Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

43
Letters
Thursday, February 9, 2006 12:00 AM

All cartoon politics are local

Muslim outrage reflects specific national conflicts -- most of them exacerbated by Bush's policies.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 06:15 AM

Juan Cole's Article

Mr. Cole's article is the writings of a wannabie eurocommie. Please, we have enough "dhimmies" here already. Like what Jan Guillou wrote: freedom of expression is universial and does'nt need any protection. Hello! Religion is one of man's greatest plagues, if you ask me.

Thursday, February 16, 2006 06:37 PM

Why defend anybody?

This is a compelling hypothesis, the overall message of which I can’t disagree with (that local politics are a major factor in these protests). However, some questions arise with regard to some of the statements made, and I don’t know the answers:

1) “But the tempest did not arise out of nowhere. Muslim anger has been greatly heightened by the widespread belief that at best the West has treated the Islamic world unjustly and at worst launched a war against it.” Did the original publishing of the cartoons arise out of the widespread belief that the Islamic world has treated the rest of the world unjustly (destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan, suicide bombings, 9/11)? Not to confuse the Islamic world with terrorists, but KFC should not be confused with a Danish newspaper.

2) “Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence,” India spent the past ten centuries under European and even more tyrannical Islamic rule with the exception of a couple of rulers Does this justify any wrongdoings against Muslims in India or the British? Why isn't Indian in absolute upheaval right now?

I don’t think either side is justified, there are no winners, and there are no involved players here worth defending. The West has its own goals and doesn’t seem to care about Muslims and may treat them poorly. But the Muslims have their own goals and don’t seem to care about anybody but themselves. If they were in power in the world, they would certainly be ruthless and maybe more so given their apparent attitude against tolerance.

Monday, February 13, 2006 07:43 AM

Am I the only one...

...who sees the subtext of paternalism in articles like this?

The premise seems to be twofold: Excuses for Muslim violence explained as "anger" against Western "oppression" and Western foreign policy coupled with the smirking notion that we really can't expect people this subhuman to be rational, or to behave in a civilized fashion, nudge nudge, wink wink. Unfortunately, too many Muslim extremists play right into this stereotype.

For Muslim grievances to be taken and heard seriously, the violence must stop. All that is achieved by yet another bombing, beheading or violent protest is the confirmation of Muslim barbarity and subhumanness for the rest of the world. So long as violence continues to be the primary reaction for every offense, nobody will be interested in hearing even the legitimate grievances of Muslims.

Lots of people get angry about lots of things, rational and not, but most of us don't go around burning buildings every time we get pissed off about something. The violence is not excusable.

As for Denmark, if I were a member of government, I'd be stopping all aid of any kind to the Middle East so long as the protests continue. You don't like freedom of speech, and want the government to control the press? OK, we don't like your knee-jerk violence, so we'll give our money somewhere else.

Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:03 AM

The two demonstrations at Grønland Torg, Oslo saturday the eleventh of february

A demonstration with gender separation islamic style. Against the norwegian law dating back to 1814, the freedom of free expression. Mennfolk are worth more camels than women. So therefor the women gatered with their slogans in the back of the march. I went down there. I hoped the islam people would follow their Imam's(who got cold feet) advice and drop the demo. But no. They did'nt. What I saw made me sad and pissed off! It was outrageous! Do I live in the same dimension as these islamic people? They are demonstrating on the behalf of brutal tyranies no better that nazigermany or stalins soviet union. Against their new countrymen who have taken them in with open arms. Have'nt they payed attention in one singel lesson since they came here? Did'nt bother to learn norwegian? Cashed in their generous social benefit cheque? This smell like fifth colonialism. I have seen the norwegian socialist prime minister on tv - bevildered, trying to talk about common ground, to blame editors of the danish and norwegian newspapers for this mess. Trying to uphold the image of Norway as a peacekeeping and peaceloving nation. But you can see it in his flickering eyes - he knows something is absolutely wrong.

After what I have learned about islam and seen of its practise I am on safe ground when I say that the vikings in the 8th century where far more modern in democracy, women rights, justice for all given by law than these muslims following their 5th century warrior profet these days. Let's call him the BIG FAT FILTHY PIG MOHAMMED! So can you, sad angry muslim, burn my flag and blow me up in thousand pieces! my name is mads oppegaard and I am not afraid saying what I got on my heart as long I AM FOLLOWING GOOD MANNERS!

Got it?

Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:12 PM

My Two Cents

When I started reading the article, I was immediately frustrated with the "history lesson", and what did appear to be apologetics. Yes it's probably true that some of the leaders in the middle east are blowing up the controversy so that they can benefit politically in their own country. But I agree with the other writers that the article lacked an appropriate condemnation of the riots & violence. It was like we were being told that it is always up to the West to "understand" the Muslim world, while there is no expectation of understanding on the other side.

So what if it is forbidden in Islam to create images of the Prophet Mohammed. The rest of the world is not obligatged or bound to abide by the rules of Islam. The West values free speech and nobody is exempt. If a Christian blew up an abortion clinic and then publicly proclaimed that s/he was inspred by Jesus to do this, there would be no end to the editorials about the hypocracy, and I'm sure there would be a few cartoons to back it up - and rightly so. There have been many irreverent images of Jesus in the arts and pop culture, and Christians are expected to just suck it up.

If Muslims don't want to be satirized, then perhaps they should stop behaving like their stereotype. It would also help if they would stop invoking Islam and the words of the Prophet as their inspiration and motivation for every riot, burning, bomb, and beheading.

Most Active Letters Threads

530

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
408

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
332

Palin: Birthers have "fair question" about Obama

Of Obama birth, the ex-governor says, "the public is still, rightfully, making it an issue" (Updated)
128

Is my kids making me not smart?

Stay-at-home fatherhood dulls my intellect to a nub. Excuse me while I ponder the subtext of "Hippos Go Berserk"
126

Trig, the anti-abortion straw baby

Sarah Palin's son is being used to demonize pro-choicers

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon