I agree with the author that divisiveness is to blame. In fact it is the root cause, which she thinks would be difficult to see.

I'm all for globalization, in the sense that Enlightenment values are slowly spreading around the globe. That they have penetrated into the Islamic world is demonstrated by the thousands of their people who immigrate to the West ever year. They know where the good life is, and it ain't the one of the beheaders, clit-removers, stone-throwers, and suicide bombers.

Daniel Pearl was killed because:

a) he was Jewish
b) he was American
c) he wrote for the WSJ

He was killed because of hate and intolerance. He was killed by terrorists.

Terrorism is a means to an end, of which the media, WSJ included, often becomes a mouthpiece.

I have always been terribly bothered and saddened by the murder of Daniel Pearl.

I do not want to "understand" terrorism or a terrorist. I believe terrorism is the most evil, henious, despicable crime imagineable.

I believe in justice.

Deborah:
It would be churlish to criticize the efforts of Danny Pearl's family to derive lasting meaning from his senseless death. On the other hand, I take from your words that you're not entirely convinced the efforts of the foundation will have much real impact as long as the only people who are hearing the message are non-Muslim westerners, supported especially by professional 'joiners' like Bill Clinton and Elton John and their emotive ilk. Is that accurate?

I can't help but think, apropos of what's happening concurrently with the Islamic reaction to a dozen pieces of 'political' art, that until there is some way that the parties to this horror can find a 'language' in which they can actually talk to each other there will be no peace and very littly peace of mind. Supporters of free speech who suggest that it's moral to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre seem to me to be pretty irresponsible too. Just because one 'can' do something doesn't always mean one should.

I think you're right about Tom Friedman though. He starts all his assumptions from the point of view that nothing good ever happens in the world if the Americans aren't involved. Ironically, I can't really see much hope for the Middle East (and the future of Islamic/Western relations) unless the US actually gets out of the equation some of the time.

Left to their own devices I think the Israelis and the Palestinians can find some common ground and I think there are a few glimmers of hope in that area right now (or at least there were until this latest cartoon blow-up). As someone who's spent some time in the Middle East I wonder if you feel the same way.

Thanks for the thoughful journalism, by the way.

"Supporters of free speech who suggest that it's moral to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre seem to me to be pretty irresponsible too."

A well reasoned comment.

However, pretty easy to distinguish from what some wags are calling "the cartoon war."

Fire is a threat to life. People die in fire all the time. We are right to oppose people who malinger about the existence of fire.

Insulting religion only hurts your feelings. You will not be burned or asphyxiated. Unlike fire, which is a tangible, readily proven threat, insults to prophets are only painful to people who have faith in their deity. No physical harm is done when someone says "I don't believe in God" or "your religion appears to foment suicide bombing." It's qualitatively different.

The statement was a metaphor. The point of the statement has to be taken in context with the next sentence. I would have thought that was pretty clear.

I got your point, which was (I think) that we should refrain from irresponsible inflammatory speech, even when lawful.

I might agree generally, but certainly not in this specific example. It is, at best, kind to be fettered by concern for other people's imaginary friends. When the imaginary friend demands that a cartoonist be killed, then it is incumbent on all of the not-insane people to say, wait a minute, YOU shut up.

If someone cried "fire" in a theatre, not much would stir, unless you had the smoke and the fire to go with it. Now if it was someone who cried "Bomb"...

As for justice... what is this justice according to GWB? Tap the phones of ordinary citizens without cause other than to say its "the war on terror."

What is justice according to Muslim radicals? Kill and burn if anyone dares to crack a funny with a pictorial or otherwise. Can anyone think of a religion that would act this way? If a paper put out a pic with a nuke tied to the head of Jesus, would Christians be rioting for days on end? If someone nailed horns on Budda's head, would China burn down all the embassies and then some? If some dumbass put out a pic with nazi symbols tatooed on Moses forehead, would Israel burn and kill the embassies of the newspapers responsible? (well, they might)

It's the fish bowl effect. Its living your life in your back yard and thats all you know is what you were told and see, and when we look at why Muslims react this way, its more than the evil doings of the U.S. empire, as corporate driven by that "son of perdition" it is. Its more than differences or division. Its the fish bowl effect, not stepping out of the "box", being brainwashed by your own limited environment.

