On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:10:25 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
>have no control over the newspaper than published the
>offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
>even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
>refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
>speech.

Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
as in this case, to provoke.

The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.

Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
them.

The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
point about being offended.

The actors are following the script.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:

> >Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> >have no control over the newspaper than published the
> >offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> >even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> >refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> >speech.
>
> Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
> as in this case, to provoke.

True enough, but it is an interesting sort of provocation. I suppose that
it could be said that they were provoking a reaction from a group that
suppresses freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion.

> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> they were doing and where this would lead.

How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
of arson? There is a good chance that the people who are protesting and
rioting never even saw the cartoons, just like the Christians who
protested movies like The Last Temptation of Christ, or the Moslems who
protested Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses.


> These were not individual
> cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
> commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
> representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
> If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
> used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.

True. That was done by the papers. More accurately, it was a decision made
by the editors of the paper. It was not the Danish people. It was not the
Danish Government.

> Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
> disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
> weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
> them.

That would exclude me. The boycott of French products was an American
issue because France refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq in
order to search for WMDs that the French government did not believe were
there and because they knew that an invasion would result in utter chaos.
They were right on that one. I agreed with them. I made a point of buying
French products over American. I got into the habit of buying French
cheeses and wines.


> The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
> expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
> get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
> point about being offended.
>
> The actors are following the script.

They have certainly exposed the Islamic world for what it is, and we need
to choose sides.

Dave Smith > writes:
>Curly Sue wrote:

>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>> they were doing and where this would lead.

>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>of arson?

Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
antagonize, end of story.

>by the editors of the paper. It was not the Danish people. It was not the
>Danish Government.

Good point. I haven't seen anyone on any of the political blogs I go
to who has been able to justify boycotting a Danish cheesemaker because
of these cartoons. People have to boycott or complain or whatever to
make their point, I guess.
The newspaper had the right to publish the cartoons, but they also
have a responsiblity which I feel they shirked, and now unrelated
businesses are suffering for it, plus they deliberately provoked an
entire religion of 1.6 billion people. What could they have hoped to
accomplish?
Or, should I say, Mission Accomplished?

Stacia

Glitter Ninja wrote:

> >> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> >> they were doing and where this would lead.
>
> >How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
> >of arson?
>
> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
> entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
> and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
> antagonize, end of story.

There is nothing disingenuous. They probably felt, as do I, that there is
nothing to get upset over. Having lived in freedom and democracy all my life I
have enjoyed not having a religion shoved down my throat and not having to
abide by the rules that various religions make up for themselves.

> The newspaper had the right to publish the cartoons, but they also
> have a responsiblity which I feel they shirked, and now unrelated
> businesses are suffering for it, plus they deliberately provoked an
> entire religion of 1.6 billion people. What could they have hoped to
> accomplish?
> Or, should I say, Mission Accomplished?

Perhaps they should be applauded for the bravery in standing up to the thugs.
They certainly have my support.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
Ninja) wrote:

>Dave Smith > writes:
>>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>
>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>of arson?
>
> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>antagonize, end of story.

Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
one. Below is a quote from an interview from Newsweek with the section
editor who made the decision to publish.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179140/site/newsweek/


ROSE: I was concerned about a tendency toward self-censorship among
people in artistic and cultural circles in Europe. That's why I
commissioned these cartoons, to test this tendency and to start a
debate about it.

It was not a media stunt. We just approached that story in a different
way, by asking Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they see him. I
did not ask for caricatures. I did not ask to make the prophet a
laughingstock or to mock him.

But you depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, armed with a
knife and with a broken halo that resembled satanic horns.
The cartoon with horns didn't arouse special criticism; it was the
other two. The one with the bomb in his turban doesn't say, "All
Muslims are terrorists," but says, "Some people have taken Islam
hostage to permit terrorist and extremist acts." These cartoons do not
treat Muslims in any other way than we treat other citizens in this
country. By treating them as equals, we are saying, "You are equal."


And from the overall paper editor;

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=25487
Open Letter to Fellow Muslim Citizens

Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a strong proponent of democracy and
freedom of religion. The newspaper respects the right of any human
being to practise his or her religion. Serious misunderstandings in
respect of some drawings of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much
anger and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries.

Please allow me to correct these misunderstandings.

On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12
different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have
looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public
debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to
be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have
indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The
Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen
Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been
offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds
that they violated our ethical code.

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten attaches importance to upholding the
highest ethical standards based upon the respect of our fundamental
values. It is so much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings
were presented as if they had anything to do with Morgenavisen
Jyllands-Posten.

Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to
publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against
Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the
very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and
because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her
religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs
is unthinkable to us.

That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.

As a result of the debate that has been going on about the drawings,
we have met with representatives of Danish Muslims, and these meetings
were held in a positive and constructive spirit. We have also sought
in other ways to initiate a fruitful dialogue with Danish Muslims.

