You know...some irony

[Jonbo298]

Bush and others have been pushing for Democracy in the Middle East and well...Palestinians (sp?) had a democratic election basically and elected a Terrorist group. What surprises me kinda is that the news media hasnt grasped that Bush and the administration push for Democracy and ahve seen it go exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

[KillerGremlin]

I like Bush:


http://geolit.org/rushranch/RR_images/Coyote%20Bush1.jpg


http://www.musicchannel.cc/images/152506,bild,0,0,284.jpg


http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/marijuana-leaf.jpg

I don't get what everyone's problem is. :confused:

[Professor S]

Bush and others have been pushing for Democracy in the Middle East and well...Palestinians (sp?) had a democratic election basically and elected a Terrorist group. What surprises me kinda is that the news media hasnt grasped that Bush and the administration push for Democracy and ahve seen it go exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

The idea was to start a democracy in one of the more westernized countries in the Middle East. Iraq has a great amount of infrstructure, resources and educated people. Its almost the ideal country located in the Middle East in which to start a democracy (Iran being the best, IMO).

Meanwhile, Palestine isn't even a nation and they've been embroiled in a bitter feud with Israel for decades if not thousands of years. I'm not happy about the election in the least, but their situation is a unique one in their region and maybe unique in the entire world. Hamas being elected is horrific, though, and pretty much destroys all of the progress that has been made over the last few years.

Also, the Palestinian election isn't the only example of Middle Eastern democracy under the Bush whitehouse. There is also Afghanistan and Iraq, with both election running pretty smoothly considering the violence in the region and with satisfactory results.

My opinion on Middle Eastern democracy? Its too late. The writing is already on the wall and its written in blood. I stated not too long ago that I thought there would be a war between Islam and the west within 50 years, and I'm going to change that prediction.

There will be blood in the streets on every Western European nation within 10-15 years. Islam will grow to the point that it will not tolerate Western/Christian democracy and there will be violence that makes the violence seen today look like a Cabbage Patch picnic. We can already see the signs today. First the month long riot that ran across France, now embassies are being attacked and news organizations are knucking under to fear because of a ****ING CARTOON.

The only thing that will prevent violence is either europe giving governing control to Islamic groups to avoid violence or islam goes under a massive reformation in the next decade. I was hoping that installing democracy in the Middle East would prevent the coming storm, but its already too late.

All I have to say is that I thank God I live in the US where I have millions of crazy-ass tobacco chewing, gun toting evangelicals who won't let that happen here. How about that for irony?

[Teuthida]

I miss Sadam.

[GameMaster]

Do you think Saddam has been sodom'd in prison yet?

[manasecret]

There will be blood in the streets on every Western European nation within 10-15 years. Islam will grow to the point that it will not tolerate Western/Christian democracy and there will be violence that makes the violence seen today look like a Cabbage Patch picnic. We can already see the signs today. First the month long riot that ran across France, now embassies are being attacked and news organizations are knucking under to fear because of a ****ING CARTOON.


Lot of talk of a clash of civilizations over this cartoon. The NY Times had a great editorial a couple weeks back about it. The Iranian response is to make cartoons about Hitler sleeping with Anne Frank -- funny how we're not rioting to such childish, sophomoric antics.

I also think the violence is ridiculous and it leads me to believe that there are some differences between the west and Muslims that won't be resolved with, "here's your democracy, now don't blow each other up."

But as all signs seem to point to a clash of civilizations -- ie. the French riots and now the cartoon riots -- I wonder if I'm not just looking for the simple answer and forgetting something. I mean, clash of civlizations seems to be what's happening, but is it really? Is there actually going to be a civilization war from here on out? Will that actually lead to an all out war, WWIII perhaps?

Something good that comes from this: I think the majority of Europe is finally waking up to how idiotic and dangerous radical Islam is. Maybe they'll stop their appeasement now ie. Spain appeasement, ie. France, Germany, Italy, etc. being anti-Iraq war. I don't know if they're actually waking up, but since many newspapers throughout Europe are reprinting the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper in support of freedom of the press, my feeling is that they're waking up.

[Typhoid]

This wont ever be resolved for a simple reason: Religion.


Like I've said before, it's the cause of the majority of all wars, and since religion wont go away, neither will war.

I'm not saying religion causes war. Religion causes the difference in opinions which sparks the wars.

The only way to stop wars, is to assimilate. And assimilation takes time. It's slowly happening now, and with any assimilation attempt, you can expect a backlash, that makes the reason you started to go there, foolish.

