Let's eliminate the misconceptions about Jyllands-Posten

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

So they should stop trying to pretend that they are oh so innocent. "Oh we were just trying to break the taboo against depicting the prophet Mohammad. Oh we didn't mean any harm or insult. We weren't trying to cause damage." Oh course they were. That's the entire point of the type of brutal satire in those cartoons - to insult, incite and shock. It's not exactly playful friendly humour. Doesn't excuse the Muslim overreaction but the "Oh I didn't mean to offend" cries of the newspaper are complete bullfeathers. Just admit it - they were trying to incite and insult the Muslim community. They chose the cartoons deliberately to do this. Under free speech they have the right. But they were still trying to insult the religion.

You find satires in newspapers about everything.

And perhaps it wasn't out to insult, but to prove a point?

 

[Uiler]

Oh you mean the ones depicting Mohammad as a terrorist with his turban as a bomb? There is another one with him carrying a sabre and eyes blacked out looking like he's going to go for your throat. And the one with two devil like horns. You see, unlike you I've actually *seen* the cartoons.

As for the ones you pointed out - as I said, not *all* the cartoons were insulting. They chose 12 out of 40. Some were insulting, some were not. Ergo, they deliberately chose to put the insulting ones in.

I recognise bullfeathers when I see it.

Useful link: Jyllands-Posten's open letter in English.


Oh, I don't know, maybe the same way everyone defends themselves when equating Jesus and Christians with {hypocrisy, bigotry, conservatism, homophobia, misogyny, genocide, persecution, stupidity, oppression, lies}. If you want a more explicit answer, ask CurtSibling how he can justify himself.
And let not forget this, either: The Arab World routinely depicts Jews in the same fashion and worse.


Find me a source, then, or preferably two, because this one tells a different story:I don't see any "selection of the most offensive cartoons" here. They called forty caricaturists; twelve of them answered; twelve cartoons got published.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Oh, I don't know, maybe the same way everyone defends themselves when equating Jesus and Christians with {hypocrisy, bigotry, conservatism, homophobia, misogyny, genocide, persecution, stupidity, oppression, lies}. If you want a more explicit answer, ask CurtSibling how he can justify himself.
And let not forget this, either: The Arab World routinely depicts Jews in the same fashion and worse.

None of this even begins to amount to a justification. If Arab newspapers depict Jews in a similar fashion then they should be (and routinely are) condemned. Generalisations like this are wrong, whether they apply to Muslims, Jews, Danes or Christians.

 

[Verbose]

They "chose" nothing. They invited 12 artists to draw pictures of Mohammed. Insofar as any cartoon in a newspaper can ever be considered normal, these were normal.

The lingering suspiscion is that this is what's normal in Denmark.

 

[Aramazd]

I know. What's your point?

That's why Muslims are sensitive about this issue.

 

[Gibsie]

You find satires in newspapers about everything.

And perhaps it wasn't out to insult, but to prove a point?

If they were out to prove a point, they could've drawn pictures of Mohammed in an entirely flattering point, and then drawn conclusions about Muslim reaction in a more controlled and fair manner. As it is, they insulted Islam in about the worst way possible (Perhaps short of drawing Allah as a giant pig), which clearly was not a good idea.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Oh you mean the ones depicting Mohammad as a terrorist with his turban as a bomb? There is another one with him carrying a sabre and eyes blacked out looking like he's going to go for your throat. And the one with two devil like horns. You see, unlike you I've actually *seen* the cartoons.

As for the ones you pointed out - as I said, not *all* the cartoons were insulting. They chose 12 out of 40. Some were insulting, some were not. Ergo, they deliberately chose to put the insulting ones in.

I recognise bullfeathers when I see it.

Ah, so now you're making untrue assumption about what I have and have not done? Hint: When I quote the Wikipedia article with the cartoons at the top, it's a fairly safe bet that I've seen them. So please retract your accusation. I'm perfectly aware that some of the cartoons are more offensive than others; I snipped the list down to those two in order to rebut your accusation that the newspaper specifically put the insulting ones in; something they obviously did not when those two are so bland.

Let me sum up again my previous post, which I *read*, unlike you, you see.

• The newspaper contacted 40 caricaturists
• 12 of the caricaturists answered with a cartoon
• The newspaper printed all the cartoons they received
• Ergo, the newspaper did not select the most offensive 12 of 40, because there never were 40 cartoons.

After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to [draw Muhammed], twelve different caricaturists chose to respond.

None of this even begins to amount to a justification. If Arab newspapers depict Jews in a similar fashion then they should be (and routinely are) condemned. Generalisations like this are wrong, whether they apply to Muslims, Jews, Danes or Christians.

I'm not justifying it that way. I'm pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy inherent in drawing the Jews as scorpions, snakes and spiders, then rioting and burning down embassies when someone draws you in the same way.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If they were out to prove a point, they could've drawn pictures of Mohammed in an entirely flattering point, and then drawn conclusions about Muslim reaction in a more controlled and fair manner. As it is, they insulted Islam in about the worst way possible (Perhaps short of drawing Allah as a giant pig), which clearly was not a good idea.

