‘We need to cut their heads off,’ Bush said of anti-western demonstrators in Syria in ’06 — Tzipi Livni

US Politics
on 122 Comments

“We need to cut their heads off, ” then-President George Bush said of violent anti-western protests in Syria in 2006, former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said last month in Washington. The protesters had set fire to two European embassies in anger over cartoons of Muhammad that had appeared in the European press.

Livni recalled the exchange at an American Jewish Committee conference on June 10. Asked by David Gregory of CNN about how Europe is responding to the latest wave of terrorist violence, Livni said (minute 7 in the video below), “Maybe I’ll tell a story.”

When I was foreign minister and I don’t know whether you recall, years ago, terror in the region, and some of these lunatics, religious guys, terrorists ignited embassies in Syria I think it was, and I came to the States and I had a meeting with President Bush and he looked at me and he said, “Look at these terrorists, we need to cut their heads off.” I said, “OK Fine.”

On my way back to Israel I stopped in Europe and I had some meetings with European leaders, and they asked me, “What did we do wrong that we deserve this?”

Then I came back to Israel and I heard Israelis saying, “Oh what a crazy world, this is a tough neighborhood, and we need to defend ourselves.”

I believe this is very symbolic because until terror entered Europe, unfortunately, for the European it was something far away, the Middle East. They thought that it was not even their backyard. And they need to understand now, that there is a religious war out there. It’s not the entire Islam against the others, but it is a religious war against all of us, whether it is radical Islam against moderates, Islam against Jews, against Christians. And there is nothing we can do to stop them, in trying to appease them or trying to understand them. We need to fight them…

Because they’re against us because of our values, because of who we are, not because of what we do. And therefore it took some time for the world to understand it. I hope the international community understands it now. But this is what needs to be done.

Livni’s timeline fits a meeting in 2006. Soon after she became Foreign Minister she met with Bush on February 9, 2006. A few days earlier demonstrators had ignited two embassies in Damascus. From the Guardian, February 2006:

Thousands of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus today, setting fire to both buildings in protest against caricatures of Islam’s prophet..

The demonstrators were protesting against caricatures of the prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper several months ago…

The cartoons, first printed in Denmark and then published elsewhere in Europe, have caused offence in the Arab and Islamic world, in part because Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of the prophet Muhammad. Aggravating the affront was one caricature of Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.

A later meeting: President George W. Bush drops by a meeting between National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni of Israel at the White House Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2006. White House photo by Eric Draper

You may notice that co-panelist Bill Kristol groaned when Livni told the anecdote about Bush. Even he understands that this is not a prescription for good policy.

But Livni seems to think it is. That is her rational Israeli response to living in a “tough neighborhood” surrounded by “lunatic” Muslims in what she regards as “a religious war against all of us”– when the truth is that these people were angry about vicious caricatures of their prophet. Whatever you think of the free-speech issue (and I am a fierce liberal on that issue), it is not appeasement to try and understand a different culture’s values on such issues, in this globalized world.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

122 Responses

  1. eljay
    July 17, 2017, 10:35 am

    Caricatures of “prophets” are no excuse for Muslims to go out and do violence.

    The religion-based identity of Jewish is no excuse for Zionists to go out and do violence.

    I wonder if Ms. Livni has ever spoken to rape victims and told them that they don’t actually hate the physical and sexual abuse to which the rapist repeatedly subjected them, they just hate him for being a man.

    • gamal
      July 17, 2017, 2:50 pm

      “Caricatures of “prophets” are no excuse for Muslims to go out and do violence.”

      just because unfounded stories that people are rioting because of cartoons are being circulated is no reason to repeat it, when it is patently absurd unless one buys in to the Muslims are nutters meme, whats the excuse for that?

      “So we are told that this riot in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan took place because Terry Jones finally burned a Koran. The Afghans are not rioting because their country has been invaded and occupied by foreign troops but rather, because some utterly insignificant individual on the other side of the world burned a Koran.

      The saga does not end here. Over a year later, on 9/12/2012, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, called Pastor Terry Jones on the phone and asked him to withdraw his support for a film “whose portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad has sparked violent protests.” Now the focus of the narrative had shifted over to Libya. The Libyans are not angry, apparently, that their country has been “bombed back into the Stone Age” and tens of thousands of their people are dead and their country in a state of anarchy. No, they are angry about a film that “portrays Muhammad unfavorably”. And now, of course, the Koran-burning pastor who caused a deadly riot on the other side of the world the previous year is brought back into the story….

      If a tree falls in the forest…

      We could have a field day analyzing and ridiculing all of this synthetic narrative. Surely you understand the overall point. This whole Koran-burning saga already stands out as a synthetic news story simply by virtue of how much attention is devoted to this insignificant personage, Terry Jones. Unless you happen to be a very famous person reading these lines, I think it is safe to say that if you or I threatened to burn a Koran, it would not be an international news story, we would not receive phone calls from the President or the Pope. No, we would be ignored. In fact, in that video it is mentioned that various people sent Korans to Jones for him to burn. Think about that. The people who send him Korans to burn know perfectly well that if they themselves burn a Koran, it has no transcendence because nobody is paying any attention. So they send the Korans to him to burn. At least that’s what is claimed, that various people sent him Korans to burn, 200 of them…

      The other funny thing about the whole story is that the entire media circus that they create around this individual pretty much obliges him to finally burn a Koran or two. After all, a sword swallower must eventually swallow a sword. He cannot just continually announce that he is going to do it, though he may wait until a sufficient crowd has gathered.

      So, just as Evel Knievel must eventually do his announced motorcycle stunt, so the Koran-burning pastor must eventually burn a Koran. This man’s entire protracted “fifteen minutes of fame” is based on him burning the Koran, so he eventually does so. When you think about this whole story a bit, something occurs to you: if they really, really did not want this man to burn a Koran, wouldn’t they just stop devoting all this attention to him? If you did not want Evel Knievel to do his motorcycle stunt, you would just turn off the cameras and not film him and, presumably, he wouldn’t bother. The whole point of the stunt is to attract publicity so if you don’t give him the publicity…”

      http://www.unz.com/article/the-show-must-go-on/

      • eljay
        July 17, 2017, 3:18 pm

        || gamal: … just because unfounded stories that people are rioting because of cartoons are being circulated … ||

        So The Guardian’s story is unfounded? Okay.

      • echinococcus
        July 17, 2017, 3:51 pm

        Unfounded? Is that all you understand?.
        Unfounded is the “because” –they’re fabricated by b^st^rd media like the ex-Manchester G for gullible liberaloids.

      • eljay
        July 17, 2017, 6:24 pm

        || echinococcus: Unfounded? Is that all you understand?.
        Unfounded is the “because” –they’re fabricated by b^st^rd media like the ex-Manchester G for gullible liberaloids. ||

        My original comment was this: Caricatures of “prophets” are no excuse for Muslims to go out and do violence.

        According to you (and gamal), no Muslims anywhere in the world did any violence to anyone or anything as a result of the caricatures (and any and every story to the contrary is “unfounded”).

        If you say so. But I don’t believe you.

      • echinococcus
        July 17, 2017, 8:33 pm

        Eljay,

        You still don’t get plain English.

      • eljay
        July 17, 2017, 9:58 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay,

        You still don’t get plain English. ||

        I get plain English. You just don’t write it.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 17, 2017, 10:15 pm

        Eljay,

        Caricatures of the prophet are never innucous art projects but are almost always designed from the getgo to offend and inflict psychological violence on Muslims. Sure, if the Muslim in question is living a life of privilege in a safe country, good job and with a happy family then the caricatures wont be enough of a trigger to elicit a violent reaction.

