I had no idea these cartoons were published in September last year. Why this monkey business started now???

30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4687992.stm

Apparently, to this Muslim at least, it's offensive to represent the prophet in a cartoon, but it's perfectly acceptable to deal heroin and cocaine Check the link for pictures

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4687996.stm

Cartoon protester was drug dealer

A Muslim demonstrator who imitated a suicide bomber in London to protest over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad is a convicted drug dealer.

Omar Khayam, 22, of Bedford, was jailed in 2002 and released on licence last year after serving half of his sentence for dealing heroin and cocaine.

It is believed probation officers are now reviewing his case.

Khayam has apologised to those affected by the 7 July bombs, saying his protest was as "insensitive" as the cartoons.

He was given five and a half years in prison in December 2002.

If the authorities decide he breached the terms of his licence, he could go back to jail. The MP for Bedford, Patrick Hall, who stood beside Mr Khayam as he read his apology on Monday, said he was unaware of the conviction but that he still took the apology at face value.

"He acted on impulse - couple of friends, they got on the train and got to London, and I believe this was a impulsive, foolish reaction to what he saw was the offence of the publication of those cartoons."

The demonstration outside London's Danish embassy on Friday and Saturday mirrored protests throughout Europe and Asia over the cartoons, which were first printed in a Danish paper.

Anti-Danish protests have been repeated across the Muslim world this week, and have led to at least five deaths in Afghanistan and one in Somalia.

Downing Street has said the behaviour of some Muslim protesters in London was "completely unacceptable".

Mr Khayam gave an explanation of his appearance as he apologised on Monday.

"I found the pictures deeply offensive as a Muslim and I felt the Danish newspaper had been provocative and controversial, deeply offensive and insensitive.

"Just because we have the right of free speech and a free media, it does not mean we may say and do as we please and not take into account the effect it will have on others.

"But by me dressing the way I did, I did just that, exactly the same as the Danish newspaper, if not worse," he said in Bedford.

Meanwhile, one man has said he and a second man were arrested during the London demonstration as he attempted to mount a counter-demonstration.

The man, named only as John, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he was arrested as he handed out leaflets with the cartoons printed on them.

The Metropolitan Police said two men were arrested on suspicion of breach of the peace, but no further action was taken.

It seems this guy has now been arrested.

Gimme that ol' time religion,
Gimme that ol' time religion,
Gimme that ol' time religion,
It's good enough for me.

plaw's got a point with his photo essay. You don't see atheists and agnostics carrying on like that.

I'm offended that his name is Omar Khayam. The original Omar Khayyam is turning in his grave. Can I protest please?! :p

Thanks, MC.

Although that wasn't the point I intended to make, I guess it will do for now.

On another note, as I'm still looking on those dates above, I came to this conclusion that if Danish paper and government had not apologized none of this would've happened. I find it ridiculous that the protests were started after they apologized. :rolleyes:

Plaw, "God hates ****" and so on are misguided sentiments - but they do not carry anything close to the implicit violence of the Islamist statements. Nor do they imply support for any kind of terrorism.

I'm afraid your little "Christians and Jews are just as bad" message misses the mark. Christians were as bad - examples being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition - but they are in the present day nowhere near the extremist heights of radical Islam.

Here some funny t-shirts from one of my favourite sites, http://www.tshirthell.com:

That wasn't exactly my point, either. But you're getting warmer.

What happened 5-600 years ago doesn't really count, IMO.

And I certainly don't think that today's Christian and Jewish extremists and hate-mongers are as dangerous to the world as Islamic terrorists are.

My point was not that Christian and Jewish extremists are just as bad.

The funny thing is that the Danish government - nor any government of a country with free press - cán apologize for they don't control the press, that's the whole point of free press!

These protests are clearly instigated by religious leaders and even governments. The best proof (and irony) is that in most of these countries people normally are not allowed to protest at all - by law!

Interesting that you imply that "radical Islam" is the enemy.

There's an interesting piece in this week's New Yorker magazine which talks about President Bush's State of the Union Address, which makes the point that "Radical Islam" is not, in fact, the enemy.

You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?060213ta_talk_hertzberg

One of the points that the author makes is that "Radical Islam" encompasses many things, and while the ranks of the terrorists are certainly filled by those who support a radical brand of Islam, "Radical Islam" in and of itself does not support terrorism, and to say that "Radical Islam" is the enemy is to paint things with a brush that's way to broad.

An excerpt or two:

A President is well advised to choose his words carefully. .....(his) words.....are as carefully — or, at any rate, as exhaustively — considered as bureaucratic thoroughness can make them.

It’s safe to assume, therefore, that the President was not speaking casually when he identified America’s mortal enemy as “radical Islam.”

Last October, speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy, the President,.....float(ed) more names for the “focussed ideology” that brought down the Twin Towers. “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism,” he said. “Others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamofascism.” As of last week, he seemed to have settled on “radical Islam.”.

It’s a bad choice, reminiscent of his early talk of a “crusade.” Violent jihadism, yes. Islamist (as distinct from Islamic) terrorism, yes. But not Islam, radical or otherwise.

There’s no doubt, of course, that terrorists of the Al Qaeda ilk are drawn from the ranks of adherents of “radical”—which is to say, extreme or fundamentalist—Islam.

But radical Islam is a far broader and more variegated phenomenon than the terrorist virus that infects it.

Its incarnations range from Al Qaeda to the clerical and legal establishments of Saudi Arabia. In virtually every iteration, it demands the subordination of women, the stunting of education, and the curbing of the freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion.

