Somali axe man attempts to kill 75 yr old Danish cartoonist for Muhammad cartoon

<br>
Again, that's not the point. Anyone who openly uses racial slurs against a member of the said race is doing something controversial and should expect backlash. This doesn't make whoever does anything crazy like attempted murder right. They are still wrong. They are still scumbags. But, the offending party isn't exactly innocent (has nothing to do with legality) either. They knew what they were doing. The whole point of everything I have said is that sure, it's completely legal. That does not make it right. It's an ******* move to make racist comments or draw offending pictures. What's getting to me is the fact that you guys seem to think that you should be allowed to do anything you want because of freedom of speech. I keep repeating that just because you can doesn't mean you should. Sure, you let them go on their way. That's the civil thing to do. However, antagonizing a certain group (whoever it may be) is not a decent thing to do. It should be frowned upon. No one should be like, oh it's cool.

Here's a little side story. Growing up as a kid after 9/11 was not fun. Especially because of the fact that I don't even really follow Islam. But, because of my freaking skin color, do you know how many times I had to deal with assholes saying assinine things to me? More times than I care to recall. The number of antagonizing comments I had to deal with as a 10-15 year old kid was incredible. All those people who said racist things to me, were they right? I mean, after all, they were just saying what they wanted to right? Under the first amendment, they never did anything legally wrong. But, let me tell you, they were complete and utter assholes who never should have said any of it. I don't care what you tell me. Abusing freedom of press/speech to chastise someone/groups is pathetic.

 

You asked me if they should be let go. It goes without saying that I would "frown upon" their behavior.

I am sorry you have been subjected to such unfair treatments from stupid, stupid American kids. I hate them too.

 

<br>
Perhaps I wasn't clear with my wording. By let go, I was reffering to DD insisting that nothing should be done about such behavior. I firmly disagree with that because something peaceful should be done that shows that most civilized, average people frown upon such behavior. Just as people should frown upon what the cartoon symoblizes. It's pretty clear that the intention was: "Oh, in your religion you can't draw your prophet? How barbaric and uncultured. Let's make fun of it by drawing it even though we know it'll offend the general mass of your religion. Simple because, well...we can!" Obviously it wasn't as simple, nor as dim witted, but the gist remains the same.

Oh and thanks. I mean, it's not like it was every American kid. I had loads of friends who were like "dude, wtf are you talking about" everytime someone made an unnecessary comment. Nor was I looking for a pity party. I'm as American as it gets. It's just sad that skin color and beliefs that you are born into can be a cause for so much dillema. (Welcome to an age old problem I guess, right )

 

The trouble is, most of these things track to some degree more or less with almost every Middle Easterner I've ever worked with or for. I certainly appreciate your concern. There is a danger in stereotyping so that everybody is treated as some sort carbon copy cut out of a cultural stereotype. But honestly, in some instances if I hadn't had a rudimentary understanding of cultural differences, there are several clients for whom I've worked where I would have been confused and conflicted, gotten upset, and maybe would have been rude. And these are people who live in Houston, TX, USA. They are bathing in American culture. They are people with advanced engineering degrees or people who run successful large businesses. Now, maybe they skew towards older individuals who left the ME before these traits became less valid; I did have a younger coworker with a Turkish passport who was more American than most Americans, so it certainly isn't universal.

Let me give another example. My experience is that people in San Francisco are rude to strangers. This is certainly not true for everybody. I'm sure there must be a very kind San Franciscan somewhere. And I don't walk up to people and expect to be insulted. But every time I've been to San Francisco, I've encountered someone who has acted in a way that I would not consider civil. This isn't an incitement of the entire city of San Francisco. I'm not making a racial comment about sub-human Californians. But if a person in San Francisco is more rude to me than I am accustomed, I chalk it up to culture. To me, this is the same, but maybe isn't as charged a situation as US-ME relations.

As I said, I appreciate your concerns. But I think if these things are used in the proper spirit as an adjunct to normal intuitive understanding of behavior - if you consult them as general fallback when you get in a situation which is frustrating or confusing or where you can't understand the other guys motivations - they can be useful.

Let me give you a more personal example. When you talk about carrying insults to your mother to your grave - that is very un-normal for an American. On the American scale of behavior that would qualify you as normal if you were a Sicilian mobster, South American gang member or some other marginal type. I don't intend this to offend, but honestly if some guy on the street said that to me - that I had insulted his mother and was so upset that he would carry it with him to the grave - I would be worried.

Instead, what happens here is that I step back and assume is that there is some sort of different thing culturally going on. I track to the concepts of stronger integrated family bonds or concepts of honor or both as mentioned in the article and file away my concerns vaguely in that direction. This doesn't mean I treat you like some cartoon Middle Easterner. But I do believe that no matter how "globally aware" your childhood was, there are cultural issues that cause misunderstanding. It strikes me that the intolerant thing in this instance would be to not try and come up with some general guidelines and compensate for culture.