Yes, I can see the war getting more out of hand, and brought to the forefront of the media again sometime soon, but that is to be expected.

I mean, if Britain came to Canada tomorrow, and started telling us we have to go back to a Monarchy, and all be Catholics, I'm sure there would be some form of revolt, and I'm sure forcing us to change our government wouldnt change that.

But the war getting worse isinevitable, everything has to get worse, before it gets better. It's just the fact that 'worse' is relative.

[Dylflon]

The middle east will never cease to be a tricky situation.

The Middle East is like that aunt with a really big mole on her face who shows up to family dinners. Nobody wants to really talk about it or look at it, but there's no way you can't notice it.

Key problem: Muslim ideals are different than ours. Sure, most of them just want the things we want: a job, some money, a family, and to enjoy their lives. But of course you have the extremists. Now, the extremists make up a small percent of the Muslim world. But with about a billion of them, a small percentage still makes up a pretty large number of people. Their religion does preach peace but it also preaches hatred towards the infidels (i.e. us guys).

Now my belief has always been not to mess with the bastards. They are so backwards in most places that no good can come of us marching in there and telling them that we're giving them what they want. When the U.S. leaves Iraw, there's going to be some Iraqis who will be pretty sore about being occupied.

Now, their religion speaks of a holy war between them and the infidels. If you know how fundamentalists work, they see these prophecies and then they try to fulfill them. With such a large number of them, it's easy to get a mob going over a cartoon. By the way Denmark, Muslim rule #1 is to never create an image of Muhammed. Way to go, guys. We should be focused on not fueling their fires.

You can't really just go to an Eastern country and install a western democracy like it was planting a seed and then expect a tree to grow out of their coarse, hot sand.

I can't say I have any answers to this dilemma, but I do know that I'd rather not be in a religious war with the biggest damn religion in the world.

[Teuthida]

Lot of talk of a clash of civilizations over this cartoon. The NY Times had a great editorial a couple weeks back about it. The Iranian response is to make cartoons about Hitler sleeping with Anne Frank -- funny how we're not rioting to such childish, sophomoric antics.


Mohammed is never suppose to be visually represented according to Islamic law. So if there's a cartoon depicted him...with a bomb as a turban no less...they're gonna be pretty damn pissed. It's not like with Jesus who's been pimped to extremes (Jesus sports statues collections...Buddy Jesus...etc.) If their goal was to make a cartoon to piss off Americans that could be easily done. But would bad on their part because what do the crazy religious nuts in the middle of the country who voted for Bush and who have never even been to NYC care so much about?: 9/11. But if they made a cartoon about that they would just be feeding the terrorists perception everyone seems to have about Muslims these days. They could piss off a country by itself, but Chrisitianity is too divided and made fun of constantly by people calling them Chrisitians anyway to care. Jewish people have heard every damn joke possibly about their people. And Hitler has been depicted comically for so long he lost his evil punch anway. Some people are actually serious about their religion.

And then again just sounds like a crappy cartoon. :p

[Professor S]

Here's the difference between the reactions of Christians to a religious cartoon and the reaction of Islam to a religious cartoon:

Burned cars, riots, violence and death.

I will repeat: Islam needs a massive reformation. Being Muslim is not an excuse to resort to violence anytime a person of a different faith says anything bad about your religion.

Freedom and Islam do not make good bedfellows. Until changes are made in Islam to allow for personal freedoms, there will be a culture clash and it will continue to be incresingly violent.

[Typhoid]

Here's the difference between the reactions of Christians to a religious cartoon and the reaction of Islam to a religious cartoon:

Burned cars, riots, violence and death.
.


Christains would do that too, if there werent strict laws in civilized countries. :p

[KillerGremlin]

Key problem: Muslim ideals are different than ours. Sure, most of them just want the things we want: a job, some money, a family, and to enjoy their lives. But of course you have the extremists. Now, the extremists make up a small percent of the Muslim world. But with about a billion of them, a small percentage still makes up a pretty large number of people. Their religion does preach peace but it also preaches hatred towards the infidels (i.e. us guys).

million, i'm assuming

[Teuthida]

No, Typhoid is correct. 1.79 billion to be exact as of 2006.

[Dylflon]

No, Typhoid is correct. 1.79 billion to be exact as of 2006.

You mean Dylflon?

[Teuthida]

Er...yes...saw his post before...assumed that who was quoting...Dylflon...yes...carry on...

