the war and those who say it isn't are wrong. However, it isn't the only reason for this war, which some keep voicing.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

You ask them what they need, Craigers. I agree making assumptions about what people need is erroneous. Just as making assumptions about what is right is erroneous. There are very few absolutes in this world. Do you truly believe the U.S. is absolutely right is every invasion, policy? It's also wrong to judge another's values based purely on your own, without understanding the context for their values.

I believe the oppression in Saudi Arabia is wrong, and according to the many arguments presented as justification for this war in Iraq, should be our target. Yet they remain an ally. WHY?

0

craigers 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst, my point is that you are saying that we should just leave other cultures alone because we don't know what is right for them. That is your cultural relativist point of view. Therefore, by adopting your same idealogy then we don't know what their needs are based on what we believe is needs because it depends on the culture. Why should we support them or give them anything based on what we think they need? No the premise wasn't women's rights but it was also about the danger of Saddam. Just because we see a threat, we shouldn't just leave it alone in order to not push our views on others. What is right, is right. That is how we know those in Pakistan, as you say need help. That is how we know the way Saddam was ruling was wrong. It wasn't based off of culture relatism but it was based on the fact that there are absolute rights and wrongs no matter what country you are in.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Rightthinker--Why wait? I'll give you my Mefirst privileges and get you head of the line at the airport.

Jamesaust--all your blathering still doesn't addres the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Why do we, as we pretend to differentiate between good and evil by dropping bombs on poor nations, continue to ally ourselves with some of the most oppressive regimes on this planet? Someone please answer that question?

Also, your arguments suggest the U.S. has never engaged in evil or is incapable of evil. That we are the end-all decision maker on what's good and what's evil. That's a pretty big responsibility that requires ABSOLUTE integrity. A task the United States is not up for.

There were no terrorists in FALLUJAH before this war on Iraq. Seems that our dirty little war is creating more evil than we can keep up with.

0

rightthinker 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst, does your name refer to who goes thru the line at Sizzler first? Or did you merely pick that handle to properly reflect your liberal position?

I just am bemused at the blather you guys keep repeating about Bush.

At least Bozo has a little sense of humor.

All I'm saying is this: Based on what the left says, I can only surmise that they chose to have our nation compromised on many different levels. Don't worry, either, we are being "browned" and "dumbed-down" at quite an amazing rate anyway, so just be patient and when/if a Dem gets it in '08, you can quit whining and I'll take some time and decide what other country I should consider moving to.

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 2 months ago

"I learned to believe that there is not ONE right way to live."

I believe that I agree. You comments, however, held as a premise that there is no "bad way" to live (or at least, that it was beyond our reason to identify a "bad way"). This is not that far from Bozo's "no perfect way so all less than perfect ways are equally bad" approach. It is literally a rejection of Western civilization itself, which is founded on the struggle to distinguish good from bad, or perhaps better from worse. I don't believe anyone, other than fundamentalists, believe they have cornered the market on the "ONE right way." That says nothing however about identifying and naming evil as evil (to adopt W's terminology).

While there are certainly marginal cases where it is difficult to balance the risks of taking action versus the risks of doing nothing (and humility dictates that those are the vast majority of situations), I do not believe Iraq was anywhere close to that scenario. Arminius does a good job of documenting the pervasiveness of the threat assessment across partisans and across nations regarding Iraq over the last decade or so. If Iraq could have been trusted to be merely domestically bad, I might have been persuaded otherwise. However, Iraq's international focus on exporting evil prevented that "normal" course of action.

Your approach, I believe, is ultimately nihilistic in that it refuses to make even elementary distinctions among different things.

Finally, I believe your comments on Pakistan are gravely in error: (a) the U.S. has provided (and continues to provide) significant earthquake relief to Pakistan, (b) terrorists were killed in the recent bombings (I didn't know anyone was disputing that point) as well as the civilians the terrorists were hiding among. Much as in Fallujah, I believe "cause" may as fairly be attributed to the terrorists as to anyone.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Bozo--great question!

Hey rightthinker--shut up and think what you're told!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

You spend so much time telling "liberals" what they want and think, you don't seem to have much time to have any actual thoughts or ideas of your own, much less support them in a rational way.

"Have you hugged your strawman today?"

0

rightthinker 8 years, 2 months ago

Here I go again repeating my mantra, based on liberals mantra:

  1. Liberals are so caught up in hating Bush, they can't think straight, leading to;
  2. Liberals want us to lose the war against terrorism because they've translated this hatred for Bush, possibly unintentionally, into hating the America as we know it, which leads people like me to think;
  3. That liberals want the nation of Islam and generally people of Arab persuasion, who wear berkas and diapers on their head, speak Arab, don't allow women to vote or look at men in the eye for that matter, be a much, much larger element of our society. This in turns causes me to think that;
  4. You want us all dead, under opppression or to live as a third world country.

