Loonytunes...

[Mastrogiacomo]

Received this in an e-mail tonight. Sad how true it is....


OUTRAGED MUSLIMS! OH MY!

Friday (yahoo!) -- February 3, 2006


We wake up this morning to see video on CNN showing rampaging Muslims around the world. In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim ... Muslim Mobs spreading mayhem. It seems that these mighty mad Muslims are rioting and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because of cartoons. Yup ... this latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons depicting Mohammed.


Admit it, this turban/bomb thing could be the next big fashion hit on the Muslim street!


Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:
· Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
· A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
· Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

· Muslims blow up 3 commuter trains in Madrid killing and injuring scores of innocent people going to work in Madrid, Spain; 3 days before the General Elections. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder more 200 innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
· Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
· Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.



Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.



Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.



I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they [the majority] become outraged?



When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule?



Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"
Indeed. Why aren’t they?

 

[fisherman66]

Well put!

 

[fisherman66]

Here is a report I subscribe to. You may find it intersting.
_________________________________________

The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments
By George Friedman

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't help but open with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare. Nonetheless, there is something exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark -- which has made a national religion of not being offensive to anyone -- could become the focal point of Muslim rage. The sight of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being burned in Damascus -- and Scandinavians in general being warned to leave Islamic countries -- has an aura of the surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark or Norway. Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes and Norwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney. History has its interesting moments.

At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The explosion in the Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by a minor Danish newspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in September -- has, remarkably, redefined the geopolitical matrix of the U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be more precise, it has set in motion something that appears to be redefining that matrix. We do not mean here simply a clash of civilizations, although that is undoubtedly part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamic world and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways.

Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is a prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed. There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by these cartoons.

It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.

The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his resignation.)

In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants.

These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics.

In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims -- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against European states.

One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that each side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught up in the war, the tension between the United States and Europe has been a critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split and the Sunni-Shiite split. It is, paradoxically, an affair that unifies as well as divides.

The Fissures in the West

It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" -- there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that generally has been taken to be the European position. More precisely, there is the elite Franco-German position that The New York Times refers to whenever it mentions "Europe." That is the Europe that we mean now.

In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted to 9/11. Apart from the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that the United States failed to appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation within the Islamic world and, by reshaping its relations with the Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed, this view goes, the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and added unnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European criticisms -- particularly from the French -- was the view that American cowboy insensitivity to the Muslim world not only increased the danger after 9/11, but effectively precipitated 9/11. From excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt and Jordan, the United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was the result of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the United States -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over the top.

Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United States, but also did not involve a state decision. The decision to publish the offending cartoons was that of a Danish private citizen. The Islamic response has been to hold the entire state responsible. As the cartoons were republished, it was not the publications printing them that were viewed as responsible, but the states in which they were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in EU offices at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe.

From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans an argument that the Bush administration has been making from the beginning -- that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be triggered by anything or nothing. European states cannot control what private publications publish. That means that, like it or not, they are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, is not under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of the United States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune to the threat than the Americans are.

This combines with the Paris riots last November and the generally deteriorating relationships between Muslims in Europe and the dominant populations. The pictures of demonstrators in London, threatening the city with another 9/11, touch extremely sensitive nerves. It becomes increasingly difficult for Europeans to distinguish between their own relationship with the Islamic world and the American relationship with the Islamic world. A sense of shared fate emerges, driving the Americans and Europeans closer together. At a time when pressing issues like Iranian nuclear weapons are on the table, this increases Washington's freedom of action. Put another way, the Muslim strategy of splitting the United States and Europe -- and using Europe to constrain the United States -- was heavily damaged by the Muslim response to the cartoons.

 

[fisherman66]

Part II

The Intra-Ummah Divide

But so too was the split between Sunni and Shia. Tensions between these two communities have always been substantial. Theological differences aside, both international friction and internal friction have been severe. The Iran-Iraq war, current near-civil war in Iraq, tensions between Sunnis and Shia in the Gulf states, all point to the obvious: These two communities are, while both Muslim, mistrustful of one another. Shiite Iran has long viewed Sunni Saudi Arabia as the corrupt tool of the United States, while radical Sunnis saw Iran as collaborating with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cartoons are the one thing that both communities -- not only in the Middle East but also in the wider Muslim world -- must agree about. Neither side can afford to allow any give in this affair and still hope to maintain any credibility in the Islamic world. Each community -- and each state that is dominated by one community or another -- must work to establish (or maintain) its Islamic credentials. A case in point is the violence against Danish and Norwegian diplomatic offices in Syria (and later, in Lebanon and Iran) -- which undoubtedly occurred with Syrian government involvement. Syria is ruled by Alawites, a Shiite sect. Syria -- aligned with Iran -- is home to a major Sunni community; there is another in Lebanon. The cartoons provided what was essentially a secular regime the opportunity to take the lead in a religious matter, by permitting the attacks on the embassies. This helped consolidate the regime's position, however temporarily.

