Are the cartoon protesters propaganda led?? *pic*

Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 11:36 am
Are the cartoon protesters propaganda led?? *pic*

Posted By: pjbuk, http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net


I'm discussing this at another site and I have to make a couple of quick points here, look at the very WHITE hand in the first image. Then take note that ALL these signs are written by exactly the same person, you can tell by the writing in general, but more so by noting the S's.

What if this was someone intent on making things much worse than they were, turning up to an already angry crowd with banners already written??

Having looked at the Yahoo slideshow again, only two of these images remain there, the others are gone. Many of the 200+ pictures show muslims holding banners simply asking for respect....

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,225 • Replies: 13
No top replies

Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 02:48 pm
I don't know if I would call it "propaganda led," but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were one or two fanatical groups who are fanning the flames and used the event to their advantage.

The whole thing is insanity. Over a damn cartoon Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 02:53 pm
"Europe is the cancer of Islam" - well that's sort of in your face.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:04 pm
I've read quite a bit about how this issue is being manipulated by the Saudis in order to fan hardline Islaamic flames; I'll look for articles and links.

0 Replies
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 04:18 pm
Charles Moore wonders why there were suddenly so many Danish flags ready to be torched in Islamic nations.

Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of “spontaneous” Muslim rage, the odder it seems. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

If you get rid of the Danes, you'll have to keep paying the Danegeld
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 04/02/2006)

It's some time since I visited Palestine, so I may be out of date, but I don't remember seeing many Danish flags on sale there. Not much demand, I suppose. I raise the question because, as soon as the row about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke, angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well supplied with Danish flags ready to burn. (In doing so, by the way, they offered a mortal insult to the most sacred symbol of my own religion, Christianity, since the Danish flag has a cross on it, but let that pass.)

Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.

The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.

It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

Now the BBC announces that the head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars has called for an "international day of anger" about the cartoons. It did not name this scholar, or tell us who he is. He is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. According to Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, Qaradawi is like Pope John XXIII for Catholics, "the most progressive force for change" in the Muslim world.

Yet if you look up Qaradawi's pronouncements, you find that he sympathises with the judicial killing of homosexuals, and wants the rejection of dialogue with Jews in favour of "the sword and the rifle". He is very keen on suicide bombing, especially if the people who blow themselves up are children - "we have the children bomb". This is a man for whom a single "day of anger" is surely little different from the other 364 days of the year.

Which leads me to question the extreme tenderness with which so many governments and media outlets in the West treat these outbursts of outrage. It is assumed that Muslims have a common, almost always bristling, view about their faith, which must be respected. Of course it is right that people's deeply held beliefs should be treated courteously, but it is a great mistake - made out of ignorance - to assume that those who shout the loudest are the most representative.

This was the error in the case in Luton, where a schoolgirl's desire to wear the jilbab was upheld in the erroneous belief that this is what Islam demands. In fact, the girl was backed by an extremist group, and most of the other Muslims at the school showed no inclination to dress in full-length gowns like her. It's as if the Muslim world decided that the views of the Rev Ian Paisley represented the whole of authentic Christianity.

There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching, having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not everyone agrees about what is permissible.

Some of these depictions are in Western museums. What will the authorities do if the puritan factions within Islam start calling for them to be removed from display (this call has been made, by the way, about a medieval Christian depiction of the Prophet in Bologna)? Will their feeling of "offence" outweigh the rights of everyone else?

Obviously, in the case of the Danish pictures, there was no danger of idolatry, since the pictures were unflattering. The problem, rather, was insult. But I am a bit confused about why someone like Qaradawi thinks it is insulting to show the Prophet's turban turned into a bomb, as one of the cartoons does. He never stops telling us that Islam commands its followers to blow other people up.

If we take fright whenever extreme Muslims complain, we put more power in their hands. If the Religious Hatred Bill had passed unamended this week, it would have been an open invitation to any Muslim who likes getting angry to try to back his anger with the force of law. Even in its emasculated state, the Bill will still encourage him, thus stirring the ill-feeling its authors say they want to suppress.