*waves hand*
This is the archive you are looking for.

 

[Gibsie]

Okay Erik, thank you. You've just proved that non-offensive pictures of Mohammed don't result in riots and mass hysteria. However, portraying Mohammed as an evil terrorist does result in outrage. This just makes it seem even more likely that Jyllands-Posten knew what they were doing.

 

[Uiler]

Yes, the point was to insult the Muslims as much as possible to provoke a reaction. That's what this type of brutal satire is for. To *provoke*. If they just wanted to make a point about the taboo just showing the face would be enough. To choose the most insulting pictures possible was a deliberate choice and the only reason to do so would be to provoke. It is so obvious.

"So, what are you going to do about it? Huh? Huh? You can't do anything because this country is Danish not Islamic and we have *free speech*. So there, face facts. "

Probably expecting a few telephoned death threats, maybe a small mob or two outside their offices which they can use to make more editorials about the Muslim threat and the intolerance of the Muslim community. Everything would blow over in a couple of weeks and they got a few editions out of it. Come on, that's how the media works. What they weren't expecting was,

"Oh, you just burnt down our embassies and I think you hate our country just as much as America. Unfortunately we don't have the military or economic power of America to face this threat."

They expected the Muslims to behave like savages, but tamed savages which the forces of the West could easily keep in check and protect them from. That the Muslims were only focused on Israel and America. That they wouldn't dare to do anything. They chose unwisely. As have the Muslims too because they did prove the newspaper right about intolerance and have painted themselves blacker and blacker with each day.

But as I said, I think that this a conflict is long overdue and was just looking for a spark to set it off. The tensions have been there for a very long time and have only gotten worse.

You find satires in newspapers about everything.

And perhaps it wasn't out to insult, but to prove a point?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Okay Erik, thank you. You've just proved that non-offensive pictures of Mohammed don't result in riots and mass hysteria. However, portraying Mohammed as an evil terrorist does result in outrage. This just makes it seem even more likely that Jyllands-Posten knew what they were doing.

You didn't look at the bottom of the archive, did you?

Satirical Modern Cartoons

A few contemporary cartoonists have ignored any potential threats and created satirical and/or mocking cartoons about Mohammed.


The caption says, in French:
Mohammed (being carried away by devils): "It is a judicial error! I am Mohammed, the prophet!"
St. Peter (with a scimitar through his chest): "Definitely: GUILTY!"

In 1997, an Israeli woman named Tatiana Soskin drew this caricature of Mohammed as a pig authoring the Koran and tried to display it in public in the city of Hebron. She was arrested, tried and sentenced to jail.
(Hat tip: helloworld.)

In 2002, political cartoonist Doug Marlette published this drawing of Mohammed driving a truck with a nuclear bomb.
(Hat tip: Thomas G.)

In 2002, the French publication Charlie Hebdo ran this panel by cartoonist Cabu. The sign translates as "Election of Miss Sack-of-Potatoes, organized by Mohammed," who chooses his favorite while drinking and smoking.
(Hat tip: Etienne P.)

For great fun:

islamcomicbook.org


Uiler, would you mind top-quoting so one can read the thread in the natural order of both posts and texts? Thank you.

 

[Uiler]

No, you were trying to use the two most innocuous ones to "prove" that all the cartoons were not insulting. Just because some of them weren't insulting doesn't mean that all of them weren't. In fact the fact that some of them weren't meant that they could have easily achieved the "claimed" aim of breaking the taboo just by showing the not insulting ones. So in leads further credance to the fact that they deliberatly chose to put the insulting ones in. They had a chose and they chose unwisely.

As for your claim that they did not "choose". That's so naive and stupid I have no idea how to answer. Of course, every newspaper "chooses" what to pictures to put in. No-one puts a gun to their head and say "You must put these pictures into the newspaper". Of course they chose to put them in. Just like all of the major US papers have "chosen" not to put them. Or like the BBC "chose" to show some of them but not all of them. Or like I think was the CNN "chose" to only show part of one.

Everyone keeps on saying this is a free press. Of course it is, and in a free press, the newspaper *always* chooses what pictures to put in. Otherwise it wouldn't be a free press in the first place. This is the definition of a free press. That the press can *choose* without interference what to put in or what not to put in. Do you understand the definition of a free press?

Ah, so now you're making untrue assumption about what I have and have not done? Hint: When I quote the Wikipedia article with the cartoons at the top, it's a fairly safe bet that I've seen them. So please retract your accusation. I'm perfectly aware that some of the cartoons are more offensive than others; I snipped the list down to those two in order to rebut your accusation that the newspaper specifically put the insulting ones in; something they obviously did not when those two are so bland.

Let me sum up again my previous post, which I *read*, unlike you, you see.