        But the people who respond to these offensive drawings are not exactly privileged folks living happy lives. The power dynamics matters when assessing the morality of violence. If the caricatures were satire they are supposed to punch up, not down. You would rightly expect violence when you call a tensed black guy the N-word…but Muslims are supposed to adhere to a different standard?

      • Sibiriak
        July 17, 2017, 11:26 pm

        Bont Eastlake: You would rightly expect violence when you call a tensed black guy the N-word…but Muslims are supposed to adhere to a different standard?
        ——————

        @Eastlake: Please, stop trolling.

        @Everyone: Please, don’t feed the troll.

      • eljay
        July 18, 2017, 8:02 am

        || Bont Eastlake @ July 17, 2017, 10:15 pm ||

        So, in a nutshell, caricatures of “prophets” are an excuse for Muslims to do violence. Got it.

        || … You would rightly expect violence when you call a tensed black guy the N-word…but Muslims are supposed to adhere to a different standard? ||

        No, Zionist troll. I would rightly expect violence against me if I verbally abused a black guy. I would rightly expect violence against me if I verbally abused a Muslim guy. Same standard.

        I would rightly not expect Muslims to do violence over caricatures of “prophets”. I would rightly not expect blacks to do violence over caricatures of MLK. Same standard.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 18, 2017, 11:32 am

        This was the first big case of Mohammad cartoons in Europe, in Denmark 2005. And it became a big dicussion of freedom of the speech all over the Nordic countries (and elsewhere in Europe too.) The attempt to limit the freedom of expression of the cartoonists, just provoked them even more, since specially in Denmark the freedom of speech and expression has been really strong for decades. So for them the issue was about freedom of speech, for the Muslims it became something else.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

      • eljay
        July 18, 2017, 1:13 pm

        || Kaisa of Finland: This was the first big case of Mohammad cartoons in Europe, in Denmark 2005. … ||

        Some folks will tell you there was no big case – just “unfounded stories” “fabricated by b^st^rd media … for gullible liberaloids”.

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2017, 1:50 pm

        It still is a question of free speech anyway, anytime and for anyone, Kaisa. No difference from blasphemy laws and such.

        Understanding how people are manipulated does not excuse them individually. That they are desperate and stupid explains their religious obscurantism without excusing it. We still have right to defecate on every possible holy thing on earth and remain safe.

        Just as we have the right not to get jailed or killed for a poem by the Zionist b&[email protected]

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2017, 2:12 pm

        Eljay still has a problem understanding things. Like the difference between “because” and “right”.

      • eljay
        July 18, 2017, 8:38 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay still has a problem understanding things. Like the difference between “because” and “right”. ||

        The words make sense; you make nonsense.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 18, 2017, 9:21 pm

        ELjay,

        — “I would rightly expect violence against me if I verbally abused a Muslim guy. Same standard.” —

        Muslims hold the Prophet as the most perfect human that everyone should strive to emulate. This is the core of their belief. When you want to become a Muslim you have to first state that there is no other god but the only God and Muhammad is His messenger.

        When you insult or make fun of the Prophet, you are directly questioning the most fundamental aspect of a Muslims identity. You are essentially going for the jugular in the effort of delegitimizing the Muslim identity. Its not the same as saying Muslims are backwards or Muslims are misogynists etc…those are lame insults. Insulting the prophet is an act of overt aggression towards them, regardless of how they choose to take it.

        I’m not saying its ok for Muslims to riot and get violent as a response to demeaning caricatures of the prophet. I think they should respond but in a smarter way, like boycotting and severing diplomatic ties until apology is made. But i understand why they choose violence. A cornered animal needs very little agitation to bite.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 18, 2017, 9:26 pm

        Kaisa,

        Is it really about free speech though? Why don’t those cartoonists use their free speech making fun of Jews or Judaism? Isnt it discriminatory to use your platform to demean some religion but stay silent on others?

      • gamal
        July 18, 2017, 10:56 pm

        “When you insult or make fun of the Prophet, you are directly questioning the most fundamental aspect of a Muslims identity.”

        please stuff like this is frankly revolting, please advocate for someone else, or at least not for Muslims.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 19, 2017, 1:10 am

        Bont:

        Well, those Muhammed cartoons were not only cartoons published in these newspapers/magazines.. Can’t give you any example of Jews, but atleast the Christian churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Pope, what ever..) and Jesus has got a lot more and much worse than those cartoons of Muhammed during the years. Anyway, I just added that link for people to read what this issue was about and give this point of view. I did not give my personal meaning about it.

      • eljay
        July 19, 2017, 7:25 am

        || Bont Eastlake: Muslims hold the Prophet as the most perfect human that everyone should strive to emulate. … ||

        Good for them. For others, L. Ron Hubbard is the most perfect human ever. But the abundant caricatures of M. Hubbard are no excuse for Scientologists to go out and do violence.

        Bont Eastlake: … I’m not saying its ok for Muslims to riot and get violent as a response to demeaning caricatures of the prophet. … ||

        Your several paragraphs of apologetics suggest otherwise.

      • eljay
        July 19, 2017, 7:30 am

        || Bont Eastlake: … Why don’t those cartoonists use their free speech making fun of Jews or Judaism? Isnt it discriminatory to use your platform to demean some religion but stay silent on others? ||

        Zionist Bont plays the whataboutism card. Next thing you know, he’ll be pointing out that it’s discriminatory for Phil to use his MW platform to pick on Jews and Israel but stay silent on Muslims and Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes”.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 19, 2017, 9:05 am

        Gamal,

        Im not speaking for Muslims in general, but Im trying to present the perspective of Muslims who are most affected by the caricatures of the Prophet.

        Like I said before, privileged Muslims like yourself can afford to let silly things like that slide…but Muslims who are struggling with socioeconomic corruptions, such drawings can be the straw that broke the camels back. Many of these Muslims only have their religion to help them face the ugliness of everyday life. An everyday life that would be more than happy to see them drop dead and dissapear.

        And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, these cartoons show up denegrating their faith. Drawn by professional cartoonists to be as visually potent as possible in its derision of the only thing helping them survive. What do you expect them to do…go home and turn into privileged Western liberals?

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 19, 2017, 9:25 am

        Kaisa,

        Exactly. Christians are not exactly a persecuted group anywhere in the world, definitely not in Europe or North America. Why would they care about some cartoons when their religion is everywhere in public and private life?

        Jewish people on the other hand are not so privileged, but definitely more privileged than Muslims in Europe and North America.

        Yet, like you said…they are for some reason never made target of offensive satire. So freedom of speech only applies to some people, not all? That is discrimination. Also offensive drawings of Muslims and Islamic faith are not rare, just rarely become subject of mainstream attention.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 19, 2017, 9:39 am

        Eljay,

        Freedom of speech applies to speeches against the government that represent you. Not against anyone and anything you feel like having an opinion on. Why is it apologetic to say your words have consequences? Try calling Phil or any of the editors here offensive names and see if they entertain your idea of freedom of speech.

        Secondly, those cartoonists claim to be anti-all religion and that they dont discriminate who they mock. But leaving Judaism untouched, and repetively focusing on Islam is a sure sign these people are a bunch of hypocritical, Islamophobic cowards.