If we were born in Iraq or Iran or Israel, or Palestine, or Saudi Arabia, or any other country for that matter, we would be thinking in much the same way as our micro environments influence us, from our family and friends, to the schools and streets we spend time in, and media, and religion and the mentors that tug at the core of our being. Christ, we would be just like them, regardless of genes, skin or gender, and this is why our freedoms and rights have to be protected so much so in this country as well as others.

I don't see that happening much from our new PM elect or Bush these days, with his latest scheme of making Watergate legal, along with his wish to tap any americans phones with "the war on terror" as being reason enough. We all know he's doing it in other countries without permission to begin with, as if that was just fine. Suddenly Americans are waking up to the reality that its not when it happens to them?

When looking at what these countries have to choose from in the way of "mentors", it certainly isn't a plus in the way the U.S. has treated them or its own people for that matter, and it certainly isn't an excuse for how various countries treat their own brothers and sisters in relation to so called repect for "religious rights and freedoms".

Did Mohammed or Christ or Moses ever propone war and death? (well, Moses did in the early years until God corrected him with the third law) Spiritual death, to be sure, and not to be confused with natural ones, as every bad cult leader tries. They all say they represent the sons of God until their calls for, and actions of violence reveal their true hypocracy.

And what do we do (as in the brainwashed large minority)? Look at bad apples as reasons for destroying the seeds, and so as not to be confused, I'm talking about the natural seeds, here, not the spiritual ones. What does any self respecting Muslim, Christian or Jew think Jehad or holy war is fought with? Bombs and sticks and stones? Or the swords of truths against the arrows of lies, the beliefs in right or wrong.

We are products of our own environments and until we jump from the fish bowls we live in and start swimming into the oceans, our world view will be quite small. Needless to say, there'll be sharks and large fish out there to worry about, but for as much as we believe its top down in terms of power, its also down top. Everything grows larger in a larger environment including our awareness of the issues from all sides, include the smaller environments we came from and why we do and think what we do and think on all levels, large or small. Whether or not we are victims or oppressors, we are, indeed, products of our own environments, choosing them as we get older. Choose wisely.

neocon:

I believe in justice.

I agree.

However, I do want to understand or, at a minimum, hear from the thousands of Muslims protesting the publication of some cartoons.

I want to ask: "What in hell are you people thinking?" I want to ask: "Don't you desire peace, prosperity and, maybe even freedom?"

And if they don't have a reasonable answer, I want to give their collective heads a shake!

I think in the absence of the anarchy that has taken root in the unfortunately oil-rich Middle East since abolishment of any stability instigated by an American War (which was an "oops" - sorry, we really thought there were weapons under Saddam's bed - afterall, they sold him tons) the bigoted cartoon targeting all Muslims would have made less of a global impact. The "West" often forgets that Islam is what brought "enlightenment" to Europe in the Middle Ages. In fact, before the Western inspired Israel, Muslims and Jews (both Semites and closer to each other than any other group) got along quite swimmingly. America has destabilized South American gov'ts, and they have ensured that instability and disunity reign in the Middle East - to control access to their unquenchable thirst of the black stuff. The "cartoon" was simply the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak. Muslims living in the Middle East are likely more afraid of the power-mad "insurgents" than anyone here since they are the ones being blown up on a daily bases. We don't see their daily exposure of images of the abuse that took place at Abu Gharib and the stories from Gitmo Bay. No one here associates that with Western humanitarianism or enlightenment - just brush it under the rug. We are bombarded with the pictures of the [muslim/arab] savages (that unfortunately, we may have had a hand in creating) rioting and blowing themselves up. That cartoon, which was published in a validated European major newspaper, wouldn't have hurt all those living their lives as Muslims if it didn't validate the propaganda spread by the few extremists in their midst of the utter contempt of the "western world" of their beliefs and lack of respect of their individualism. It was not only daft, but bigoted and insensitive to the devastation taking place in their world. It would be unacceptable to publish racial slurs against Jewish or African Americans being accepted as free speech in a major newspaper editorial cartoon - especially if they appear to be categorically targeted and uprooted. This time, the speech was not exactly free - there appears that a price is being paid.

Avicenna:

Have you actually "seen" the cartoons?

They are absolutely harmless. For example, what is wrong with a cartoon that depicts a long line of suicide bombers, approaching heaven, being told "Stop, we've run out of virgins." (I paraphrase as I don't have it in front of me right now).