Furthermore when you talk about this guy offending intentionally, as far as I can tell, that isn't the case. Certainly, there are are people who offend for the sake of creating strife. The Dutch politician whose name escapes me comes to mind. The BNP in England is another. But as far as I can tell, the cartoonist genuinely thought and still thinks he was the guy bravely saying that the Emperor wore no clothes (which was why I pulled that story out before). In exclusively Danish terms - if he had done the same thing with respect to some Christian symbol relating to Denmark - it would have been a non story - it would have been perfectly acceptable. I think if he had a good understanding of cultural differences and quit thinking in absolute Danish terms, or if someone could properly get the people of the ME to understand it in Danish terms, things might have turned out different. I think people on both sides still aren't willing to look at this from the terms of the other side's cultural baggage.

 

We're getting somewhere here. Why does it matter at all if it's crowded? Because there will be the odd panic attack in a larger group?

 

Agree with you given the bolded part. It is important to recognize that these traits are a possibility out of hundreds of possibilities. There is nothing wrong with saying "hey this seems to be a situation similar to that I read in the book". There is something wrong with "ive never met him before, but i know he is going to be rude when it comes to accepting gifts."

It's just not how it works anymore and that's OUR doing - the world is much closer now. My grandfather probably met a non-Arab 3 or 4 times in his lifetime. I work with hundreds of non-Arabs everyday.

The most important thing is to resort to this stuff as a POSSIBILITY rather than as a certainty.

 

Freedom and peace are great concepts to strive for, but it's a fantasy to expect these principles to apply perfectly to our world (we don't live in a Disney movie like some like to think, this is a cruel world, making it a better place is everyones job, it is not accomplished by spitting in another persons face just to prove a point that the other is not tolerant) Just like the financial system needed some regulations to police human greed, hate speech should be regulated for similar reasons (our history should tell us that hate speech brings nothing positive, nothing was gained by those cartoons IMHO).

 

I think sometimes it's important to just be a civilized human being and step outside the box for a look...

We don't draw the Prophet PBUH. We have no pictures, no videos, nothing. That's hard work. It's extremely hard work. Can you imagine not having a face to match someone so critical to your life?

We consider it sacred. I personally want to make movies and cartoons of the Prophet PBUH. I don't think it's wrong to do. I dig deep to find any piece of writing which describes him in any light - just to get an idea.

We live life this way. It's beautiful. It's such a strong commitment to abolishing idolatry. It may not be necessary, but the gesture is mind-blowing. Name another religion which does not depict its messenger/founder/etc in any way.

We cherish it, we love it. It makes the Prophet PBUH independent of features which should not be of any importance.

Then a Danish cartoonist comes along and draws that. Even those who don't mind depicting the Prophet PBUH in a respectful way were offended and hurt. But I don't fall into some general category of "get offended easily with public controversial issues related to religion." For me it's a bit of jealousy because I wish I could depict the Prophet PBUH in a respectful way and popularize him that way. This guy comes and ****s on the possibility that the scholars become open to that kind of thing? Just cause he can? What about that this image will be stuck in so many people's heads after 1600 years of trying to avoid such a thing? What about the little kids who are going to so easily be convinced that the government needs to heavily control media to avoid such things?

It's not about intolerance. If it was about intolerance for me, I would block DaDakota and avoid his posts altogether. It's about being respectful and I hope I've shown that when someone is controversial, I love to engage in discussion with them. I hope I've also shown that I draw a clear boundary between controversial and disrespectful. If this guy had any intention other than to cash in on creating mass anger, he could have communicated it differently. If his intention was to be the brave guy who comes out and says it, then I tell you bravery has nothing to do with being respectful. If bravery was his goal, he could have written an article. This is mockery - his job is to mock things and part of his job is to be responsible with what and how he mocks. He is a psychologist by profession.

Does this sound like a person who is not racist? Why is he testing people who ARE Danish already? Based on his ideas, we must go beyond abiding by the constitution and reach a different plateau which he calls "respect" for democratic values, free speech, the constitution. The constitution does not demand that you respect it.

Where was his respect? Everyone is quick to claim that he did not break the law. That's fine. But his expectation is respect. Why did he not respect his fellow Danes which happen to be Muslims? Do they have to respect him? Do they have to respect the constitution? Is it illegal to call the constitution a piece of crap?

Imagine that you had the only picture (in your head) of your mother who passed away and no one else knew what she looked like and you wanted to keep it that way. Then one day someone decides to test your respect for the constitution (not his job to test btw) by casting Jenna Jameson as your mother in a pornographic production named "This is who I really am!". Now imagine you had 1+ billion brothers/sisters.

It is disgusting behavior. Defend freedom of speech all you like, but in my eyes, anyone who defends this guy's actions is an enemy to free speech. It goes against the spirit of free speech.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy now believes all Muslims carry an axe around with them.

 

Absolutely not. You betray your intentions with such a statement.