      • eljay
        July 19, 2017, 10:20 am

        || Bont Eastlake: … Why is it apologetic to say your words have consequences? … ||

        Once again, you deliberately distort my words. I didn’t say it is apologetic to say that words have consequences.

        || … Try calling Phil or any of the editors here offensive names and see if they entertain your idea of freedom of speech. ||

        Once gain, you deliberately distort the point. Direct verbal abuse is not the same as a caricature of “prophets”. If someone were to draw a caricature of someone Phil and the MW editors hold in very high regard, it would not be a valid excuse for them to go out and do violence.

        || … Secondly, those cartoonists claim to be anti-all religion and that they dont discriminate who they mock. But leaving Judaism untouched, and repetively focusing on Islam is a sure sign these people are a bunch of hypocritical, Islamophobic cowards. ||

        Just as focusing on Israel without also focusing on Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes” is a sure sign that anti-Zionists are just a bunch of hypocritical, anti-Semitic cowards. Well done, Zionist Bont!

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 19, 2017, 11:21 am

        ELjay, I dont mean to distort your words but you shouldnt make a point, wait for a reply, and then reiterate a slightly modified version of your initial point. Its like moving the goalpost retroactively.

        Who made you the authority in determining the correct response to verbal abuse versus offensive caricatures. Because you say something doesnt warrant a violent response, it is fact? The point is the offense felt, not the offense intended. If Phil feel offended seeing a innocent drawing you posted, he is entitled to ban you from his website. Your freedom of speech is not greater than his right for self-preservation.

        Lastly, I dont even know what point ur making here. MW routinely covers politics of Arab nations, Western nations in addition to Israel, in a wider pursuit of global justice. They are consistent with their mission statement UNLIKE those cartoonists whos actions clearly failed to match their claims.

      • Sibiriak
        July 19, 2017, 11:24 am

        eljay: Once again, you deliberately distort my words…
        ——————

        Best not to feed a dissembling Zionist troll.

      • eljay
        July 19, 2017, 12:23 pm

        || Bont Eastlake: ELjay, I dont mean to distort your words … ||

        Of course you do, and that’s why you consistently do it.

        || … but you shouldnt make a point, wait for a reply, and then reiterate a slightly modified version of your initial point. … ||

        My point hasn’t changed:

        eljay: Caricatures of “prophets” are no excuse for Muslims to go out and do violence.

        The religion-based identity of Jewish is no excuse for Zionists to go out and do violence.

        || … Who made you the authority in determining the correct response to verbal abuse versus offensive caricatures. … ||

        No-one did. I merely stated my opinion.

        || … If Phil feel offended seeing a innocent drawing you posted, he is entitled to ban you from his website. … ||

        I’m not sure if you’re actually a fool or just pretending to be one. Banning me from MW is not the same as doing violence to me.

        || … Lastly, I dont even know what point ur making here. … ||

        Yes, you do, because for a brief moment during your apologetics you actually agreed with me:

        Bont: I’m not saying its ok for Muslims to riot and get violent as a response to demeaning caricatures of the prophet.

      • eljay
        July 19, 2017, 12:27 pm

        || Sibiriak: … Best not to feed a dissembling Zionist troll. ||

        I agree. And, so, I resume ignoring Zionist Bont.

      • gamal
        July 19, 2017, 12:45 pm

        Hey Eljay

        with minimal babble a Canadian Anthropology don writes, I think its interesting, and is obliquely relevant, Islam now has Canadian teeth…3rd para if you in a hurry.

        “Canada’s federal government is no more innocent. Under Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, a massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia (valued at $14.8 billion—the largest military export contract in Canadian history), was pushed through. The deal was first struck by his predecessor, Conservative PM Stephen Harper. In court, Trudeau’s government admitted it knew that its weapons could be used in further atrocities in Yemen.

        Mastering the liberal art of hypocrisy on human rights, Canada under Trudeau has enforced an official silence about Saudi atrocities against civilians in Yemen. Meanwhile, just before the Canadian government proceeded to remove Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate from its official list of terrorist groups, the federal parliament passed the government’s “Anti-Islamophobia” motion (M-103).

        That is one very interesting, very useful coincidence, where the two facts can reinforce each other: criticizing any Canadian-based supporters of Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliates (the Al Nusra Front, and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) could conceivably be construed by the authorities as an act of Islamophobia, a hate crime directed against poor refugees.

        Far fetched? When I wrote this article in 2011, “The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya,” which spoke of US support for “radical Islamist militias,” I immediately received a polite but stern email from an anti-Gaddafi Libyan émigré in Canada, warning me that I had probably crossed the line of “Islamophobia”. What “line” was crossed when the Islamist son of another anti-Gaddafi Libyan émigré in Canada decided to shoot up Parliament Hill in 2014? Does Canada show intolerance for extremism then?

        It’s doubtful that extremism really raises all that many eyebrows in Ottawa: in 2015 Canada voted against the majority of the UN General Assembly, which passed a motion about combating the glorification of Nazism. Since then, it has been revealed that Canada’s current foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, lied about her family history of collaboration with the Nazis in Ukraine during WWII, choosing to instead portray her relative as a refugee and victim of the Soviets. On this even the mainstream media, quick to call the story “fake news,” backing Freeland’s conspiracy theory about Russian intervention in Canada, was forced to admit that it was true. Does violent extremism bother the authorities in Canada, is a question that should be replaced by: When does it bother them? Whose extremism bothers them?”

        https://zeroanthropology.net/2017/06/06/how-to-make-extremism-mainstream-and-fake-a-debate-about-islamophobia/

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 19, 2017, 12:45 pm

        Bont:

        Why do you write about something, you have no idea about.. Well those cartoons were published in Denmark, but if we now take Finland as an example:

        In Finland there are 46 different newspapers that appear 5, 6 or 7 times a week and most of them publish a cartoon each day they appear. On top of that, there are atleast same amount of newspapers that appear 4,3,2 or 1 time a week and the magazines are not counted there.
        So if we now take only those 46 first mentioned newspapers and count the cartoons they publish in a year, you get more than 16 000 cartoons per year. And since we have left many newspapers and all the magazines out, this is just a rough estimate and there are propably lot of cartoons left out of that 16 000. Above that, cartoons have been published in Finland for decades, so it means we could be close to a million published cartoons through out the history so it would be impossible for me to know all of them.

        I am sure there have been some cartoons of Jews too (and since Chrstianity “kind of” comes from Judaism, I am not sure if making cartoons about Adam, Eve, the snake and the fruit or Moses or Abraham, is a Christian or a Jewish cartoon.. ??) If you are interested in this issue so much, I’d recommend you to contact an historian who has concentrated on the subject. I am sure there is some, but I am not one of them.

        If then comparing this with the Danish situation of cartoons, I’d dare to say they publish somehow similar amount of cartoons annually, so there is even more material for you to search. So in that context one cartoon has less meaning in here than it might have somewhere else.

        (P.s. I checked: Cartoons have been published in Finland since 1880’s)

      • Mooser
        July 19, 2017, 1:08 pm

        “Try calling Phil or any of the editors here offensive names and see if they entertain your idea of freedom of speech.”

        Gee, “Bont Eastlake”, how do you account for the continued presence of “Hophmi” and “yonah fredman”?

      • eljay
        July 19, 2017, 1:36 pm

        || gamal: Hey Eljay

        with minimal babble a Canadian Anthropology don writes, I think its interesting, and is obliquely relevant, Islam now has Canadian teeth… ||

        That was an interesting (if somewhat overlong) article. Thanks. :-)

      • gamal
        July 19, 2017, 1:40 pm

        “Try calling Phil or any of the editors here offensive name”

        “how do you account for the continued presence of” ahem,

        but I am a serial and gross offender and have been shown nothing but curtesy and generosity if I had any compunction I’d probably be quite embarrassed, Mr. Weiss never complains when one besmirches his shibboleths, man is a damn good sport,

      • Mooser
        July 19, 2017, 2:10 pm

        “but I am a serial and gross offender”

        I am sorry, I didn’t mean to leave anybody out.