Don't tell me you're not revolted by hundreds (surely we must be at thousands by now) of suicide bombers killing hundreds of thousands (are we at millions yet?) of innocents, apparently in the name of some "god"?

The cartoon seems like a very mild rebuke for the misery caused in the name of religion. And I join the European publications in proclaiming: "Stop, you idiots, there are no virgins left for you to claim!"

I think the point is that when you cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre (whether there is a fire or not) there is a potential it will lead to innocent people being hurt.

Another analogy would be throwing gasoline on a bonfire - the flames explode with redoubled energy and innocent people sitting calmly next to the fire get burned.

Clearly many Moslem countries are in a state of tension and crisis and giving those who are more than ready to pander to this state of mind (fundamentalist Mullahs) more ammunition to emphasize the fact that we in the West are busy making a hobby of denigrating their culture is not a very good idea. Certainly not now.

I think the press had to cover the story but there was little need to republish the cartoons themselves just to make a point - a written description would have been enough.

The kind of feverish excitement with which some commentators have taken up the cause of freedom of speech seems at least a little hard to understand in light of the fact that the people who are actually being hurt are, so far as I know, virtually all Moslems themselves in other countries. With the exception of some Danish trade and a few replaceable buildings nobody but residents of the Middle East have been hurt so far. That's a shame but, were the riots taking place in the streets of Toronto would we be so convinced that making a huge meal out of this small issue is such a good idea?

In a way it's all really a question of maturity.

Free speech doesn't mean the moral right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre. That's just plain ridiculous.

Free speech is the ability to voice an opinion without censorship - self-censorship included.

G West:

As I understand it, the cartoons were only republished after the small Danish paper that had published them originally was coming under considerable pressure to apologize.

As there was clearly nothing to apologize for, the other Euro papers took up the cause of free speech. It may be one thing to bully a small Danish paper; quite another matter to try it on with large French or German concerns.

"nobody but residents of the Middle East have been hurt so far. That's a shame" Which is why I'd like to ask: "What are these people thinking?" What rational-thinking person would pee in his own bed?

Michael Clift
You need to read the whole post, as well as the others, earlier, to get the whole picture of what I'm trying to say. You don't have to agree with it but it represents a much more nuanced position than you give it credit for. At least I think so.

Michael Clift:

Nicely put; and it pertains exactly to the Euro-cartoon crisis.

What would the business of political cartooning be like if cartoonists had to engage, too frequently, in self-censorship.

grub
I meant it was a shame that anyone had been hurt.
I wanted to make the point that our moral superiority might not be quite so crystalline if the neighbourhoods that were being trashed were Toronto neighbourhoods. There is no question that freedom of speech is a 'good' in and of itself but I think, like almost anything else, it needs to be used with good sense and sensitivity.

The Middle East is a mess: It's full of anger and resentment and it's being whipsawed by a groups of wild-eyed individuals who don't see the world the way you and I do. In some ways I'd liken it to a backyard in a neighbourhood where a number of pitbulls live who aren't receiving enough food and water. It's not a very safe place to be and the kids who stick twigs through the fence to torment the dogs aren't helping the situation much.

G West,
I understood what you were saying but there is either freedom of speech or there isn't.

I agree with you completely. I refuse to censor myself to appease wild-eyed individuals who deny my rights to free speech.

Careful. You'll have the muslim world proclaiming fatwah on you for calling them dogs.

Michael Clift, I think the problem is association of those disenfranchised people in war torn areas and the "muslim world" - and using terms like fatwah without really knowing what it means and who has the right to proclaim it leads to an escalation of the rampant ignorance all around. This whole scenario is reminiscent of when the British had taken hold (as is their imperial right) of India - and their obvious lack of cultural empathy led to their downfall and mutiny. Their ignorance had the arms they supplied the Muslim and Hindu soldiers greased with pig and cow fat respectively - which is definitely not kosher for either group. This led to the release of pent up anger of the collective force for being thus defiled by the hateful Brits who ruled as if they had a "god given right" - and ultimately led to some heinous acts in return. Alas, some lessons are never learned. Perhaps Fatwahs, protests, and boycotting is seen as a perfectly reasonable expression of free speech.

avicenna:

Not at all; unless the Euro-Muslims take the role of the British in your scenario, and the non-islamic Danes play the role of the indigenous peoples of India.

As I see it, the Islamic world is asking the Danes and the majority of of Europeans to turn back the clock a few hundred years and to forget the Enlightenment. It is the Muslims who are showing a callous disregard for the customs and values of a very large group of people. Let's be clear about who s trying to impose their will on whom.

