Now I can see why some people sided with the Muslims over this whole row, I did until I read the facts..
But the latest from BBC News just makes me chuckle…
“We have a right to defend our prophet,” one protester told the BBC.
“They should have respected our religion,” said another.
..and from the same article..
A nearby church and other property in the neighbourhood were also attacked.
Bilal Daibo, Muslim, English teacher
“Whether what was done was by Lebanese Muslims or outsiders, those who did it were hooligans,” he said.“I would say I speak for 95% of the Sunni Muslim population when I say we are against any sort of destruction in Lebanon, against Muslims or Christians.
“It was an uncivilised act by a small group of people,” he added
Charles Accra, Christian, economics student
“I was at home. I saw it on TV, then I heard shouting and I looked and there were thousands of people,” he said.“I was watching them smashing the cars, they had small axes. They were mad - it was like we were the Danish people. They smashed my cousin’s car windows.”
Since when was this Christinaity’s fault? Why aren’t you respecting the Christian’s religion? It was a newspaper that released the cartoons, not a priest or a church or even anyone claiming it was.
Tesco healthy living Prawn sandwhich, not good
B
My opinion (for whatever it’s worth) that’s come out of some discussion at the office about it are:
1) The cartoon was immature, insensitive and inflammatory in a way that was not necessary to make whatever the point that they wanted to make, but not illegal.
2) The people who are looting, rioting, and establishing $1 million bounties on the heads of cartoonists are also demonstrating immature, insensitive, inflammatory behavior that is not necessary to prove their point, and also quite illegal.
So I’d say while they’re both wrong from an ethical standpoint, one os clearly wrong from a legal one too. I respect the righteous indignation of those offended and fully support them in any sort of useful, reasonable protest against the cartoon.
Of course, as I was writing this comment, I couldn’t help but think of the Paul Graham essay I read last night. I think he might more clearly side with one of those groups based on his essay there.
I agree, I have to say I was going to make an ammendment to my post last week before getting caught up in a long time working away from home. I saw on BBC News (again) that some *real* Muslims had been protesting in London, peacefully. To which I thought “fair play”, they offended you, you protest which is your right. Not retaliate by burning some guys car which isn’t your right.
So, yeh.
The cartoons were about how the muslims were viewed. Many see them as dangerously psychotic, and the cartoons were pointing that out. And then some bastards decided to prove it.
In addition, the worst of the cartoons (Muhammed as a pig, Muhammed being sodomized, etc.) were never released by Jyllands Posten. The one with Muhammed as a pig was a French guy that had dressed up for a hog squealing contest, which had absolutely nothing to do with the cartoons… or Jyllandsposten for that matter.
Most danes didn’t approve of it either. Currently, the cartoonists have apologized, the newspaper have apologize, and the government has apologized for not seeing some muslims that wanted to discuss the case. As the government can’t apologize for the cartoons, that’s all the apologies you could realistically get.
Of course, most of this is just various factions that’s using it as an excuse to gain power.