It is the wish of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten that various ethnic
groups should live in peace and harmony with each other and that the
debates and disagreements which will always exist in a dynamic society
should do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

For that reason, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has published many
articles describing the positive aspects of integration, for example
in a special supplement entitled The Contributors. It portrayed a
number of Muslims who have had success in Denmark. The supplement was
rewarded by the EU Commission.

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten takes exception to symbolic acts suited
to demonise specific nationalities, religions and ethnic groups.

Sincerely yours

Carsten Juste
Editor-in-Chief

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:33:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
>Ninja) wrote:
>
>>Dave Smith > writes:
>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>
>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>
>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>of arson?
>>
>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>antagonize, end of story.
>
>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>
>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>one.

Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

> Below is a quote from an interview from Newsweek with the section
>editor who made the decision to publish.
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179140/site/newsweek/
>
>
>>ROSE: I was concerned about a tendency toward self-censorship among
>>people in artistic and cultural circles in Europe. That's why I
>>commissioned these cartoons, to test this tendency and to start a
>>debate about it.

Oh sure. Not by starting it with discussion or civil discourse with
the interested parties, but by firing a shot and see where it hits.

>>(ROSE) It was not a media stunt.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>(ROSE) These cartoons do not
>>treat Muslims in any other way than we treat other citizens in this
>>country. By treating them as equals, we are saying, "You are equal."

Except that he commissioned cartoonists to do this highlighted series
rather than simply run them one at a time at random.

These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
were looking for a rumble. So they got it.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:54:06 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:33:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
>>Ninja) wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Smith > writes:
>>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>>
>>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>>of arson?
>>>
>>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>>antagonize, end of story.
>>
>>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>>
>>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>>one.
>
>Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

If so, I stand corrected. I am finding conflicting online reports on
its stance. That would make me suspicious of the paper to some extent,
but what evidence do you have that the commission of the cartoons was
of a deliberately provocative nature. Take a look around you on the
Internet, which reaches more than the circulation of 150 thousand as
the Denmark paper....do you REALLY think that these cartoons are of
some level of greater evil that what surrounds us daily?

And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?

I do not care how hateful the cartoons may be though of by some. Any
excuse is used by fundies on both sides of the aisle to control the
media. The fundie, right wing American Family Association just made
sure that a show (Book of Daniel) was pulled from the NBC lineup
though it's organized protestations. I do not like those fundies
trying to censor what I see, either. Do you want more examples of
religion getting it knickers in a knot and trying to control what they
do not like, even among those who do not belong to their religion?
Look at the BS about the term "Happy Holidays," just a month
ago....look at what has come up in discussions around here when people
have been accused of being bigoted for not taking someone else's
religious writing as the true word of their god.

snip
>These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
>and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
>were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
>

I do not care what the newspaper published. I am a believer is freedom
of the expression, even if it is espouses opinions I find repulsive.
Once again, I offer the televised antics of Pat Robertson as a counter
example.

Riots and burning of embassies in reaction to these cartoons is
idiotic, bigoted and untenable by any account. What happened Denmark
was not incitement to riot, but the reaction to it has been insane
over-reaction by fundamentalist bigots.

Boron

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:09:09 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:54:06 GMT, (Curly
>Sue) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:33:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
>>>Ninja) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Smith > writes:
>>>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>>>
>>>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>>>of arson?
>>>>
>>>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>>>antagonize, end of story.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>>>
>>>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>>>one.
>>
>>Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten
>
>If so, I stand corrected. I am finding conflicting online reports on
>its stance. That would make me suspicious of the paper to some extent,
>but what evidence do you have that the commission of the cartoons was
>of a deliberately provocative nature.

There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
than to provoke.

>Take a look around you on the
>Internet, which reaches more than the circulation of 150 thousand as
>the Denmark paper....do you REALLY think that these cartoons are of
>some level of greater evil that what surrounds us daily?

I never said anything of the sort.

>And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
>White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
>marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
>of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
>not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?

The violence is not justified, but it's reactive not provocative.

>I do not care how hateful the cartoons may be though of by some. Any
>excuse is used by fundies on both sides of the aisle to control the
>media. The fundie, right wing American Family Association just made
>sure that a show (Book of Daniel) was pulled from the NBC lineup
>though it's organized protestations. I do not like those fundies
>trying to censor what I see, either. Do you want more examples of
>religion getting it knickers in a knot and trying to control what they
>do not like, even among those who do not belong to their religion?

There is as much of that from the secular "fundies," who get their
knickers in a knot and don't want to hear any mention of peoples'
religious beliefs.

>Look at the BS about the term "Happy Holidays," just a month
>ago...look at what has come up in discussions around here when people
>have been accused of being bigoted for not taking someone else's
>religious writing as the true word of their god.