Your example, as has been noted, is rather terrible - but I'd rather focus on this part anyway. The bolded portion represents just about everything that is wrong with the muslim outlook on individualism and freedom of expression. Frankly, the viewpoint you have above is completely contrary to western civilized thought and government - and it's a damn good explanation of why muslims are stereotyped as intolerant nutjobs.

 

Blah. Here's a picture for you.

 

Whether it is cool or not, it is protected and allowed.

That is part of free speech.

DD

 

Its true that we do have standards of civility but at the same time we don't excuse violence as a response to speech and our laws are crafted in that way.

None of this is to excuse the cartoonists. Clearly those cartoons are offensive and I would say that Muslims are correct to voice their offense. The problem though is when violence is considered the appropriate response.

You are asking that we should police speech then well what about policing violence? To me that seems like essentially into giving into the blackmail of the threat of violence by saying that the state should restrict freedom of speech just because some will get offended to the point of violence.

Anyway when you start policing speech out of fear of repercussions how do you draw the lines? I know that some sports fans get very emotional about their heroes. At that should I be forbidden to draw a cartoon of Karl Malone as street thug since a Jazz fan might get offended and attack me?

The freedom of speech isn't valued as some sort of civilized nicety but it is valued because of the free exchange of ideas. A society that says speech should be constrained out of the fear of violence will end up stunting both its own cultural development and its ability to deal with other societies. While there is the reality that people will get offended I would say that is far more preferable than censorship and a society where we are afraid to voice what we might really thingk.

 

Closed environment > People beleive they are trapped > seek ways out > blah blah > ? > ? > riot

 

I mean, yeah I guess in my estimation, NOTHING should be done, or more appropriately, nothing can be done.

Seriously, what can you do? What is justified in your mind is not the question. The reaction scale ranges from insult them back to break into their house and try to kill them and their granddaughter with an axe, neither of which really address the initial transgression. Maybe I'm a liberal p***y. Maybe I'm thinking too legalistically/idealistically here. But, seriously, what are you gonna do about it?

 

So a Danish cartoonist sets out to demonstrate that many Muslim immigrants are unwilling to adopt the culture and laws of Western civilization and when he succeeds it makes him the bad guy? This cartoonist basically gave a group of people the rope and they hanged themselves in front of the world. If anything, the guy did everyone else a service by opening their eyes to just how volatile and anti-Western culture a significant portion of the Muslim population in Europe is.

I hate to simplify things but if you are unwilling or unable to understand and abide by the laws of your new home then perhaps you should return to your old one. If I were to move to a country dominated by Islam I would make damn sure to abide by and respect their laws and customs. Would I disagree with some of it? I'm sure I would but I would keep my displeasure to myself and I definitely would not be out protesting in the streets and threatening to kill people. I expect the same from any person of another faith/culture when they enter Western civilization.

The misunderstanding of what free speech is displayed by some posters here not only frightens me but it reinforces stereotypes I have tried really hard not to believe. It's like many people have been saying for years, the problem with Islam is that even the moderate Muslims refuse to denounce and in some cases, even quietly support the actions of the extremists. This thread looks like an example of that.

 

Anybody who take their precious, image-less god into a political cartoon and leaves that cartoon having drawn an irreversible, blasphemous identity for the same deity doesn't hold the prophet in as high esteem as they would like us to believe. I hear what you are saying about superseding humanity, avoiding personalizing the prophet and the like... but honestly I think your being a bit delusional. One second you say the prophet is impervious to such earthly definition, and the next you are willing to define him by the very worst characters you can find, just to illustrate a point. Propaganda much? YOU choose how you define your deity, and if he defines it for you, then you choose to let him.

If by respect him, you mean not break into his house and try to kill him, then yes. If they are so motivated, they could make an equally appalling cartoon of something he holds dear. I'm sure he would react to their expression of free speech with a home invasion, right?

 

What the heck is the Muslim outlook? The outlook of Islam? The most common outlook among Muslims? The least tolerant outlook among Muslims?

I'm sorry that my views on free speech don't agree with yours but boxing me into "Muslim" doesn't help your argument much. Whether it's contrary to Western thought is one thing, but I find it disturbing that you consider it to be the gold standard for some reason.

 

Maybe because it IS THE GOLD STANDARD !!!

Free speech has to be exactly what it says....FREE.....unhindered, the ability to be an ******* if you want.....the minority rights of speech are protected.

Thus = Gold Standard.

Mathloom - seriously, you have told us before that your country blocks certain websites, that is a form of censorship, and hinderence of freedom of speech.

There is nothing better.......there are consequences for speech some time, but that is by the rule of law, libel, defamation of character etc....and not the rule of climbing through a window with an axe and threatening a cartoonist....


DD

 

I'm stunned by this statement. Absolutely stunned beyond belief.

This statement alone is something that damns the Muslim faith. That you believe a man should lose his ability to not fear for his life because of a drawing is disgusting.

 

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

GOLD MOTHER SCRATCHING STANDARD BABY !!!!

DD