• The newspaper contacted 40 caricaturists
• 12 of the caricaturists answered with a cartoon
• The newspaper printed all the cartoons they received
• Ergo, the newspaper did not select the most offensive 12 of 40, because there never were 40 cartoons.

I'm not justifying it that way. I'm pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy inherent in drawing the Jews as scorpions, snakes and spiders, then rioting and burning down embassies when someone draws you in the same way.

 

[ironduck]

Here are the cartoons:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/Mo_Cartoons.jpg

Most of them cannot possibly be said to depict Muhammad as a terrorist.

The first one is completely neutral.

The second seems to show a halo, but apparently some interpret it as horns? He looks very peaceful.

The third one uses the muslim symbols of the star and crescent, it seems more of a symbolic Muhammad than anything.

The fourth is a dig of Muhammad as a warrior and criminal and the suppression of women that takes place in many muslim countries (my interpretation).

The fifth is very light hearted, even though people may take offense.

The sixth does not depict Muhammad the prophet, but rather a school student, and it satirizes the newspaper, not muslims.

The seventh is a description of the current situation where people are afraid to publish pictures of Muhammad.

The eigth pokes fun of the domestic situation and includes a danish racist politician, a hippie, Jesus, Buddha, and the author of the book who was looking for illustrators.

The ninth 'the crazy prophet who suppresses women' does not depict Muhammad, but rather the suppression of women under islam.

The tenth depicts Muhammad trying to calm down the fundamentalist muslims who are about to go on a rampage because of the drawings.

The eleventh is the one that is always circulated - it shows Muhammad about to explode - it certainly depicts fundamentalist muslims very well. Obviously this is the drawing that has caused the most outrage. Compared to other satirical cartoons I've seen of other things it's quite tame.

The twelfth shows the author of the book landing an orange in his turban (meaning a stroke of luck) symbolized as a PR stunt , holding a stick drawing of Muhammad.

All in all, most of these drawings can hardly be said to be particularly offensive towards Muhammad.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

As for your claim that they did not "choose". That's so naive and stupid I have no idea how to answer. Of course, every newspaper "chooses" what to pictures to put in. No-one puts a gun to their head and say "You must put these pictures into the newspaper". Of course they chose to put them in. Just like all of the major US papers have "chosen" not to put them. Or like the BBC "chose" to show some of them but not all of them. Or like I think was the CNN "chose" to only show part of one.

Stop twisting my words. You accused the newspaper of choosing the twelve most insulting cartoons out of forty. I wasn't talking about the choice of whether or not to publish pictures at all.

They chose 12 out of 40. Some were insulting, some were not. Ergo, they deliberately chose to put the insulting ones in.

 

[Uiler]

Stop twisting *my* words. I *never* said that all twelve were insulting. Obviously you cannot read because I wrote:

They didn't have to publish the most insulting ones. Not all the cartoons were insulting. Some were just normal pictures of Mohammad.

The fact that they chose the most insulting ones as well points to another ulterior motive.

You do know what "as well" means don't you?

Stop twisting my words. You accused the newspaper of choosing the twelve most insulting cartoons out of forty. I wasn't talking about the choice of whether or not to publish pictures at all.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Does it really have anything to do with freedom of speech? Those were clearly very offensive cartoons. I mean if this is freedom of speech, can I go about drawing very offensive cartoons to over a billion people (which is not a good idea).

Jylands-Posten: Dirty. And they know this was going to happen. That is exactly what they wanted.
Islamic Reaction: They have the right to be angry, but certainly not violent. What happened was not right.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You do know what "as well" means don't you?

Yes, it means that their oh so scary "ulterior motive" was to not get accused of cherry picking images for political purposes.

 

[ironduck]

I don't find these drawings anymore offensive than many other drawings I've seen. When religion plays on the public stage it sets itself up for criticism. All people who make public claims or act on behalf of a religion should expect said religion to be criticized.

I criticize and will continue to criticize religions. Just as I will criticize other organizations as well as individuals.

 

[skadistic]

If islam was more forcefull in decrying the the highjacking of its religion by terrorists then maybe many in the world would not equate all muslims and islam with barbaric actions like decapatation, bombing Joe Average for no reason and useing fuil ladden comercial air liners as guided missles. The muslim world has been weak in stopping terror wich leads me to beleive they either support it or are to stupid to realize that by not fighting it they doom them selves. I will go with the former by the actions on the brainwashed masses. Riots, flag burning, death threats and fatwahs are the actions I see islam responding with. Maybe if islam wasn't such a violence based religion and learned how do deal with the world in a more civil maner and got a thicker skin the world may just respect it a little more but if this is how islam reacts then why should they get respect.

 

[Gibsie]

You didn't look at the bottom of the archive, did you?

Not until this response, no. But now I have, I'm not going to bother explaining to you the difference between occasional pictures printed in publications probably not seen by a whole lot of Muslims, and a dozen all printed in one go in a major European newspaper. Think hard, and maybe you'll work out the difference. (And before you mention the entire book full of cartoons, if you seriously think that Muslims are happy about such a book, you are insane)