And there is plenty of the secular fundies making ugly comments about
religious beliefs.

>snip
>>These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
>>and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
>>were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
>>
>
>I do not care what the newspaper published. I am a believer is freedom
>of the expression, even if it is espouses opinions I find repulsive.
>Once again, I offer the televised antics of Pat Robertson as a counter
>example.

Well, other people don't have the same beliefs as we do, and the
newspaper knew it. In fact that is why they commissioned the
cartoons. Pulling the strings of angry zealots makes that newspaper
culpable to some degree in the subsequent destruction.

>Riots and burning of embassies in reaction to these cartoons is
>idiotic, bigoted and untenable by any account. What happened Denmark
>was not incitement to riot, but the reaction to it has been insane
>over-reaction by fundamentalist bigots.
>
>Boron

It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
response.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

In article >,
(Glitter Ninja) wrote:

> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
> entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
> and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
> antagonize, end of story.

I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword. However,
study of the Qu'ran as well as the statements of Muslim leaders
throughout the world would support these depictions. They are quite
quick to associate Mohammed with militant power.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

Ranee Mueller wrote:

> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.

And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.

On 2006-02-07, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Ranee Mueller wrote:
>
>> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
>> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.
>
> And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
> riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
> that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.

It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.

OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammed...-of-blasphemy/

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2006-02-07, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>>Ranee Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
>>>that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.
>>
>>And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
>>riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
>>that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.
>
>
> It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
> cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.
>
> OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
> http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammed...-of-blasphemy/
>
> nb
>


Shouldn't these immams be stoned for blasphemy (drawing Mohammed with a
pig snout, etc) and bearing false witness by claiming that the Danes had
drawn/published them? I believe blasphemy and false witness of a
capital offense were both punishable by death under the Mosaic law, and
so probably also punishable by death under Islamic law.

Best regards,
Bob

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Ranee Mueller wrote:
>
> > I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
> > that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.
>
> And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
> riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
> that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.

That is what is so insane about this. If those depictions were so
offensive, and so wrong, then why do these followers do much worse than
show themselves as warriors, instead showing themselves as thugs,
terrorists and sociopaths.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

In article >,
(Curly Sue) wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:10:25 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> >have no control over the newspaper than published the
> >offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> >even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> >refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> >speech.
>
> Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
> as in this case, to provoke.
>
> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
> cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
> commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
> representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
> If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
> used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.
>
> Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
> of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
> actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
> can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
> Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
> disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
> weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
> them.
>
> The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
> expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
> get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
> point about being offended.
>
> The actors are following the script.

Sue, I couldn't agree more!

The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
editors knew it. I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
shop for some Danish products tonight though!

I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> > The actors are following the script.
>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.

I don't doubt that they expected some Moslems to be offended. There are
about 100,000 Moslems there, and some of them may actually have seen the
cartoons in question. I don't think that they would have expected the furor
to that arose, or that it would become an issue across the entire Moslem
world.

> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
> shop for some Danish products tonight though!

Good for you. I bought a case of Tubourg beer. It is one of my favourites
anyway.


> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.

And I would suggest that Moslems spend more time trying to present a better
image to the West instead of using this issue to vent their frustration.

Stan Horwitz wrote:

>
> > The actors are following the script.
>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.

Yes, the editors should have expected some sort of reaction. It was the
editors who commissioned the cartoons. It was the editors who selected the
cartoons to run, and it was the editors' decision to run them.

The Danish people had nothing to do with it. The Danish government had
nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the
sentiment of the cartoons, the depiction of the Prophet (not universally
accepted my Moslems as a violation of the Quran), or the image of Moslems as
violent, and goodness knows how they ever made that connection, they had no
say it in it. Never the less, it is a democratic society where there is
freedom of speech and freedom of the press.



>
> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan toshop for some Danish
> products tonight though!

The way I see it is that we should be supporting one side or the other. If
we boycott Danish products, or even if we just stand by and allow them to be
bullied, we condone the violent and coercive forces of the radicals who have
hijacked Islam. I am not recommending counter protests or violence against
Moslems. I do not incensed enough to want to stoop to their level, but I
will do my utmost to counter their economic boycott. I am boycotting
Moslems. I am boycotting any stores that have removed Danish products. I am
going out of my way to buy Danish goods.

>
> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.

I heard an interesting interview on CBC radio today. A Moslem who described
himself as a liberal thinker indicated that despite his secular views, found
the cartoons offensive. He did not think they warranted violent protests.
However, he pointed out that in Arab countries the governments must have
been involved in the demonstrations. They all have repressive governments,
and in countries like that you cannot get large a turnout and massive
participation without government consent. He suggested that the government
used the occasion to allow their people to vent their frustrations. There
are a lot of things to protest about over there. People are hopping mad,
and usually at their own government but powerless to do anything about that,
so they allow their attention to be directed at other things.