[Professor S]

Christains would do that too, if there werent strict laws in civilized countries. :p

Well then, do the laws dictate the civilization, or are the laws simply a relfection of what that civilization deems acceptable?

In history, Christian civilizations have been guilty of many of the faults that modern Islam is showing, but most of those faults were addressed and resolved during the reformation and the constant evoltion of the Christian faith.

It is the static nature of Islam that lends itself to increasing violence.

[Typhoid]

Well then, do the laws dictate the civilization, or are the laws simply a relfection of what that civilization deems acceptable?

In history, Christian civilizations have been guilty of many of the faults that modern Islam is showing, but most of those faults were addressed and resolved during the reformation and the constant evoltion of the Christian faith.

It is the static nature of Islam that lends itself to increasing violence.


In history, yes. But recently? How many Christians have recently had largescale terrorist tendancies?

That was my point.


And the laws dictate the civilization. Stricter rules mean more lashing out. However, that also is true for really lenient laws.

The laws that are in effect in specific areas, dictates how that area will act.

[Professor S]

In history, yes. But recently? How many Christians have recently had largescale terrorist tendancies?

That was my point.

Are yousaying that Christains have had largescale terrorist tendencies recently or that they haven't? If you are saying they have, I'd like some examples, and moreover I'd like you to define what you consider to be "terrorism". If you are saying they haven't, then I agree with you.

As for laws dictating a civilization, I couldn't disagree with you more. The civilization writes the laws. They dictate what rules and standards they should live by and what behaviors are punishable. Without the civilization, the laws would not exist.

[Dylflon]

In history, yes. But recently? How many Christians have recently had largescale terrorist tendancies?

That was my point.


And the laws dictate the civilization. Stricter rules mean more lashing out. However, that also is true for really lenient laws.

The laws that are in effect in specific areas, dictates how that area will act.


Man...what?

[Typhoid]

Are yousaying that Christains have had largescale terrorist tendencies recently or that they haven't? If you are saying they have, I'd like some examples, and moreover I'd like you to define what you consider to be "terrorism". If you are saying they haven't, then I agree with you.

As for laws dictating a civilization, I couldn't disagree with you more. The civilization writes the laws. They dictate what rules and standards they should live by and what behaviors are punishable. Without the civilization, the laws would not exist.


I was saying they havent. Sorry.



And I dont agree with the law and civilization thing. Yes, the civilization writes the laws, but thats just a select few who do so. They rest of the populace has to stay in bounds of those rules, thusly, defining who they are.

Laws can be changed in a matter of weeks, but a civilization cant be.

[Typhoid]

Man...what?


*Makes general bland statemtn as to how Dylflon always makes posts directed at Typhoid in threads like this with no actual intent other than to seemingly attempt to annoy him.*

[Professor S]

And I dont agree with the law and civilization thing. Yes, the civilization writes the laws, but thats just a select few who do so. They rest of the populace has to stay in bounds of those rules, thusly, defining who they are.

Yes, but in the case of democracy (or democratic republic in our case) civs those select few are chosen by the many to represent them. The rules and laws are constantly changing as well, even in totalitarian regimes. It is a common belief that in order to rule a nation/civilization you must appease the people. This has been shown time and time again with empires like Rome and even the Mongols, who assimilated parts of conquered civs into their own and even would considered conquered civs to be "protectorates", meaning they essentially ran themselves but were a part of Rome.

We can see people rebelling against laws they don't agree with in Europe already. In France, there are No Go Zones. No Go Zones are areas that the police and authorities do not go that are controlled by Mosques and Islamic law. Essenitally France has agreed to allow parts of their population to remove itself from their country and rule themselves because they do not agree with modern democratic/Western rule. (Credit Glenn Beck radio program)

If the people do not agree with a law, no select few can make them adhere to it.

Laws can be changed in a matter of weeks, but a civilization cant be.

Exactly.

[Xantar]

Just to be clear, are we saying that the Middle East states are going to blow up into violent blood baths because they're Islamic or because they're radical? After all, Indonesia and Turkey are doing just fine, and at one time it was the Islamic world that was the most tolerant and diverse civilization on earth.

The problem in Palestine is that the people are under thrall to a corrupt regime (with the possible exception of Mahmoud Abbas) that doesn't care about them. I often think that the worst thing that could happen to Hamas is the destruction of Israel because then the Palestinians would look around and realize that their life still sucks and the Israelis weren't being so bad to them after all.

Not that I think Israel or the Western world is totally blameless either since the process of Israel's creation, while well-intentioned, was pretty flawed as well.