On the Today programme yesterday, Stewart Lee, author of Jerry Springer: The Opera - in which Jesus appears wearing nappies - let the cat out of the bag. He suggested that it was fine to offend Christians because they had themselves degraded their iconography; Islam, however, has always been more "conscientious about protecting the brand".

The implication of the remark is fascinating. It is that the only people whose feelings artists, newspapers and so on should consider are those who protest violently. The fact that Christians nowadays do not threaten to blow up art galleries, invade television studios or kill writers and producers does not mean that their tolerance is rewarded by politeness. It means that they are insulted the more.

Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported, to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan "God loves F***ing".

Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn't I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won't, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.

There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam - fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.


0 Replies
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 06:53 pm
I, like many others, wonder which does more harm to the Muslim world... cartoons depicting Muhammed, or the fanatical, over-reacting hotheads threatening and enacting mindless violence...
0 Replies
Bi-Polar Bear
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 07:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I've read quite a bit about how this issue is being manipulated by the Saudis in order to fan hardline Islaamic flames; I'll look for articles and links.


If this is being put on by the Saudis what is george bushs' one of their main business partners role?
0 Replies
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 07:03 am
Didn't you hear BTV? Bush is the real author of the cartoons. He needed some violent muslim reaction to strengthen his hand in Iraq. I mean, who can really blame him for attacking people who become violent over a stupid cartoon? Geesh, I thought you Bush-haters would have seen that right away. :wink:
0 Replies
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 11:00 am
Denmark will be chairing the security council when the Iran affair comes up, so having them as a pree demonised scapegoat might be politically expedient.

Syria, which was responsible for the embasy burnings both in Syria itself and in neighboring Lebanon would love nothing more than to deflect attention away from its involvement in assasinating that Lebanese guy, and also has a stake in rekindling sectarian strife in Lebanon, which would "justify" Syrian forces moving back in to "provide security".

I've also read that the Saudi government might be grateful that the hajj stampede and its aftermath is no longer a leading story in arab news.

Still though, I blame Abu Laban and his merry men for touring the middle east with the three fabricated cartoons found below the originals on this site. (three quarters down)

Another theory implicates vodafone.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:44 pm
0 Replies
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:46 pm
these arrived in the email
0 Replies
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:51 pm
I had never seen the cartoons before, but I found them. I don't read Danish, so I really don't know the complete meaning of these pics:

0 Replies
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:15 pm
another one

0 Replies
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:45 pm
Danish paper pursues Holocaust cartoons

John Plunkett
Wednesday February 8, 2006

The Danish paper responsible for the original caricatures of the prophet Muhammad is set to run cartoons satirising the Holocaust.

Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, said today he was trying to get in touch with the Iranian paper, Hamshari, which plans to run an international competition seeking cartoons about the Holocaust.

"My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with the Iranian newspaper, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them," Mr Rose told CNN.

The Danish editor was also defiantly unapologetic about the original publication of 12 cartoons - one of which featured the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb - in his paper five months ago.

Mr Rose said he did not regret publishing the pictures.

"I think it is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at a discotheque [on] Friday night," he said.

"If you're wearing a short skirt that does not necessarily mean you invite everybody to have sex with you. If you make a cartoon, make fun of religion, make fun of religious figures, that does not imply that you humiliate or denigrate or marginalise a religion."

The backlash continued in Denmark today, where almost 1,000 Danish websites have been defaced by Islamic hackers protesting about the cartoons, posted pro-Islam messages and condemnation of the cartoons' publication on the sites.

"We have never seen so many defacements that are politically targeted in such a short time," said Roberto Preatoni, the founder and administrator of hacking monitor service, Zone-H.

"What is extraordinary for this Danish case is the speed in which the community united," he told the BBC.

Websites have been hacked to include messages calling for boycotts of Danish goods and warnings that the Danes should expect a violent response.

More than 900 Danish websites have been hacked, with a further 1,600 western sites attacked and defaced.


Things are getting kinda weird.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
  1. Forums
  2. » Are the cartoon protesters propaganda led?? *pic*
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/01/2023 at 11:19:41