      • RoHa
        July 19, 2017, 7:58 pm

        “(P.s. I checked: Cartoons have been published in Finland since 1880’s)”

        Thanks, Kaisa. That snippet of information will be stuck in my mind for the rest of my life. It will get in the way of important ideas, and yet serve no useful purpose that I can foresee. It certainly won’t help me to pick up girls.

      • RoHa
        July 19, 2017, 8:19 pm

        “Freedom of speech applies to speeches against the government that represent you. Not against anyone and anything you feel like having an opinion on. ”

        Where do you get this nonsense from? Freedom of speech is linked to freedom of thought, and without that we can make no improvements in human life. Mill argues this in “On Liberty”. Read it, and learn.

      • RoHa
        July 19, 2017, 8:23 pm

        “Who made you the authority in determining the correct response to verbal abuse versus offensive caricatures.”

        Eljay isn’t claiming to be an authority. But as a member of the moral community, and one who has given the matter a fair amount of thought, he is entitled both to hold and express a view on the issue. As are you.

      • gamal
        July 19, 2017, 11:14 pm

        ” “Who made you the authority in determining the correct response to verbal abuse versus offensive caricatures.”

        well, let us now for guidance refer to the Islamic tradition:

        “”The Muslim who mixes with the people and bears patiently their hurtful words, is better than one who does not mix with people and does not show patience under their abuse.”

        Muhammad

        Whose famous motto was

        “‘Forgive him who wrongs you; join him who cuts you off; do good to him who does evil to you, and speak the truth although it be against yourself.”

        and just to be clear God is even more of a limp wristed appeaser,

        “Bear pateintly whatever they say”

        “disregard their hurtful talk”

        nowhere in the teachings are you required to act like a deranged thug, under whatever pretext,

        “A Muslim is a person from whose tongue and hand mankind is safe” Muhammad again, he did go on about it, he knew and probably so do you we ain’t listening to that shit

        I was involved in the Rushdie affair at one point a guy from Bradford? burned a couple of hundred copies of the Satanic verses,

        me and the sheikh were impressed

        “He will have had to buy every one of them” noticed the canny sh.

        “I mean Bradord how long would it take to sell 2 rarefied modern novels about Muslims without the riots, he probably bought every copy in the midlands”

        what we thought was I could write it, he condemn it and demand Muslims buy it and burn it, its in money in the bank and 24 hour a day armed guard all at tax payer expense, did he thank the Muslims, did he fuck.

        well and in saying all that one of things is that the internal politics of Muslim communities have got a little weird, complex, out of whack, but its not really polemical stuff perhaps too much to get into so i will leave it here.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 20, 2017, 6:29 am

        Roha,

        How is he ( or anyone ) entitled to hold opinion on how OTHER people should react to something? He is not even a Muslim himself so where does the entitlement comes from??

        Muslims are a group of 1.6 billion individuals of various races, ethnic groups, gender and sexuality, classes and nationalities. They can decide on their own the appropriate response to offending material without having to consider the views of some random white guy in Canada.

        Wrt your earlier point, freedom of thoughts and freedom of speech are highly Eurocentric concepts that may not be interpreted in the same way by all people. The consensus, atleast within American society, is the legal protection of the public from state prosecution when criticizing and questioning the government. Thats it. When it comes to interaction between private entities, freedom follows rules and code of conduct. As such, publishing bigoted drawings often lead to lawsuits, loss of employment, calls of boycotts, etc.

      • eljay
        July 20, 2017, 7:14 am

        || RoHa: … Thanks, Kaisa. That snippet of information … certainly won’t help me to pick up girls. ||

        That’s okay – you still have your mastery of commas with which to wow the ladies. ;-)

      • eljay
        July 20, 2017, 8:35 am

        || Bont Eastlake: Roha,

        How is he ( or anyone ) entitled to hold opinion on how OTHER people should react to something? … where does the entitlement comes from?? ||

        That is an excellent question. Let’s let Bont Eastlake handle this one:

        Bont Eastlake: … I’m not saying its ok for Muslims to riot and get violent as a response to demeaning caricatures of the prophet. I think they should respond but in a smarter way, like boycotting and severing diplomatic ties until apology is made …

        Well, whaddaya know: Bont Eastlake holds an opinion on how OTHER people should react to something. What an entitled fool he is.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 8:39 am

        Bont:

        I have seen some horrible cartoons picturing the theme “Pope, the Catholic Church and child abuse” and I am sure those cartoons have made many Christians very uppset.. But cartoons are not there to please anyone, but rather to raise discussion on sometimes really sensitive and difficult matters too. If you would burn – or encourage someone to burn – a Koran here, you’d go to court for that. But cartoonists are todays “jesters” and they are there to “mock” everything there is current right now*. So I’d recommend you to get to know the history and the meaning of the cartoons before making judgments on the subject. (I am still not saying that provokating people on purpose would be necessary, but if I find some cartoons offensive, I just look the other way!)

        *And all of them ofcourse have their own personal style to do it.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 8:51 am

        RoHa:

        “..yet serve no useful purpose that I can foresee..”

        Don’t say.. You’ll never know what will be the next question asked when you play Trivial Pursuit :) ! (You might win with it..)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 8:55 am

        RoHa:

        Now I made it again:

        If you burned a Koran.. Not If you would.. I have been so proud to mostly remember it, but can’t be perfect can I.. ??

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 9:17 am

        P.S. Bont:

        “But, the people or establishment that publishes offensive cartoons on the Prophet and Jesus, refuses to do likewise with Jewish figures..”

        Where do you get this information and which are these Jewish figures you are talking about?? Maybe in U.S. it works like that, but don’t talk about all of the world.. Maybe you are a Jester yourself, enjoying mixing stuff on purpose??

      • RoHa
        July 20, 2017, 9:24 am

        Those reactions are human behaviour. All sane adult humans are members of the moral community, and as such have the right to have and express an opinion on the morality of the behaviour of any other members. Eljay has that right in regard of the behaviour of Muslims, even if he isn’t one,and you have the right to disapprove of his opinion, even if you aren’t a random white guy from Canada.

        And Muslims also have the right to express their opinions of his, my, and your behaviour.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 20, 2017, 10:05 am

        Kaisa,

        Catholics are not oppressed peoples, so your point of about offensive cartoons targetting them is irrelevant. Satire is meant to punch up.

        Secondly, my point about mocking the Jews in the same manner Muslims are mocked was meant to show the hypocrisy of the publishers of these cartoons. When the Danish cartoonists received global backlash for their cartoons, they defended themselves saying they target all religion using their right to free speech. Same with Charlie Hebdo. This is patently untrue. They never mock Jews or Judaism so they are discriminatory and racist.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 12:02 pm

        Bont:

        “They never mock Jews or Judaism so they are discriminatory and racist..”

        Congratulations for you for going through all of those millions of cartoons there have been published in Europe during the years. Could you give me somekind of a proof over your clames or are you just mixing between your own opinion and tha actual real life??

      • MHughes976
        July 20, 2017, 2:55 pm

        I would be quite surprised, Kaisa, if there was much anti-Jewish mockery anywhere near the mainstream – the Nazi-era mockery has such a bad name. On the other hand, there has certainly been anti-Christian mockery in the age of church scandals.
        I find that the Bont Eastlake contributions, though in my view outside Mondoweiss rules, make me think, though they outrage values I hold dear – though there’s an indication there why religious affront cannot reasonably be taken as a capital offence.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 20, 2017, 6:12 pm

        Kaisa

        As I have said before, offensive cartoons about Jews exist…just a general statement acknowledging the basic truth.