P.S. The Clash of Civilizations by Huntington is a worthwhile read but not a terribly good analysis, in my opinion.

P.P.S. Oh, and those Paris riots from a while ago which burned hundreds of cars? Just to be clear, those were not Islamic riots. In fact, a lot of the rioters there were Jewish. As well as Arab and African. It wasn't a problem of religion. It was a problem of "foreigners" vs. "French."

[Professor S]

To clarify:

I'm not saying that the Islamic states will clash with Western states, I'm saying that Muslims are already in the Western states and here will be intense civil strife bordering on revolution within 10-15 years.

Estimates state that in the very near future Islam will take over Christianity as the majority religion on Western Europe. This is not a good thing.

As for the Paris Riots, they weren't just in Paris. They were in 300+ cities across France and the majority of those rioting were Muslim. Yes, there were other ethnicities and faith's involved, but it was majority Muslim. But thats old news as Cartoons are now causing murder and mass rioting.

[Xantar]

As for the Paris Riots, they weren't just in Paris. They were in 300+ cities across France and the majority of those rioting were Muslim. Yes, there were other ethnicities and faith's involved, but it was majority Muslim. But thats old news as Cartoons are now causing murder and mass rioting.


The fact that the majority of rioters were Muslim was a simple reflection of demographics. It so happens that Muslims make up the vast majority of France's immigrant population. But they were not rioting because they wanted more mosques built or anything like that. In interviews, you will see that none of them was saying anything like, "We protest the immorality of French society" or "We are rebelling against this law." Their basic message was pretty simple: "We want to be treated as French citizens." Most of the rioters were the children of immigrants who felt, rightly, that they are as much French citizens as I am an American. And the problem was that French society at large tended to classify its people as "francais" (French) and "etranger" (foreigner). You literally found that kind of language in newspapers. And an etranger had significantly lower access to university education, stable jobs and good housing, other things being equal. To say nothing of almost zero representation in the government and politicians occasionally calling them smelly (literally, some minister talked about the minorities having a smell).

My point is that the violence in response to the Danish cartoons were inspired by religion. The riots in France were not. We Americans, because of our experience, tend to attribute problems to ethnicities and religions like that, but it just doesn't fit in the case of the riots in France. Those had little to do with Islam and more to do with simple acceptance into part of the French identity. And thus, you can't really compare that event with what's been happening in response to some Danish cartoons.

[Professor S]

The fact that the majority of rioters were Muslim was a simple reflection of demographics. It so happens that Muslims make up the vast majority of France's immigrant population. But they were not rioting because they wanted more mosques built or anything like that. In interviews, you will see that none of them was saying anything like, "We protest the immorality of French society" or "We are rebelling against this law." Their basic message was pretty simple: "We want to be treated as French citizens." Most of the rioters were the children of immigrants who felt, rightly, that they are as much French citizens as I am an American. And the problem was that French society at large tended to classify its people as "francais" (French) and "etranger" (foreigner). You literally found that kind of language in newspapers. And an etranger had significantly lower access to university education, stable jobs and good housing, other things being equal. To say nothing of almost zero representation in the government and politicians occasionally calling them smelly (literally, some minister talked about the minorities having a smell).

My point is that the violence in response to the Danish cartoons were inspired by religion. The riots in France were not. We Americans, because of our experience, tend to attribute problems to ethnicities and religions like that, but it just doesn't fit in the case of the riots in France. Those had little to do with Islam and more to do with simple acceptance into part of the French identity. And thus, you can't really compare that event with what's been happening in response to some Danish cartoons.

The commonality is that Islam reacts to problems with the sword instead of the pen. That is all the comparison I need. The cause of the violence is not my worry, it is the constant falling back to it that worries me and should worry everyone.

Islam, regardless of its pillars or dogma, runs on fear. "Believe in what I do, or let me change your society to accommodate my beliefs/laws (the same in Islam), or I'll burn stuff, blow it up and generally beat you over the head until I get what I want."

Sorry if thats politically incorrect, but Im sick and tired of the constant excuses given for an intolerant religion that is bringing the world to the brink of poltical and social meltdown. Newspapers are scared to death of Islam, as well as nations (ex: France's No Go Zone policy), so Islam is given a free pass by many.

I've had enough. Its time for Islam's religious leaders to step up and take control of their people. The silent tolerance for violence against non-muslims needs to stop and Islam needs to be reformed. NOW.