The Danish cartoonist was not asking anyone to recant or apologize. The cartoonist was expressing an opinion. This must be allowed and supported (if the Enlightenment means anything).

Avicenna,

Thanks for the abbreviated history of India lesson.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. My freedom of speech/thought/opinion are guarranteed under section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and are only marginally limited by section 1(and the notwithstanding clause but that's a special case).

Nowhere does it say that my opinions need to be neither valid nor enlightened.

I don't think anyone is taking away your freedom of right, it is just that you have to be prepared to take the consequences of what your words may unleash.
Grub, do you know any Muslims? Have they blown up anyone because of a cad in Denmark? I don't think it is particularly unique to the "islamic world" to ask for an apology for the obvious insult to the entire group by showing the Prophet Mohemmed with a bomb in his turban. That's a double dose of ill-will. Free it may be. Many religious and ethnic based groups have asked for apologies for lesser evils done unto them. Can you imagine the riots that would occur in America if the New York Post had published cartoons with disparaging or racist cartoons against all black Americans - as defamatory as those printed in Denmark - following the Katrina chaos. There was quite a bit of tension and racial lines drawn. When you are dealing with war and despair - you are going to get over the top emotions and responses. I seriously doubt if Iraq was in one piece (and in piece), if Afghanistan didn't have the Taliban thwarted upon them thanks to the US imperialsim, and that Palestinians didn't feel shorted and ghettoed out in the West Banks - and the insurgents weren't given free reign over unemployed and angry young men - that the cartoons wouldn't have caused the uproar we have seen. Sticks and stones as they say.

And whan pray tell will the Muslim world protest the kidnapping and beheading of innocents? In the west you will find many of us who disagree with the invasion of Iraq, Abu G or the occupation of Palestine. I don't see much in the way of political opposition in the Muslim world upset over September 11th, beaheadings or suicide bombers killing women and children.

When will they stop their decades of anti-Jewish and anti-Western cartoons in their own papers and magazines?

Perhaps the West should say we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because we were offended by their newspapers.

The Muslim world is made up of adults, we don't need to treat them like children, we don't need to self-censor in case we offend.

Look, no one, to my knowledge, is saying that anybody has to shut up completely about this. What I was trying to say, and I think I was pretty clear about it, is that it's a complex issue and not just a simple open and shut case of either freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Even freedoms can be wielded like a sword at times - look at what the Muslims we're actually talking about are doing to their own society with their 'freedom of speech'. I'm not suggesting anybody in the West is responsible for that but I am saying that a lot of the commentary I've read on the subject sounds an awful lot like gloating and not much like responsible debate.
I might suggest some of the less temperate commentators spend some time in a European country to get an appreciation of the role Muslims play in some of those societies. It's no excuse for bad behavior but it does provide a lot of context.

avicenna:

I think it is an insult, worthy of an apology, to ask a cartoonist or a newspaper to self-censor.

Look, if the cartoonist had drawn this cartoon in any country where Islamic values are the prevailing values, perhaps he would have been wise to self-censor (although I still maintain he ought to draw and the newspaper ought to publish what it wants).

The fact remains, Europe got over torturing and executing heretics quite some years ago. This cartoon was drawn in Europe. The values of the Enlightenment prevail in Europe. Muslims in Europe are free to live in there, but they are not free to dictate the prevailing values and to ask Europeans to forget centuries of history.

I don't think this is necessarily a case of "love it or leave it" as far as Euro-Muslims are concerned, but I do think it's a case of "if you don't like the nature of liberal democracies, you're stuck with that as the mechanism to try to change the liberalism you may not like".

Well gee, thank you Grub. I didn't know that. In fact they seem anything but harmless given the reactions both there and here.

You really disappoint me with this view as I had thought you were capable of looking slightly beyond the surface or is it your fear that Muslims might be living next door to you?.

Avicenna, you summed up the middle-east problem as well as anyone has yet. Thank you.

allan: Have you seen the cartoons? Do you really think they're out of the ordinary? Wouldn't you expect to see such cartoons, and many others, with a much "sharper" message, on any given day, in any newspaper here in Canada?

I wouldn't want cartoonists or editorial writers to hold back in their depictions of "Christ" in attempts to skewer right-wing religious nutbars. I would expect those nutbars to be offended. Tough shit! As to Muslim nutbars being offended; tough shit as well!

