aem wrote:

> Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
> Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
> only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
> stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
> Muslims to take offence.
>
> Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
> show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?

You can take offence without burning down buildings and threatening to kill
and kidnap.


> I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
> desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
> insult believers they get angry.

then they should learn to deal with their frustration in a healthier
manner.

>
> > We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
> > counter boycott.
>
> Oh nonsense. I don't owe the Danes shit.

I do. My father was shot down over Denmark during the war, and a lot of
Danes risked their lives to help him escape to Sweden. But on a more
general note, the thing that has really ****ed off the Moslems is that the
Danish prime minister has refused to intervene because he considers it to
be a matter of freedom of speech. That is a principle that most of us in
the west value and we would hate to see that freedom lost because of
threats of violence from fundamentalist thugs.


> > Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
> > protests if they backfire on them.
>
> More nonsense. People who believe their religion is under attack are
> going to change their thinking because you buy more Havarti? What
> planet are you living on? -aem

There aim is to punish Denmark economically. If people stop buying Danish
foods or stores are afraid to sell Danish products for fear of Islamic
reprisals they win and will continue the tactic. If people rebel at their
boycott and and sales increase, the boycott backfires.