yeah Jesse, Leo, that fuckin' sucks dudes.

There was an excellent editorial article on the BBC's website about the Muhammad cartoon debate, but it seems to have gone missing...

Basically what it was trying to get across is that this is the result of total cultural misunderstandings on both sides. If you look at where most of the outrage is centred, it is mainly in the Arab nations near Israel, where Arab nationalism and Muslim extremism go hand-in-hand. In Turkey, Iran and even Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, there have been far more muted responses.

Meanwhile in the West, journalists (among others) fail to comprehend the importance of Islam in the day-to-day lives of Middle Easterners, however politicized a version it may be. Also, journalistic practices and ideals such as freedom of the press and free speech are still very much in their infancy when they are present at all. All of this taken together makes for a very delicate scenario, which would allow certain groups on both sides to take advantage of this.

I think the writer of that article definitely got it, where it is just another case of both sides being either unwilling and/or unable to understand the other. Ultimately, I just hope that this remains just that, a misunderstanding, and not the beginning of Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilizations'.

The issue has certainly been stirred up recently. I’m not sure if it's because of various reprintings, if it just took a bit of time to build, or if it just takes time for the cartoons to filter down to people who would use the situation.

I remember when the cartoons were first making news in the fall… there certainly wasn't the reaction we're getting now.

In any event, the wikipedia link that Par posted is a good synopsis.

And who says you need facts? You just need to be considered acceptable as mainstream comedy. Maybe the Danish cartoons needed to be funny. Example.

rolldeep homies. roll deep

Well, well, perhaps I should hit the refresh button more often.

The Crusade?

true enough... and you're right. It would appear as though I've been showing a biased side of the news, here's an attempt to fix that.

"Now it has become more than a case about the drawings, now there are forces that want a confrontation between our cultures," said Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller. "It is in no one's interest, neither them or us."

There were clerics in the streets, trying to quell the riots (who were pelted with rocks and beaten, but still, they were trying)

Canada.com had this to say:

Lebanon's Grand Mufti Mohammed Rashid Kabbani denounced the violence and appealed for calm, accusing infiltrators of sowing the dissent to "harm the stability of Lebanon." Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud denounced the violence, saying: "National unity should remain protected and consolidated." He warned against attempts to destabilize the country, and his government called for an emergency cabinet meeting later Sunday.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed anger over the cartoons but said Danish troops and other citizens should feel safe in his country. "It's not the responsibility of Danish troops, it's not the responsibility of Danish government, it's the free media. ... We must not hold the troops who are serving in Afghanistan responsible for this," he said Sunday on CNN's Late Edition.

so... some more moderate responses... and then we have these too: Another 1,000 supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rallied in Amarah, denouncing Denmark, Israel and the United States and demanding that Danish and Norwegian diplomats be expelled. ...connecting dots I didn't think were related... but then again, that's me.

In the end, I think it comes down to how we all define freedom of speech. I'd always seen it as this: that you're free to say whatever you want, so long as you're then willing to back it up. You know, having an argument and having the facts to back up your statements, putting a face to what you're saying, none of this behind someone else's back, or masking your identity...

Yeah, but those AEL cartoons are an insult to editorial cartoonists (and fans thereof) everywhere. I mean, I suppose you can question the Holocaust if you want, but at least be clever about it.

(But perhaps I'm heading too easily down the Seinfeld road of "And that offends you as a Jewish person? No, that offends me as a comedian.")

Yeah, I'm having problems with the whole controversy about the cartoons. On the one hand, the cartoons depict Muhammad, something that is forbidden (one notes that many of the Persian and Ottoman depictions veil his face), and some of the cartoons are offensive (though not as offensive as the later pictures in that image archive that Ed posted.)

On the flip side, a cornerstone of Western democracies is free speech, and not simply the freedom to say that which is not disagreeable. I mean, the original newspaper story (which has somehow been lost in all of this) dealt with the fact that an author writing a book about the Prophet could not find illustrators for his book, because they feared retribution. (I leave you to discover the irony for yourself (assuming, of course, that irony is what I'm looking for here; I never did figure that whole concept out.))

Clearly there is no defense for the burning of embassies. At the same time, I wouldn't exactly call offensive cartoons an enlightened and intellectual defense of free speech. There are issues on both sides here that go beyond drawings and violence. (Although, admittedly, the disproportionate response from protesting Muslims in various countries is the worse of the two sides.)

Fortunately, some people are smartening up: Muslims tell Yard to charge protesters:

“Lots of innocent Muslims went to the demonstration not realising that it was organised by extremists. They were hijacked by them.”

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the [Muslim Council of Britain]’s secretary-general, said: “We cannot have double standards, so therefore any breach of the law should be looked at by the police and investigated.

“The cartoons have offended every Muslim and the anger of Muslims has to be lawfully expressed. However, this outrage was used by some to induce Muslims into taking part in terrorist violence. We condemn their actions.”

hmm... so what does one do when one finds out about stuff like this??

well, if you're the Arab European League, you post anti-Jewish cartoons in response.

and, a protest in eastern Canada had this to say: "The protesters say insulting the Prophet Muhammad is an insult to Muslims everywhere."

And, really, what more could you ask for than this? The newspaper that first published the cartoons has apologized, but the protesters say demonstrations could continue unless those responsible are held punished. What exactly is considered punishment? fire bombing? or how about this: "Whoever defames our prophet should be executed. Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up." wow, over a cartoon., or, pardon me, twelve cartoons, some of which are hardly insulting.

And though, yes, some of the cartoons originally submitted are in poor taste, some of them, like the initial intent of seeking the images (to illustrate a book about the life of Muhammad) are quite tasteful. somehow, I like this as a response to the whole thing... perhaps overreacting, but then again, isn't everyone? What would the world look like if the Catholics responded in a similar fashion every time the Pope got attacked, or all of Christians and Jesus? where would we be then? I mean, even Sinead didn't get this much hatred. Sure, she got booed a lot, but no one fire bombed the British embassy.