[Teuthida]

*cough*close*thread*cough*

[Dylflon]

*Makes general bland statemtn as to how Dylflon always makes posts directed at Typhoid in threads like this with no actual intent other than to seemingly attempt to annoy him.*

I really just didn't understand your post.

[Xantar]

The commonality is that Islam reacts to problems with the sword instead of the pen. That is all the comparison I need. The cause of the violence is not my worry, it is the constant falling back to it that worries me and should worry everyone.

So I suppose you think that black people looted New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because black culture is criminal in nature with no respect for the law? It couldn't just be because New Orleans is a majority black city and you probably would have seen the same thing if it had been populated by a bunch of poor white people?

This is the hole in your thinking you seem to be missing here, and your post betrays a vast ignorance of the situation in France to say nothing of lazy thinking. Have you even talked to any French people or any people belonging to the minority ethnic groups there, or are you so arrogant that you think you understand the reasons for the rioting better than the rioters?

If the rioters had all been Asians (let's say), your position would have no standing. And what I'm saying is that in France, it happened to have a bunch of Muslims but it could have been any group. If you take any minority segment of the population and marginalize it (or cause it to feel marginalized), it will erupt into violence at the slightest "provocation." It doesn't have to be a Muslim population. Just take a look at what happened after the Rodney King verdict.

If violence is such an integral part of the culture of Muslims in France, then why did Jews, second generation Portuguese, Albanians and non-Muslim Africans join in rather than stand to the side to demonstrate that "we aren't like them"? You can discount their presence and say that the majority of the rioters were Muslim, but what the variety of ethnicities suggests to me is that violence was not the response of the Islamic community but of the poor. Aren't you the one who thought that we are divided along economic and not racial lines?

If you want to show me that Islam runs on fear and is intolerant and uncompromising, by all means cite the reign of any number of regimes in the Middle East from Palestine to Afghanistan. Tell me about Islamic terrorists in the Philippines or in India. I'm probably not going to argue with you, and I'm open to seeing a pattern of behavior. I fully agree with you that the leadership is corrupt and needs to be reformed one way or another. All I'm saying is that this instance is not an example in support of what you're saying, and it's not because I feel the need to be politically correct. And trying to force it to fit through a tenuous connection helps nothing.

[Professor S]

Xantar, we won't know whether I'm right or wrong until 10-15 years from now. You can sit and say that my opinion is ignorant on the situation in France, but I could go source for source with you any time you'd like, but that would simply be a waste of time and wouldn't change either of our opinions.

The situation in France was created by a socialist economic scheme that has produced a generation on French that need support from their government and are therefore subject to their government's bias's and inability to run their own country. My problem isn't with what caused the riots, but the fact that they happened and that they fit very appropriately into a horrific vision of cultural strife in the future. Strife that will be, IMO, the West vs. "Ismlamofascism" (oh YES, I said it) If you want to dillute the importance of the Muslim influence in those riots, you can, but I'm not biting.

You used the Rodney King riots quite unconvincingly because those riots do not fit into a greater context. My citing of the French riots was specifically used to show a trend. You could not use the Rodney King riots to show a trend because they are a singular incident that were not followed by increasing violence that spread like wildfire across the US.

And why didn't they? Because prominent political and religious figures quickly spoke out against the violence and there was a large rebuking of it by the people at large. That is the difference between Western reaction to violence such as this a Islamic reaction, as was my point.

Half of the entire problem is perception, also. All the West sees is the bad side of Islam. I know there is good Islam and modern thinkers in Islam. My problem is that I think those people also let themselves be ruled by fear of fanatical Islamic factions. If Islam wants to revamp its image and promote a peaceful version of itself, its members must stand up and take control of their belief, and not let the violent minority keep the majority under its thumb. The silent many are as damaging as the violent few, a violent few that appear to be growing in number with each passing day.

On a side not, I'm more than a little offended that you would think so little of me to be simply basing an opinion on ignorance an racsim. By jumping to that conclusion and adding the irrelevant example of the Rodney King riots, it is you that is guilt of lazy thinking. Not me.

[Xantar]

On a side not, I'm more than a little offended that you would think so little of me to be simply basing an opinion on ignorance an racsim. By jumping to that conclusion and adding the irrelevant example of the Rodney King riots, it is you that is guilt of lazy thinking. Not me.

Well, you have to admit that when you say something like, "Islam reacts to problems with the sword instead of the pen. That is all the comparison I need," it certainly sounds like reductionism taken to an ignorant degree. I understand your position a lot better now even if I still don't agree with it, and I appreciate that you took the time to clarify instead of just flaming (that much I have come to normally expect from you).