Indeed, the Sunni and Shiite communities appear to be competing with each other as to which is more offended. The Shiite Iranian-Syrian bloc has taken the lead in violence, but the Sunni community has been quite vigorous as well. The cartoons are being turned into a test of authenticity for Muslims. To the degree that Muslims are prepared to tolerate or even move past this issue, they are being attacked as being willing to tolerate the Prophet's defamation. The cartoons are forcing a radicalization of parts of the Muslim community that are uneasy with the passions of the moment.

Beneficiaries on Both Sides

The processes under way in the West and within the Islamic world are naturally interacting. The attacks on embassies, and threats against lives, that are based on nationality alone are radicalizing the Western perspective of Islam. The unwillingness of Western governments to punish or curtail the distribution of the cartoons is taken as a sign of the real feelings of the West. The situation is constantly compressing each community, even as they are divided.

One might say that all this is inevitable. After all, what other response would there be, on either side? But this is where the odd part begins: The cartoons actually were published in September, and -- though they drew some complaints, even at the diplomatic level -- didn't come close to sparking riots. Events unfolded slowly: The objections of a Muslim cleric in Denmark upon the initial publication by Jyllands-Posten eventually prompted leaders of the Islamic Faith Community to travel to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December, purposely "to stir up attitudes against Denmark and the Danes" in response to the cartoons. As is now obvious, attitudes have certainly been stirred.

There are beneficiaries. It is important to note here that the fact that someone benefits from something does not mean that he was responsible for it. (We say this because in the past, when we have noted the beneficiaries of an event or situation, the not-so-bright bulbs in some quarters took to assuming that we meant the beneficiaries deliberately engineered the event.)

Still, there are two clear beneficiaries. One is the United States: The cartoon affair is serving to further narrow the rift between the Bush administration's view of the Islamic world and that of many Europeans. Between the Paris riots last year, the religiously motivated murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark" campaign, European patience is wearing thin. The other beneficiary is Iran. As Iran moves toward a confrontation with the United States over nuclear weapons, this helps to rally the Muslim world to its side: Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam, and Sunnis who have raised questions about its flirtations with the United States in Iraq are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against Europe.

The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States. They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult.

It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but these are.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

 

[jcoiii]

Just wanted to add this link from Fox News. At least one Muslim group got on the news denouncing this violence

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184184,00.html

 

[BillCA]

A few different radio programs and some callers to those programs with Euro and middle-eastern experience have pointed out that there were originally only 10 cartoons published last September ... and in an Arab language newspaper to boot. No outcries or outrages followed. Between September and January 2 new caricatures appeared, one of them is supposedly a heavily photoshopped image of an Arabic man morphed into a pig. Reportedly, it was a pair of Imans who created the 2 new images with which to outrage Muslim leaders and stir up the pot.

I have no proof, but am offering the above as potential information that has been broadcast on at least 2 networks.

Also, I am appalled at most network commentaries about the Muslim call for others to be sensitive to their religion and/or rules -- such as depicting images of Mohammad. None of them point out that Muslims feel no such need to be "sensitive" to Christianity, Buhddism, Lutherans or any other religion. In fact, many Muslims will tell you that there are no other religions besides Islam. Thus they are free to insult, ridicule, mock and blaspheme any of the world's religions because they really don't exist.

Tolerance that is one-way isn't tolerance, it's tryanny.

 

[Wildcard]

I am waiting for the next installment of cartoons .



While I am sure there are many, many muslims that denounce the rampage that is going on due to these cartoons, you just dont hear them. Except the link that jcoiii provided (thanks for posting another view of this situation).

If you dont get angry becasue some fools behead someone in the name of your religion (Islam), why would cartoons set you off? Have to wonder.

 

[GlocksRfun]

Good post. sad story. I'm not sure where I heard this, but supposedly OBL said this ... "Americans love life, We love death".. I remember that being longer,.. Not sure who he meant by "we".... draw your own conclusions. I really wish I could remember where I heard that. that's gonna drive me crazy.. on TV, Maybe the show Shootout on the history channel... I took my TV to Brothers house for "the game" and was to late to have him help me get it back home. I work 2nd shift, he works 1st and is married with children. I haven't had a functional TV at home all this week, so I haven't seen it first hand, but I've heard about it... I have been on hear quit a bit with no TV.

Sorry. but he is

 

[Wildcard]

I'm not sure where I heard this, but supposedly OBL's bitch ass said this

Please dont get this thread closed. We can, and need to debate this.