(Radical Islam) should be opposed, as part of America’s thirty-year-old campaign against violations of human rights. But it is not in and of itself a casus belli. Violence and terrorism are not intrinsic to it. And it is emphatically not something against which the United States should seek to fight a war to the death.

One of Al Qaeda’s goals has been to frame the conflict as a holy war between Muslims and infidels. In calling it a war, Bush emphasized its seriousness, but at the cost of granting its criminal perpetrators the dignity of warriors.

Calling it a war against Islam, even radical Islam, grants them the other half of their wish.

It turns out that Mohammed has been portrayed throughout history by Muslims and Christians alike, usually favorably. What this means is the "offense" of depicting Mohammed at all as being a sacrilege must be something relatively new. For a detailed analysis including pictures go to http://www.zombietime.com/mohamed_image_archive/.

Iran is now blaming Israel saying that this was an Israeli conspiracy. They are just looking for any excuse to attack Israel. This is really going to get ugly for everyone.


DS

Iran attacking Israel? Hmmm...something tells me that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't that stupid. Israel is the only country in the most volatile region in the world (The Middle East) that has nuclear weapons. Although Israel has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to any of the nuclear arms treaties some experts have indicated that Israel may have more nuclear weapons than Great Britain and France. In addition, Israel has the best conventional armed forces (largely financed by United States tax dollars) in The Middle East and one of the best in the world. Although Iran would fight extremely fiercely against Israel it knows that it would lose. Ahmadinejad is just trying to shore up his support among the extreme conservatives in his country and throughout The Middle East with his anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish rhetoric. If Iran even thought seriously about attacking Israel it would be invaded by The U.S. within a week. Don. S. believe me Iran is not looking for an excuse to attack Israel (although the reverse might be true) and the situation will not get ugly for anyone.

Israel will not back down. I'll bet you that they are planning something at this very moment. But either way it can be bad for all of us.


DS

Don S., We can most certainly agree on the fact that neither Iran nor Israel will back down and if the rhetoric on both sides escalates there is the possibility of war. To expand on my above post though, I just believe that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric against Israel is all fluff, he knows it, The Iranian Government knows it and the Iranian people know it. Ahmadinejad is full of shit and he is doing what he is doing because (similar to President George Bush Jr. in my opinion but that is another matter altogether) he is a mentally disturbed individual. However I will say again if Iran even thinks for a second of attacking Israel, the United States would invade Iran within a week, we would see regime change in Iran and the push to make Iran a Western style liberal democracy will be underway. If the U.S. attacks Iran it would most probably ultimately prevail due to many reasons, but it would be much harder to subdue Iran than Iraq or Afghanistan (not that it has been easy bringing peace and democracy to either or these countries) for many reasons. Although Afghanis are a very proud and fierce people their population is about 30 million or so and although Iraqis are also a very proud and strong people their population is about 27 million or so. Iranians are just as proud, fierce and strong as Afghanis and Iraqis but the population of Iran is close to 70 million and naturally the Iranian armed forces are much larger than those of Afghanistan or Iraq ever were. My two cents: the U.S. should finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq and trust that the Iranians are a young, intelligent people who are thirsty for the drink of freedom, justice, democracy, respect and peace. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" has lasted what, 26 years or so now, I don't believe it will last another 26 years and eventually it will be overthrown either by Iranians themselves or by an outside power.

These war mongers are now attacking foriegn embassys in Tehran as we speak. It is the same as invading a countrys soil when you attack an embassy of another counry.

If this was an American embassy being attacked Bush wouldn't stand for this shit.


DS

What a civilized bunch. :rolleyes: Now they started a cartoon contest in Iran and are rioting in the streets and attacking embassys.


DS

He won't stand for it?

What about the usual Mexican military excursions into American borders? Last I checked, the President hasn't started bombing GOYA Bean plants....yet.

However, I do share your anger absolutely.

For once, I agree with TDWFL.

What exactly is your point? To point the finger at all religious extremism? Or apologize for Islamists who are burning down buildings and inciting riots? What?

Kinda hard to explain.

My hope was to to offend one or more Christians or Jews here, and have them say that they objected to my characterization of their religion in using the term "From the wonderful world of..."

What you implied, or at least what I inferred, was that all Muslims were extremists.

Anyway, if I were a Muslim, I think I would have found your labeling of the photos "From the wonderful world of Islam" to be offensive.

Had you said "From the wonderful world of radical Islam, or Islam extremism, it would have been a different story.

And I'm certainly no "apologist for Islamists who are burning down buildings and inciting riots."

I believe in freedom of the press, which should be no surprise to you, and I also believe in people's right to protest, which should be no surprise to you, and I'm also against breaking the law and trampling on the rights of others while protesting (altho not necessarily against civil disobedience, which is completely different thing), which should be no surprise to you either, so I don't know why you would think that.

I think that's a bit pedantic. Double-J posted those photos in the context of a thread that was quite clearly about extremist or radical Islam, specifically the extremist protests. I don't think anyone would infer from it that he believes that all Muslims are extremists.

Well, with him you never know...... :p

Does anyone think that these church fires may be linked to these islamic protests?


DS

No

When are these people going to stop? Now they are having a holocaust cartoon contest and they are trying to provoke Israel and the jewish people around the world. They are looking for trouble. The Iranian government is putting it's own peoples lives in harms way. The people of Iran should rise up and overthrow that government.


DS

Religion and Media will be the death of us.

Religion and media Capo, won't necessarily be the death of us but if they are, it is ourselves who have made them so.