Given our discussion, I have the feeling that 10-15 years from now we will see something rather in between extremes. Not an apocalyptic outbreak of violence engulfing a continent but not exactly a movement that would do Gandhi proud either.

Because prominent political and religious figures quickly spoke out against the violence and there was a large rebuking of it by the people at large.

Well, the riots were condemned (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=21992) in Lebanon (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18601) by religious leaders although I agree that other countries were more quiet about it.

By the way, what do you make of this? (http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/02/27/middle-east-cartoons_cx_0227oxford.html) I'm not asking rhetorically. I really want to know whether you think Forbes and Oxford Analytica have any idea what they're talking about (I've been leery of Forbes ever since they made asses of themselves multiple times talking about the videogame industry).

All the West sees is the bad side of Islam. I know there is good Islam and modern thinkers in Islam. My problem is that I think those people also let themselves be ruled by fear of fanatical Islamic factions. If Islam wants to revamp its image and promote a peaceful version of itself, its members must stand up and take control of their belief, and not let the violent minority keep the majority under its thumb. The silent many are as damaging as the violent few, a violent few that appear to be growing in number with each passing day.


Certainly there are peaceful and modern Muslims out in the world, but I think calling the majority "good" is a bit too simple. I mean this in the same sense that people usually mean when they say calling someone "evil" is simplistic. On the one hand, the majority of Muslims all over the world and even in the Middle East don't support blowing up innocent children. On the other hand, life sucks for a lot of them and thanks to failures in education and public discourse, they don't see that the root of their misery has just as much to do with the corrupt people in positions of power and influence in their society as it does with any (real or perceived) abuses by the West. Just as an example, school textbooks in Palestine don't acknowledge Israel's existence as a state. It's not too much of a stretch that they elected a terrorist group into Parliament, then.

I guess what I'm saying is that rather than fault a silent majority, I fault a system that's been built to perpetuate violence in order to keep the ruling class in power. It's well and good to say that Muslims need to reclaim their religion from the extremists, but what if they don't even know they've been taken hostage by corrupt leaders? Unfortunately, what Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon have demonstrated to me is that the best (and perhaps only) hope for peace is to have two courageous leaders meeting in the middle. A grass roots kind of movement won't do it.

P.S. Are we really that scary? Seems like everybody else suddenly stops having an opinion as soon as you and I have a conversation.

P.P.S. Swarthmore's swim team defeated Ursinus. So nyah and stuff.

[manasecret]

Half of the entire problem is perception, also. All the West sees is the bad side of Islam. I know there is good Islam and modern thinkers in Islam. My problem is that I think those people also let themselves be ruled by fear of fanatical Islamic factions. If Islam wants to revamp its image and promote a peaceful version of itself, its members must stand up and take control of their belief, and not let the violent minority keep the majority under its thumb. The silent many are as damaging as the violent few, a violent few that appear to be growing in number with each passing day.

That was the intention of the cartoons from the start, according to the Danish editor who allowed the cartoons. The cartoons, he said, were not a hate message saying that all Muslims are violent. They were meant to point out that the peaceful religion of Islam has been seemingly taken over by the violent minority and the peaceful majority needs to step up and take their religion back.

If you can find the interview with that Danish editor, obviously he says his opinion much better than I can repeat it. He did quite a few interviews back during the heat of the riots. I'd provide a link but I can't find it.

For example take the most cited cartoon -- Mohammad wearing a bomb for a turban. The face of Mohammad should be a peaceful symbol, but instead the perception is that Islam is blood-stained and violent, so the symbol is distorted and is no longer peaceful. The message is that the face of Islam has been pillaged and ransacked and stolen and it needs to taken back by peaceful Muslims themselves.

For any of you who haven't seen the cartoons, I think seeing them for yourself truly shows how much they have been blown out of proportion. Google them or here are the cartoons (http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/). Should I be careful about posting this link? The funny thing is, I did think twice about it, and I'm still not sure if one of you moderators will decide to remove it. I can't imagine any reason why it matters anywhere and especially at a forum like this, but with riots over such a little thing as a cartoon I'm not sure anymore...

The feeling is similar to one of the cartoons. There is a cartoon of a newspaper cartoonist sweating in fear as he draws a simple picture of Mohammad -- with no bombs or anything, just a drawing of his face. The perception of a violent Islam is so pervasive that we can't even draw a non-opinionated drawing of Mohammad and publish it without thinking twice about it.