Cartoonists and editorialists can't spend their time worrying about who might be offended. Their job is to make critical commentary.

Funny you should comment on my neighbors; they are Muslims. I like them. I don't fear them. I do fear religious fanatics of all stripes.

And, no, Avicenna has not summed up the mid-east dilemma well. G West, on the other hand, has done so.

Avicenna:
As true as your points are, and perhaps more strongly than my earlier post, your only telling half of it. Its isn't just western oppression of nations for resources in the name of national interests, ie corporate profits. It isn't just the smug arrogance of the greedy status quo who is blindly racist and better than anyone else who walks this earth due to their ingenious methods of stealing without get caught. It isn't just the blatantly underschooled bigot who can't even tell when their own western nations lie to them about why their oil has been so cheap for so long. It isn't just the religious sickly pride of those who claim that their beliefs are not only superior to everyone elses, but the only way or else, as neo Christians, especially the political kind, so often do. It isn't just the dummie with unexplained, irrational hatred within them for anyone who isn't like them. It isn't just the sabotaged institutions of education and media who are purposely lying to the masses and spreading violent propanganda for the the sake of controlling the world for the biased, disillusioned, polluted control freak ways of the rich and ruthless. It isn't just the blatant violation of human and life rights from the West to the East disguised as necessary with ugly smears of the truth to promote their reasons why...

There are those in the middle east who happen to think and act this way, too! And, while it is easy to argue that the West has usurped the East in such fashion that 19 out of 20 are illiterate in places like Afganastan and fall victim to such cult led ways, I can't help but to think that if the opportunities were switched, that the results would be exactly the same.

We are all still products of our own environments, regardless of whether we are victims or oppressors, and thats a fact. Morality and the environments of right and wrong happen to be a world wide phenomenom of human nature, as surely as we have an environment that allows free will, albeit, one that is finite, short and not so sweet, so while those who are guilty are as obvious to us as asking who oppresses and who falls victim, its just as obvious that two wrongs don't make a right.

The common threads of all injustice lie in what we believe in. Its about beliefs and why and how we form them in the first place and who influences our judgement. The most violent religions have been centered on beliefs that are complex in nature, beliefs that have been messed with by empires and dictator warlords who use them as an opiate and controller of the masses... to get to those origins of truth before its doctrines too, succumbed to the immorality and heartless agendas of the ages is no easy feat.

There won't be a religion with holy men and their writers who disguise the truth with analogies of the natural and celestial with complex languages that won't be exploited by the evil (or "immorality within mens hearts" if the word evil is too much for some to swallow). But when suicide bombers or american bombers kill the innocent for $$$ or power, you can't call it good or holy.

When innocent people are taken out back and murdered because of the last name they have, we can't exactly give them a pat on the back. And we can't exactly say that immorality isn't a world wide phenomenom that belongs only to one religious group, or one nation. Its everywhere and exposed to anyone who has a choice in the matter.

Thing is, its just not anyone who has seen the causes to these effects so much so from experience and/or chosen observation that they can see it coming from a great distance, like an unsettled eagle in flight catching the movement of something that isn't natural or edible and very ugly, in their sight.

Avicenna

Actually China, France and Russia supplied the majority of arms to Iraq, hence the large outstanding debts owed by Iraq to these countries.

Want to bet how much of the protests in the ME are stage managed? No one in Syria goes around burning embassies without the support of the government. This is a useful distraction from their own problems

I to have seen the cartoons and they are not terribly offensive, in fact the Danish Immans went on a tour of the ME to drum up support for this “outrage” and supplied pictures that were never part of the series and were far worse than the ones published.

In fact if you have been looking at cartoons published in the ME against the West, you would be quite shocked at the graphic nature of them and their messages.

Here are the cartoons

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Enahm0002/child_abuse.html

from the paper that started it all

http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646

Brain: What's your point? Can you summarize it in one sentence?

I have no idea what you are talking about: you say both free will and determinism are true, so I'm not sure whether you are suggesting people should be held responsible for their actions or whether bad behaviour should be tolerated because people cannot help but behave the way they do.

Then it seems that you state it is easy to see who the victims and the oppressors are when the debate in this post suggests that this is not always clear (imperialists vs. colonized, or enlightenment cartoonists vs. theocratic censors). But then you deny the victims -- whoever the "victims" are in this case -- the right to do anything about it because two wrongs don't make a right? Help us out here ...