        However, most publishers with a significant platform to reach a large set of global audiences never mock Jews in the same way they mock Muslims. Charlie Hebdo drew Muhammad as a modern terrorist for example. Have they ever drew Jewish prophets as fascist IDF soldiers? No, because I really tried looking for such drawings and couldnt find any. Same with the Danish cartoonists.

        And when people are outraged at the offensive cartoons, they defend themselves the sameway El Jay and others do here. Freedom of speech and they mock all religion, why Muslims so sensitive etc. However, from their avoidance of mocking Jews, we can clearly see they are just opportunistic racists and Islamophobes who are not even brave enough to own up to it.

      • RoHa
        July 20, 2017, 7:34 pm

        “Well, whaddaya know: Bont Eastlake holds an opinion on how OTHER people should react to something.,

        But, eljay, Bont has a special insight into these matters, an insight that is denied us mere random white guys. (And I think I’m more random than you are.)

      • RoHa
        July 20, 2017, 7:38 pm

        I always win anyway, Kaisa, even though I can’t answer the sports questions. The only person in my circles who could, on rare occasions, beat me was my brother, and he’s dead now.

      • RoHa
        July 20, 2017, 7:43 pm

        “I have been so proud to mostly remember it, ”

        Well deserved pride.

        “but can’t be perfect can I.. ??”

        Why not? Somebody should be, and I’m too old for it.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 8:11 pm

        Hughes:

        Yes, I am sure f.ex. in Germany anti-Jewish cartoons might be difficult to get published. But in Finland, I’d say there is no “special treatment” for the Jews compared to the Muslims. We have had our small Jewish and Muslim minorities from the 1900th century and they have been treated the same way from the beginning. And now in this time of “the big wave of the refugees”, it is not about the religon, but rather cultural differencies that might cause some big discussions and conflicts between people. And if I think about our rasist nationalists, a black Christian guy from Angola won’t get any better treatment than a Muslim from Irak.. I’d say it is almost opposite.. And a white Muslim from Tshetshenia, might even be wellcomed by them. (For some reason most of our nationalists admire Putin and Russia.. Rather white people from the East than coloured people from the South.) And these things will be seen in the cartoons too. So I think in here cartoons about Judaism are not “banned” any more than cartoons about Islam or Christianity. But it is clear f.ex. in Germany, because of their history, it might be too difficult issue to handle. (I have no idea what kind of cartoons they publish about Muslims or Christians either, so I am only assuming, no real knowledge on the issue..)

        Anyway, complicated matters.. But at least after this discussion, I am going to pay more attention to it here. I kind of got interested in the subject now :)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 20, 2017, 8:33 pm

        I must add, that I’ve done Media Studies at the University and if I was writing my thesis there at the moment, this would have been a really good subject to study deeper. Who knows, maybe I’ll do it someday in the future.. :)

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 20, 2017, 10:14 pm

        Kaisa,

        Nobody is talking about Findland except you. The references to offensive caricatures made in the preceding chain of comments are towards the cartoons published by a large Danish newpaper and the Charlie Hebdo magazine company. Both of which attracted immense level of media attention and provoked violent responses from a small minority of Muslims globally. I say small minority because Western media reports of such offenses were so overblown in the transparent motive of showing Muslims conform to their stereotypes.

        I find it bizarre a Media Student like yourself can be so oblivious to the subject matter at hand while taking part in a dialectic on it.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 21, 2017, 10:38 am

        Bont:

        That answer I wrote was for Hughes, because his comment made me think about the fact, that all of the European countries have different point of view, when talking about different minorities and religions. In that matter you can’t really say: “In Europe this and that..”

        I have lived and studied in Denmark. I also speak Danish. I have had Danish classmates who are Muslims and all though I have a quite good picture of the Danish society, how it works and how they think about minorities, immigrants and different religions, I have not enough knowledge to say that they’d have different standards on Jews and Muslims when we talk about cartoons. But with the knowldege I have of Danish people and society, I’d say, they have had cartoons mocking Jewish people too. That does not mean, that there would not have been loud objections to them, but as I’ve said the Danish people have a long and strong tradition in the freedom of speak and expression, so I assume they’d still have been published.

        As in here, in Denmark too, majority of the people have nothing against moderate Muslims, but in Denmark they have had big problems with fanatic Wahabbist Imams who preach against Danish laws and engourage people to illegal actions. So if you wish to analyse that Danish cartoon case, you need to first find out the backround of it and the context to where and when it was made.

        I have not mentioned Charlie Hebdo even once, since I do not speack French and I am not so familiar with the French society since I have never lived there. And I don’t know where you live, but incase you did not know, all the European countries have their own history and that is why they also have very different position to f.ex. minorities and different religions in their society. The fact that I dare to talk about the Nordic countries and specially Sweden, Denmark and Finland is, that I speak all of these languages, I have lived/had close realtions to all of them for decades and I also constantly follow local medias and what is happening in the political/social atmosphere around here. (Norway and Island are culturally so close to us, that I can often say that I asume, they think/act quite similar, but can’t be sure, since I don’t follow their local medias.)

        So, if you really wish to study “the case Danish Cartoons” vs. Jewish cartoons, you should go there and interview people who have really made researche on the subject. It was so big case then, that I am sure there is plenty of material too use.

      • RoHa
        July 22, 2017, 1:28 am

        Kaisa, if you speak it, it isn’t Danish. Danish is belched, croaked, gargled, and groaned. Not spoken.

      • echinococcus
        July 22, 2017, 10:41 am

        RoHa,

        Danish is belched, croaked, gargled, and groaned. Not spoken.

        That’s the exact same description one hears in the whole world for English, more especially if British or Anzac. Come to think of it, Danish phonology is indeed similar to that English…

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 22, 2017, 11:25 am

        RoHa:

        “Kaisa, if you speak it, it isn’t Danish. Danish is belched, croaked, gargled, and groaned..”

        Hehheh.. And when I spoke Finnish in Denmark, my Danish friends told me that Finnish does not sound like speaking but fireing with a machine gun :)

        (I hope you did not get stomachache after reading that earlier comment of mine: I noticed afterwards, I had made so many mistakes while typing it.. Yaiks..)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 22, 2017, 11:38 am

        RoHa:

      • RoHa
        July 23, 2017, 1:04 am

        Kaisa,

        Once I was staying in Spain with some Danish friends, and took a tour of the Alhambra with a Danish tour company. On the tour were an Icelandic couple, who had joined the tour in the belief that, thanks to their schooling, they would be able to understand the Danish tour guide.

        I had to translate the guide’s explanations into English for them. They understood English perfectly well.

      • RoHa
        July 23, 2017, 1:31 am

        Another feat of translation. When I first went to Sweden, I lived in Uddevalla, and, once a week, went to the island of Orust to teach classes in Ellös. (Where the open-air dance floor is right next to the fish-drying racks. Ah, romantic Scandinavia!)

        I would spend the night in a small hotel, and then go back to Uddevalla.

        One time a German family arrived at the hotel. (By mistake, surely!) Unusually, the staff of the hotel spoke neither English nor German. The German family spoke neither Swedish nor English. They could, however, understand a bit of English. I was working so hard at stuffing my head with Swedish that I had lost the ability to speak German. I could still understand it, though. So the Germans spoke to me in German. I translated to my primitive Swedish. The Swedes replied in Swedish. I translated to English.