So liberals, come up with just one idea, not a better idea, because you don't have an idea to make better.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

Actually, the "100,000 nonsense" has not been addressed adequately, if what you mean is that it has been discredited. The study found that there is a high probability that between 50,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed in the first several months of the war, and the way these statistical analyses work, that means the 100,000 is the most likely actual number, based on this study.

The conservative count of Iraq Body Count (and which even Bush has used) is around 30,000, and that is based on verifiable media accounts in a conflict in which the media is mostly hunkered down in the green zone or other safe areas. It's not at all inconceivable that 2 out 3 civilians deaths have gone unreported, or are at least not easily confirmed. The low end of 50,000 would appear to be easily supportable.

Since Bush has invoked 9-11 as his primary justification for the invasion, 50,000 dead Iraqis are the equaivalent of 600,000 dead Americans, or 200 9-11's. That easily exceeds the definition of decimation.

And let's not forget that those estimates excluded Falluja even before the latest leveling by US forces. Sure the insurgency had a strong presence there, but you don't solve a hostage situation by blowing up the house where the hostages are being held.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Oh, so we're in Iraq to defend women's rights? I thought we were there because Saddam was a threat to us.

"I could say that those mountain people that need help don't really need any help because who am I to say anybody is in need?"

What's your point? You're not making it very clear.

If we're wanting to protect women's rights, perhaps we should start with one of our biggest allies...Saudi Arabia. Why is it that we choose to ally ourselves with one of the most oppressive, brutal regimes on the planet?

Get off your high horse.

0

craigers 8 years, 2 months ago

mefirst, our culture might not be the best mix in other countries but your relativist view doesn't make their culture of denying rights to so many and life in fear right. I could say that those mountain people that need help don't really need any help because who am I to say anybody is in need? Just because that is how I would feel in that situation doesn't mean they feel the same. If you are going to embrace relativism then embrace it full on. Personally it is wrong no matter where you are to treat women disgracefully and have to live in fear of dying for not agreeing with those in charge. This happened under Saddam's rule. I guess by not acting in the way we did, then we would have been approving. Sometimes simply ignoring an issue is endorsing it.

0

boltzmann 8 years, 2 months ago

Speaking of headlines...

I just looked at the CNN website and the headline is

"Bush urges end to cartoon violence"

Bugs Bunny beware.....

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Jamesaust--I sometimes wish I could see the world through an egocentric lense. Life must be a helluva lot easier that way.

But, unfortunately, I have a tendency to try to see life from another's perspective. I'm too much of a cultural relativist, I guess. Perhaps that comes from world travel and immersion in other cultures. I learned to believe that there is not ONE right way to live. American life is not the best way of life. It's good, sure, but that's coming from an American perspective.

I just cannot reconcile bombing the poorest people on the planet into submission. Another approach might yield better results. Let's imagine...

There are so many people in Pakistan who are suffering from that devastating earthquake that happened last year. But what do we do? Rather than help, we drop a bomb on a village of poor people in Pakistan because we suspect terrorists are hiding out. Oops! No terrorists...just a bunch of innocent poor folks, struggling to survive. Imagine what good could have been done if we'd taken the money that paid for the bomb, the aircraft, and the pilots' salaries, and helped rebuild the lives of those Pakistanis struggling in the mountains?

"Are we going to push our values on everyone else"? Yes, to the extent necessary for us to be able to live according to our values. James---what values are we trying to force onto these people? What are our values?

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 2 months ago

I believe the killed more than 100,000 foolishness has been addressed adequately elsewhere. Baghdad of course cannot be described as "leveled" although that might be an apt description of Fallujah although I would not say "we" did that but rather the other foreign occupying army.

I note your nihilistic views but I decline to adopt them. Instead, I take an approach that says if madmen gain power and tell you their evil designs it is best to take them at their word. Unlike, say the Vietnam war, where abandoning the fight meant the restoration of peace (at least for the coward), we could rest assured that Ho Chi Minh had no intention of pursing our people back to America and destroying them there as well. The present conflict does not share that luxury.

"Are we going to push our values on everyone else"? Yes, to the extent necessary for us to be able to live according to our values. Goodness, I certainly wish the everyone would live up to our values (heck, I'd smile if even we lived up to our values) but the realist in me will settle for the minimum necessary to preserve my own freedom. As someone asked me just this morning: "How does Iran effect me here in the U.S. in 2006?" My answer: no more than al-Qaeda in 2000, or Germany in 1940.