 

[JagMP]

Just found this article on Yahoo. Now they are directing their anger towards the United States over the cartoons because the U.S. is

"is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_142;_ylt=Av4bEf3wedf.aCktgCyb78HbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[fisherman66]

"is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.

...a victim of poor marksmanship.

Who is "they" btw?

 

[JagMP]

Sorry by "they" I was referencing the title of the article:

"Cartoon Protesters Direct Anger at U.S."

So whoever the Cartoon Protesters are would be considered as "they"

 

[fisherman66]

Gotcha

I have a natural fear of pronouns. Pronophobia (not to be confused with pornophobia.)

 

[Gary Conner]

Quote from article posted by Fisherman 66:

"Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes and Norwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney."

Why would Dick Cheney's friends deserve death threats, and in what manner have they conducted themselves, in order to be compared to Mad Dogs?

Exactly what did they do to deserve it?

Disagree with, and try to halt terrorists that want to destroy the United States?

Commit horrible acts of engaging in capitalism, and becoming financially successful?

Insist upon decent language on television?

 

[Derius_T]

Like my grandpa used to say, give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

This is just one more thing that shows these muslim extremists for what they really are. Fanatical killers with absolutely no respect for anyone but themselves. Period. Eventually they will keep acting like murderous savages, and even the most bleeding-heart person will see them for what they are. Dangerous mad dogs that need to be put to sleep. For the good of all men. Especially peaceful muslims who are being grouped in with these lunatics.

 

[Redworm]

Especially peaceful muslims who are being grouped in with these lunatics.

I know that some people will rail on me for "apologizing" for the acts of muslims extremists but my only worry is that people will forget that the group you mentioned actually do exist.

Kinda reminds me of that stain on US history with the internment camps. Back then everyone thought all Japanese were evil and wanted to destroy western civilization and thus Americans became POWs in their own country. It just seems that people are looking at Muslims the exact same way these days and it seems that there are many people who would gladly toss American Muslims in camps for the very same reasons.

 

[carbiner]

I don't think the camps are a stain on America at all. The Japanese asked for trouble and they got it!

 

[fisherman66]

I don't think the camps are a stain on America at all. The Japanese asked for trouble and they got it!

I just got an auto flamer. All I have to do is push a button and it generates a paragraph of pure obnoxiousness. I think it's time to give it a try.

I notice that you never let an idea interrupt the flow of your posts. Clearly, the full area of your ignorance is not yet mapped. We are presently only exploring the fringes of that vast expanse. However, I'll consider letting you have the last word if you guarantee it will be your last. To quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

You light up a room when you leave it. No doubt your life is so dull, that you can actually write your diary one week in advance. Any friend of yours is a lousy judge of character. Seriously, I've come across decomposing dog carcases that are less offensive to the senses than you are. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if you weren't intellectually outclassed by dead sheep; if your weren't so fat that the elephants throw you peanuts at your local Zoo, or if your face wasn't the strongest form of natural contraception available. No, come to think of it, you would.

Please try to have some small idea of what in the hell you're talking about before you try to post again.

Wow, that was a bit rougher than I imagined. I guess I need to adjust the system setting to have something just a little more "watered down".

 

[carbiner]

Typical liberal response! When 5 year olds fail to hold up an arguement they just have a tiff and call you stupid.

 

[fisherman66]

I don't think the camps are a stain on America at all. The Japanese asked for trouble and they got it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment

62% of the detainese were citizens of the US. They were of Japanese decent, but they were also CITIZENS of the US! Yeah, they asked for it.

I've adjusted the setting on the "Flamer". Here are the latest results.

Your post is a tedious, homogenised, chameleon-esque scribble which amounts to nothing more than the demented cacophonous racket of a drugged lunatic banging loudly on kitchen pots and pans. Try learning elementary grammar before attempting to inflict your next literary abomination on this message board.

If your brain matter was axle grease, there wouldn't be enough in your head to grease the dynamo on a lightening bug's ass. Clearly, the full area of your ignorance is not yet mapped. We are presently only exploring the fringes of that vast expanse. Well, you're certainly thoughtless; I just wish that you were keyboard-less, too. I am reminded of something relevant that Benjamin Disraeli said: "He was distinguished for ignorance - for he had only one idea and that was wrong."

You are about as entertaining as watching grass grow in a windowbox. What do you do for a living? You are living, aren't you? You have the warm personal charm of a millipede and about as much class as a bucket of mucous lodged on top of a dumpster in a Blue Light district of New Jersey. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if you weren't so stupid that even single-celled organisms out score you in IQ tests; if the chief excitement in your meaningless life wasn't spotting people who are fatter than you are, or if you didn't have a face that makes Medusa look like a supermodel. Who am I kidding? You would.

In closing, why don't you put your glasses on backwards and walk into yourself?