        Fortunately the content was very simple stuff, so it worked. We didn’t have to discuss Heidegger.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 23, 2017, 10:44 am

        RoHa:

        Thanks for your language memories!! You made me laugh so much!! I have also been in the middle of weird “language situations” in weird places so many times.. :) But those are also the situations you get some of the best memories from, and stories to tell to other people. And luckily I have never caused any really bad misunderstandings between anyone!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 23, 2017, 11:45 am

        RoHa:

        I have to add this:

        When I was 18 years old, I went to Denmark as exchange student to live a year with a Danish family and attend classes in a Danish High School. I originally wanted to go to Switzerland, but there was not places left there so I chose to go to Denmark instead. (I had been there on a Holiday few times and had liked it). I spoke English and some Swedish at that time and everyone just told me that: “Oh yeah, Don’t worry, You’ll manniage, Danish is almost like Swedish”.. (??) When I got there I found out that the family (an old couple) who was to host me, did not speak any other language than Danish and the husband spoke so called “Jysk Dialekt”, which is like the weirdest form of Danish. So for the first three months we did not have any common language. My host mum had told the Exchange Student Organization that she speaks some English, which basicly meant that what ever I tried to say or ask, she always said “Yes” to everything.. Smiled and nodded: “Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes..”

        Luckily most of my schoolmates spoke English, but ofcourse they could not translate everything all the time, so in the beginning I did not understand anything there either.

        So I had some heavy months there. But since I am not a person who leaves to go home, if things get difficult, I just continued listening Danish in the radio, at home and in the School and around Christmas (after about three months), I suddenly noticed that I could understand almost everything – except what my host father spoke.. It took me still some time to learn to speak and I can just imagine how my “broken” Danish with strong Finnish accent must have sounded like. Anyway, after a year I kind of felt like: “I did it, I survived” and on top of that I had got a new language and a new “homeland”, cause I kind of got rooted so well there :) I never learned to understand my host dad very well, which is sad, since he was the nicest, warmest and mildest old man I have ever met and he really treated me like his own daughter even with out a common language.. So some happy, sad, confusing and then again happy memories from there :) And years later I could really use my Danish, when I went to study part of my Finnish University Degree to Denmark. So only happy about all of that now :)

      • RoHa
        July 24, 2017, 7:59 am

        “Danish is almost like Swedish”

        It is when it’s written. But the oral version…

        Danish dialects! I knew a girl called Bodil who came from a country district, and spoke the dialect of that area. Even other Danes had a hard time understanding what she said. She had a friend who sometimes acted as an interpreter for other Danes. After about a year I could sometimes understand a whole sentence Bodil spoke slowly.

        And I could understand Skånska!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 24, 2017, 8:40 am

        RoHa:

        Bodil has to have spoken “Sönder Jysk”.. It is impossible (umulig) to understand!! (Sometimes in TV they had subtitles for “Köbenhavnere”, so they could understand what their “Kusiner ude på landet” were speaking :)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 24, 2017, 8:50 am

        RoHa:

        I must admit, I can’t listen to someone speaking in Skånska, if it is not absolutely necessary.. In to my ear it sounds så horrible (I apologise all the Swedes who speake it, but can’t help it!!)

        But here is a language challenge for you: In Finland the Swedish speaking Finns have their own dialects and specially at the East Coast the dialects sounds totally crazy. So here is a “sample” of Finlands Swedish dialect. Try it and enjoy!! :)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 24, 2017, 9:24 am

        RoHa:

        Dialects sound, not sounds.. Now I am going to apologize for all the mistakes I have made so far and all the mistakes I will be making in the future.. For some reason I don’t see them immidiately after typing, but first so much later that I can’t correct them anymore.. Everytime I get really annoyed about it and I have to try not to get, since it is too late then anyway.. But please, just pretend there are no mistakes in my comments and everything looks just ok.. :)

      • RoHa
        July 26, 2017, 12:09 am

        Not too difficult, considering that it is embedded in Young Person’s Music.

        And you don’t need to apologise for your mistakes in English. (Though not because, as one Dane said, there is no adequate excuse for not being British.) You write it very well.

        For the native speakers, of course, the position is different. When God hands out justice on the Last Day, it will be the fiery pit for some of them.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 26, 2017, 8:07 pm

        RoHa:

        12 points for you, if you understood them :) !! Allthough I usually have no problem in understanding Swedish in Sweden (not even in Skåne), I don’t get half of that dialect, even when it is pronounced as clearly as here!! (det var det = he’ va he’, and so.. :) )

        About language mistakes: Speaking is so good, because your mistakes will just dissapear somewhere in the air immidiately after you’ve “let them out” of your mouth and they will never come looking back at you the same way the written mistakes do.. :) !!!

      • Bont Eastlake
        August 3, 2017, 1:28 am

        gamal,

        —-people used throw shit, shit shit, on the Prophet as went about his way in particular an old lady used to empty her chamber pot on him, one time she missed him a few days, so he went to enquire and was told that she was unwell so he went to visit her, she was charmed and since he never throughout the whole episode uttered one word of complaint or reproach she adored him ever after,—-

        That story is frankly bullshit and has been thoroughly dismissed as myth by all trained scholars in Islam. It is not backed up by any sources or reliable references in hadith.

      • Mooser
        August 3, 2017, 5:04 pm

        “That story is frankly bullshit and has been thoroughly dismissed”

        Far from being “dismissed”, “Bont”, that story just happens to be the reason “bullshit” acquired the meaning it has!

    • Paranam Kid
      July 18, 2017, 3:23 am

      The media have an important role to play, and one of those roles to increase understanding between cultures. Charlie Hebdo went out of its way to insult Islam, not because CH wanted to make a point about the religion but because it wanted to inflame an already tense situation between Muslims & Christians. CH’s cartoons had absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

      • hophmi
        July 18, 2017, 9:37 am

        Whether you agree with a cartoon or not is not the definition of whether it has anything to do with free speech.

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2017, 2:02 pm

        “Inflaming a… tense situation” is still a question of free speech. Agreed, criminal elements may use speech as an instrument to manipulate retards, or put-upon religious people, or the otherwise uncivilized. But that doesn’t change the fact that speaking is not doing.

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2017, 2:05 pm

        Hophmi,

        As a representative of a most brutal military occupation that jails people for poems, your intervention is at least sickeningly tasteless.

      • MHughes976
        July 18, 2017, 4:57 pm

        I too believe in free speech in matters of religion. You can mock Jesus Christ and the Church of England all you like without deserving death, legal proceedings or social or career ostracism. Other religions no different.

      • Jon66
        July 18, 2017, 8:11 pm

        I agree that speech should not be limited just because it offends someone.

        But where were you mighty defenders when Nada Elia wrote this on MW.

        “Anyone who would blame the protestors for “violence,” rather than resistance, is assuming that the promotion of hatred is non-violence. But that assumption, quite simply, is wrong. There is no such thing as “non-violent hate speech.” Hate speech has direct consequences, all of which are violent.”

        “Preventing Yiannopolous from speaking at Berkeley was direct action to shut down fascism.”

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/cannot-protect-ourselves/

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2017, 9:12 pm

        Hughes,

        Absolutely –but it seems that the discussion has moved further. It reached subjects like rabble-rousing versus official censorship, the lies about the causes shown to justify both, and the gullibility of liberaloids.

      • Paranam Kid
        July 19, 2017, 4:17 am

        @echinococcus
        Words are often more powerful than actions.

      • Paranam Kid
        July 19, 2017, 4:19 am

        @hophmi
        Right, free speech is only allowed when it concerns Muslim/Islam bashing, but when it concerns israel/zionists bashing it is antisemitism.

      • echinococcus
        July 19, 2017, 8:36 am

        Paranam,

        Words are often more powerful than actions.

        Sure they are. That’s precisely the reason they are used; more importantly, that’s why any speech must be protected.

      • MHughes976
        July 19, 2017, 9:29 am

        I disagree, jon, with NE’s views on hate speech. At the time I didn’t think I had anything to add to what RoHa was saying.