Does might make right? Certainly not. But it is surprising how often right makes might.

0

mefirst 8 years, 2 months ago

Speakout--I agree wholeheartedly. The people who find Muslims and their "detestable, violent" ways are the same people who want to be over there, with weapons and bombs trying to force democracy on them.

You can't have it both ways, people. Leave them to their beliefs, their culture, their religion.

These caricatures first appeared in September of 2005. The protests only recently began after several other European papers reprinted the caricatures in a show of "solidarity," to reinforce free speech. They're just stirring the hive. Provoking these people.

0

Speakout 8 years, 2 months ago

Well Jamesaust, so a few extremist Muslims chop the heads off a few westerners. Our elected president bombed and destroyed a country killing more than 100,000 innocents. Isn't that more terror than a few reporters if you look at it from the eyes of the survivors of those attacks? We leveled Baghdad and destroyed Fallujah, and many other great and historic cities. What is the point? Should we keep this terrorism going? We do it to them, then they do it to us? Is this what you want? You have no respect for Muslims and that is why they have no respect for you.

A few always lead the many: ie, Bush and his country or Bin Laden and his terrorists. What is the difference? We have bigger bombs so that makes us right? We want them to have our kind of freedom, so that makes it right? Are we going to push our values on everyone else in the world who can't fight us back? "Might makes right" is the kind of thinking Hitler and Stalin had.

0

Jamesaust 8 years, 2 months ago

It seems that if you insult anyone these days, they get upset at you. Go figure.

There certainly is some degree of double-standard: anti-semitism seems quite virilent in the Muslim world. Of course, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I caught some Muslim cleric from Europe on CNN talking about these cartoons as "obscenity." I can think of few more obscenities greater than killing innocents and chopping off head all in the name of God.

Re the "lack of leadership" in these countries - I don't agree. It seems to me that there is quite a lot of leadership - leadership by those who wish to distract the masses with 'red meat' issues so they ignore basic indicators of economics, liberty, and safety (a tactic that should sound familiar to anyone familiar with modern American politics).

0

Speakout 8 years, 2 months ago

As a person who has been to the Muslim world as a visitor and advisor, I find that most of the reponses here are just as degrading and inexcusable as the reaction some of the Muslims have made to these ridculous cartoons.

The Muslim world as a whole is not violent, but there are some who are. Yes the Koran is being misquoted by people of both sides.

From my study of Islam for the last 40 years, I find that Muhammad himself would have dismissed these cartoons as ignorance as to who he really was. He would have been the FIRST to stop this violence and he would have been very unhappy at those who rioted. As the clergy in the Muslim world have indicated, the violence is totally against the principals of Islam. But, I for one, believe that the leaders of the riots are the same ones we are fighting to stop terrorism.

I suggest that we in the West leave the Muslim world alone and let them live their "ignorant" ways. Why must we push our values down their throats? To them their ways and to us, ours.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

What would you call an all-out invasion and occupation of Iraq, if not a "violent tendency"?

0

craigers 8 years, 2 months ago

The riots just prove the point that Muslims have violent tendencies. I am not saying all Muslims but they obviously have large sects that just react in a violent manner anytime their faith is attacked. So much for the whole Muslim is a peaceful religion and the writings of Muhammad are just mis-interpreted.

0

crono 8 years, 2 months ago

The ADL's response to comments it doesn't like seems to be countering one group's freedom of speech by exercising their own freedom of speech.

The response of these rioting Muslims seems to be countering one group's freedom of speech by denying their right to free speech.

As Westerners in a democracy, we must affirm the former, rather than the latter, as the appropriate response. And I believe it is not going too far (especially given the deaths and loss that have occurred because of these riots) that the Muslim world ought to change to this worldview as well.

0

awoc 8 years, 2 months ago

I am not a "casual reader" and I believe that these riots indicate a serious lack of leadership in the Muslim world.

0

75x55 8 years, 2 months ago

So, when does 'caricature' become accurate reporting? Seems to have happened in this case.

0

Pilgrim 8 years, 2 months ago

Yup. I wonder if having "hell to pay" at the hands of his buddy's small town anti-defamation league includes rioting in the streets and arson or other criminal activities. Ken needs a serious dose of perspective.

0

Jane 8 years, 2 months ago

There is something seriously wrong with the men of Islam. There is also something seriously wrong with Ken if he thinks that these 'cartoons' should not have been printed. Consider it 'art' in the newspaper. How many embassies, synagogs, churches, etc were torched by Christians after the 'art' depicting the crucifix in a glass of urine? How about after the movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ'? Get real Ken. Islam's followers ARE violent, radical, and anti-western. If you don't believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press then you are in the wrong country.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.