      • Sibiriak
        July 24, 2017, 11:01 pm

        Jon66: I agree that speech should not be limited just because it offends someone.
        But where were you mighty defenders when Nada Elia wrote this on MW.

        ——————

        Where? Look at the comments. You’ll find some very strong disagreement with Nada Elia.

    • Bont Eastlake
      July 19, 2017, 8:07 pm

      Caricatures of the Prophet of Islam as a maniacal terrorist with a bomb under his headgear, a warlord, a women-abuser etc are all pretty shitty way to express your freedom of speech. They are a cowards way of being political without having to face political consequences.

      Eljay, you can choose to exercise your freedom of speech as above…but Muslims have the right to be offended and hurt by your choice. Whether they choose violence or nonviolence to rectify the situation is up to them. Dont try to start a fight before you are prepared to deal with all possible response.

      Kaisa, offensive cartoons against Jews exist. But, the people or establishment that publishes offensive cartoons on the Prophet and Jesus, refuses to do likewise with Jewish figures. This mean they are fully aware of political sensitivies and pick and choose who they can offend without getting much trouble, just like predatory bullies. They are not champions of free speech or radical progressives, they are glorified sociopaths.

      • echinococcus
        July 19, 2017, 11:09 pm

        Caricatures.. etc are all pretty shitty way to express your freedom of speech.

        Well, that’s your personal opinion, and from a notoriously confused person, too. Who dies and made you the ultimate authority re ways to use free speech, Buster?

        Muslims have the right to be offended and hurt by your choice. Whether they choose violence or nonviolence to rectify the situation is up to them.

        A “right”, eh? That one goes together with the right to a stiff sentence.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 23, 2017, 9:58 am

        Echinocus,

        I have emotions and I respect them. If people that I have no relations to intentionally attempt to cause me emotional harm and distress, I will retaliate regardless of freedom of speech.

      • Mooser
        July 23, 2017, 2:09 pm

        “I have emotions and I respect them.”

        Of course you do “Bont”

        ” If people that I have no relations to intentionally attempt to cause me emotional harm and distress, I will retaliate regardless of freedom of speech.”

        So anybody can run you around in circles. So, excuse me, but what happened to you respecting your own emotions?

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 23, 2017, 9:02 pm

        Mooser,

        Hatespeech is wrong. Whats so hard to understand here?

      • gamal
        July 24, 2017, 1:16 am

        “Hatespeech is wrong.”

        “I will retaliate regardless of freedom of speech.”

        Those comments are so wicked that i am going to bite, with a little Islam and Mo.

        people used throw shit, shit shit, on the Prophet as went about his way in particular an old lady used to empty her chamber pot on him, one time she missed him a few days, so he went to enquire and was told that she was unwell so he went to visit her, she was charmed and since he never throughout the whole episode uttered one word of complaint or reproach she adored him ever after,

        don’t you disrespect our Prophet by espousing retaliation which he forbade,

        when they wanted to write the biography of the Imam Ahmed they asked his main student what was the Imams most common answer to questions directed towards him, by far his most often used reply was “I don’t know” and he is a famous source, famous Muslim.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 24, 2017, 9:07 pm

        Gamal,

        How naive of you. When people, like privileged white guys insult and denigrate the prophet through offensive caricatures, they are not doing it out of hatred of the prophet. He’s been dead for 1500 years for goodness sake!

        They are doing it out of hatred of Muslims, of you and me. Its a political act of violence towards living, breathing individuals. Like when people insult your mom, they mean to hurt you not her, who they never even met.

        If we dont retaliate towards a violent move targetting ourselves, then we are slaves. If you want to be a slave, thats your choice. But Id sooner die then be a slave.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2017, 11:37 pm

        “If we dont retaliate towards a violent move targetting ourselves, then we are slaves. If you want to be a slave, thats your choice. But Id sooner die then be a slave.”

        Another words, you are a slave to your emotions and your false pride. And very easily led into a trap.

        “Bont”, face it, the only thing you ever “retaliate towards” is the sentence your next sentence completely contradicts.

      • Sibiriak
        July 25, 2017, 12:17 am

        Bont Eastlake asserts that Muslims are entitled to react to offensive cartoons with violence, terror, mayhem and murder.

        We strongly disagree.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 26, 2017, 12:09 am

        Mooser,

        You still don’t get it. If you don’t fight for yourself, nobody would. If you allow blatant attack of your character, of your faith slide then through your own inaction you have legitimized the behavior of the hostile party.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 26, 2017, 12:11 am

        Sibiriak,

        Fine. Thats your right to disagree and i respect it.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2017, 11:44 am

        “You still don’t get it. If you don’t fight for yourself, nobody would. If you allow blatant attack of your character, of your faith slide then through your own inaction…”

        Yes “Bunt”, we get it. You are intent on portraying Muslims as entirely lacking in reflection, easily provoked to fanatic action and without self-control.

    • Bont Eastlake
      July 20, 2017, 9:53 am

      Eljay,

      I have repetitively said, Muslims are entitled to react to offensive cartoons in any way they wish. I would prefer them to not use violence, of course but thats my problem, not theirs.

      I have not made any arbitrary ruling like “Caricatures of “prophets” are no excuse for Muslims to go out and do violence”. Excuse for whom? Who are the Muslims trying to justify themselves to, you?

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2017, 11:39 pm

        “I have repetitively said,”

        You sure as f–k have. Repeatedly.

  2. Edward Q
    July 17, 2017, 11:13 am

    Livni should think a little more about why there is antagonism between Europe and the Middle East. Just possibly Israel might have something to do with this.

    • Bont Eastlake
      July 17, 2017, 11:55 pm

      Nothing to do with the racism and supremacist ideals that motivated Europe to invade and colonize Middle Eastern nations.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2017, 11:48 pm

        “Nothing to do with the racism and supremacist ideals that motivated Europe to invade and colonize Middle Eastern nations.”

        And forcing the Zionists to be part of the plot to invade and colonize was absolutely criminal. I can’t understand why the Zionists did not recognize the European white supremacists among them and kick them out.

    • Paranam Kid
      July 18, 2017, 3:24 am

      Livni’s brains are not much beyond those of a chicken, and her political savoir faire isn’t much better.

  3. amigo
    July 17, 2017, 11:54 am

    Israel has always , dishonestly claimed it is the original and ongoing victim of “terrorism”.

    There is no mention of the Terrorism perpetrated for decades by Irgun/Lehi and later the IDF and ongoing to this day, against unarmed Palestinians .The conversation always begins with reference to the last act of terrorism (as determined by Zionists) and so Israelis hold onto the myth that they and they alone are the victims.

    This same approach worked in Northern Ireland where apparently the only people carrying out acts of terrorism were the IRA.The UVF /UDA,(Ulster Volunteer Force , Ulster Defence Association ) both terrorist gangs are conveniently assigned to a historical black hole , ergo the Unionists are the only victims.

    How long more will this victim hood scam serve the Zionist cause.For sure it will be a lot less than one thousand years.I give it 50 more at best.How long did it serve the Unionists and where is their “Protestant State for a Protestant People” .

  4. Ossinev
    July 17, 2017, 1:36 pm

    “Because they’re against us because of our values, because of who we are, not because of what we do. And therefore it took some time for the world to understand it. I hope the international community understands it now.”

    Is she talking about the Zionist Fascist values in her beloved homeland recently identified by her ex ministerial colleagues Yaalon and Barak.

    Typical Zio conflation at work ie equate Palestinian resistance to ZioFascism = Islamic Terrorism against the West.

    What a revolting nauseating hypocrite – and she is supposedly on the left of the Israeli political spectrum.

    Still the good news is that her trips to civilised countries in Europe may soon be a thing of the past.
    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/did-war-crimes-summons-force-tzipi-livni-cancel-brussels-trip

    • DaBakr
      July 17, 2017, 6:04 pm

      Those European nations are less civilized then the spotted double horned wart hogs they’ve been killing for centuries. European conferences will continue to become less important on the world stage while the world’s growing powers are continuing to become closer to Israel culturally, politically and industrially. In fact, it would be a blessing of a country like Belgium would effectively ban any Israeli soldier/politician from entering on suspicion of war crimes as it would be hysterical to watch it become a world laughing stock.

      It’s very likely that the apex of former European powers taking universal action against Leadership in nations they themselves ransacked and colonized was Spain’s judge-activist Campaign against pinochet. It worked in the political climate then but that world is gone.

      Of course the Hague can still try and pick on African folks because, well, it’s so easy for liberal Europeans to go after African nations as long as they aren’t in the Muslim dominated north.

      I am starting to appreciate how incredibly devoted and deluded the majority commenters here are in their zeal against Jewish sovereignty in Israel. While most of the fellow Israelis I know are well aware of our faults as a nation and people I think the single minded self-righteousness of anti zionists is impressive while the Palestinians have been duped into believing their maximalist goals will be realized, eventually, even if it takes 1000yrs.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 17, 2017, 8:53 pm

        DaBakr:

        “while the world’s growing powers are continuing to become closer to Israel culturally, politically and industrially..”

        Hmm.. Like China?? Can’t really see that “cultural, political, industrial” connection here immidiately.. Or do you mean those human right violations and the “ban” of admitting them??

      • eljay
        July 17, 2017, 9:00 pm

        || @ak: … I am starting to appreciate how incredibly devoted and deluded the majority commenters here are in their zeal against Jewish sovereignty in Israel. … ||

        I don’t oppose the right of Jews to a “Jewish State” because no such right exists. I don’t oppose the right of Muslims to an Islamic State because that right doesn’t exist, either.

        I’m constantly baffled by how incredibly devoted are Zionists and Islamists to:
        – their respective brands of injustice and immorality; and
        – their contempt for justice, accountability and equality.

        You Zionists have a lot more in common with the ISIL boys than you care to admit.

      • Talkback
        July 17, 2017, 9:35 pm

        Dabakr: ” I think the single minded self-righteousness of anti zionists is impressive …”

        The ability of Zionists to overlook the plank in their eye is even more impressiv.

        “… while the Palestinians have been duped into believing their maximalist goals will be realized, eventually, even if it takes 1000yrs.”

        Yep, next year in Jerusalem. It’s not a dream if you will it.

      • LHunter
        July 19, 2017, 7:53 am

        Your short sightedness is impressive and calming at the same time. The masses of young people are waking up and tuning in – they will form the governments and become the influencers of the future at which point Israel will be no more of a Jewish state than any other.

  5. LostinAlaska
    July 17, 2017, 5:42 pm

    There are underlying causes, and there are triggers. The European occupation of Arab land is one of the underlying causes. White Christian atrocities against Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again are others. Quran burning is merely the trigger. Perpetrators will only look at and will only talk about the trigger, covering underlying causes with a rug.

    • Bont Eastlake
      July 17, 2017, 10:02 pm

      Exactly and those pointing the finger and shouting accusations know exactly what they doing. They intentionally ignore or even revel in the underlying issues that afflicting the Muslim communities in wartorn countries, and pretend to be shocked and scared when these people react to their triggers.

      They seem to derive some sort of perverse gratification from baiting the Muslims and drawing reactions from them.

      • yonah fredman
        July 17, 2017, 11:38 pm

        The socio economic standing of Muslims in the white European society is certainly a reason to view the problem of cartoonists as something other than pure free speech, but it is impure free speech. Hustler magazine with its anti woman and anti black cartoons is protected by free speech and is in fact offensive.

        That a population takes offense as a license to riot is more than problematic, it is a type of coercion. And no excuses should be made for coercion. You can explain such a reaction, but you cannot excuse this reaction.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 18, 2017, 9:33 pm

        Muslims are humans too. They can get hurt both physically and psychologically.

        If you want to insult them that is your right. But how can you demand they dont respond to your agitations? They have the right to protect both their physical wellbeing and their mental wellbeing. They shouldnt just sit and allow people who never care for their interests, harm them psychologically like house slaves.

    • gamal
      July 18, 2017, 3:55 pm

      “There are underlying causes” and a not very obscure subtext..

      Let us recall that the Benghazi embassy attack was ascribed to a sudden mob of deranged Muslims descending on the US embassy and slaughtering the Ambassador because of a youtbe movie called “Innocence of Muslims”, it is a comprehensive explanation favoured by Hillary and much of the US media, like all of these free speech stories I would suggest just a little further examination.

      As to the cartoons etc, none of them are about Islam nor are they blasphemous the ones I recall,

      were all advancing racist arguments to explain violence in the Muslim and Arab world, the jylest posten (?) crew tried once to no effect the second time they got some guy to comment, i dont closely follow these things, but if you think that i need further examples of Muslims engaging in stupid acts in the west I can assure you I have more data about that than anyone here could imagine, thats not the point.

      If you seriously believe that you live in society where there is “free speech” and that it is threatened by the Muslims, I would be interested in proper analysis or argument making that point,

      just posting this here because i got lost in your comment, which broadly makes sense the idea that context and the meaning of these stories within the narrative are irrelevant outside pointless affirmation of “free speech”, I would be interested to see the working, before i have to accept the result,

      Islamic culture is full from antiquity is full of savage and blasphemous satire…but it is actually about Islam and Muslims and you have know something about those things, so not for everyone.

      a friend, a cartoonist as it happens, during the Algerian emergency in the nineties produced a cartoon, ink on paper, i have the original, in French and Arabic showing a bearded man in a gallabiya, agal etc infront of a mosque with a GIA logo, saying

      “Everywhere we stand for the Rights of Man!”

      he is holding a chain which is attached to the neck of a black clad woman, it made me smile, ruefully, not laugh out loud or anything, wasn’t blasphemous or anti-Islamic enough for my tastes.

  6. MHughes976
    July 19, 2017, 1:03 pm

    The important thing is that we assure Muslims that we acknowledge their rights. We – not that ‘we’ and ‘they’ are entirely distinct categories – claim our rights but theirs matter just as much.

  7. amigo
    July 19, 2017, 3:10 pm

    Dubya hugging a fellow warmonger.

    Disgusting at best.

  8. Citizen
    July 19, 2017, 3:37 pm

    Anybody watch the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry David’s character accidentally pisses on a painting of Jesus hanging up over the toilet bowl?

    • MHughes976
      July 20, 2017, 8:38 am

      I’ve never seen it but I suppose it was an allusion to Piss Christ – that famous photo which I read somewhere is just about to appear again in an exhibition.

  9. JayGoldenBeach
    July 20, 2017, 10:40 pm

    Terrorism is motivated by politics, not religion.

    Gullible, incurious Americans respond predictably to a Good v. Evil/Muslims v. The West narrative.

    No matter how dishonourable and disingenuous, the US consistently plays the victim card.

  10. JLewisDickerson
    July 21, 2017, 3:10 am

    RE: “Whatever you think of the free-speech issue (and I am a fierce liberal on that issue)” ~ Weiss

    A GREAT QUOTE FROM BRANDEIS:

    “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” ~ Justice Louis D. Brandeis’ concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927)

    P.S. ■ GRAPHIC: iz Quotes

Leave a Reply