I think we're actually getting off point. The essay we're ostensibly discussing has, as its primary focus, the efforts of Daniel Pearl's family to try and give some meaning to his senseless murder through a particular kind of outreaching toward people who live in countries where the population (or a least a significant portion of it) is Muslim.

The issue of the cartoons is interesting but much of the tone of this discussion is a long way from being conciliatory. There's an intersting article in Salon today (you have to watch an ad to read it all) that discusses some of the motivating factors which led to the solicitation, production and publication of the cartoons in the first place. I think it puts a slightly different cast on the whole issue of whether or not this is really just a question of a noble effort to extend and support the principles of free speech.
I'd be interesting to hear some other comments, have a look:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/

G West: Thanks for the link.

Let me add my own personal bias to this: the press has an obligation to be equally disrespectful to Muslims, Christians, and all other religious radicals who would use religion to excuse unspeakable deeds done to innocent humans.

Well, that ought not to come as a surprize in Denmark (and most of northern Europe) as on whatever measure of religiosity one cares to use, Denmark ranks just about the lowest of all nations.

Great post Brain. Thoughtful and so true.

Free will, right and wrong, and its actions and reactions are a part of everyone's environment that in time, creates our very identities we as individuals and groups chose... in other words we are products of our own environments.

Since its hard to say it all in one sentence, I'll expand on it. We think its genetic or physical, or have and have not, and it is to a degree, but its much moreso, environmental. Our environments aren't merely air, Earth, water and fire, or genetic flesh and blood here. We have environments knowledge fully revealled, half true or incomplete, false or lies, the environments of peace and war, of love and hatred, of equality and all the "ism"s we know... and, as children growing up in such environments, we end up "conditioned" by them. The whole thing repeats itself from generation to generation, but at some point, we can't blame it all on our parents or our environments entirely, as even free will is a part of our environment. Yes, the freedom of choice, once were old enough to use it wisely, the choice to say my nation was wrong, or my parents were wrong or my religion was wrong, when we discover the truth that that they really are "wrong". Until then, there is an old saying, quite like the contradictions you want clarity on.

"The oppressors are the greatest victims of all."

Some won't agree with this, but I know its true.

I know this contradiction is true as surely as I know its truth in the simple example of the rich oil baron and his children choking on the very environment he victimizes and replaces with something far darker!
Or the husband who beats his wife and kids or dog he lives with, heck, the examples are miles long.

And yes, there will be victims, but who? Who rides a bike to work these days? And does not the chosen agressive/passive or unequal relationship work for only so long? For oppressors to oppress or exploit and victimize either us or our environments, we have to literally buy into it, or offer nothing in the way of resistance and there are victims in all of this. Some of us simply aren't able to resist or protect themselves.

There is so much talk about how war and conflict is such a bad thing. Tell me what happens when tyrants and dictators go unchallenged in our nations, churches and homes... its a peace (if you can call it that) that no one in their right mind would ever be willing to pay and why does resistance so often fail? Because often, the best of plans require group efforts to succeed. Success can only come through the best of intentions, the goals that suit the needs of everyone and all environments, and the plans that can actually function and work to serve such purposes. We talk of bad actions as being the culprit... try inactions as well.

Does the wife who's 95 pounds have a chance against a 250 pound bully? She needs help!
Can the citizens of nations controlled by evil tyrannts and dictators and their control of institutions that surpress these truths needed to take them down do it on their own? They need help! In the end, in the final analysis, its about resources needed to take such tyrants down and who's going to pay the bill and who's going to become depleted from such charity if it comes to that. Who can afford it... and in case you've missed my point... who can afford not to?

You want to know how this all ties into the story? Just look at the life and death of Daniel Pearl. He was right in the middle of it, doing his best to tell the stories that need to be told, to defend of the truth. Who was there to watch his back? This much I know, he will be remembered outside of a world full of identities or names that will soon be forgotten.

rebel: I think Steve P was trying to squeeze a thesis or essay out of me or something. It worked. ;-)

Thanks Brain -- now I see what you were getting at.

I was just encouraging clarification -- squeezing makes it sound like I'm victimizing myself by trying to oppress you =^)

Steve P: lol ;-)

Brain, I definitely can't overlook the mess-o-potamia in the Middle East - but then seeing how the tinders are bone dry there, why light a fire if you aren't equipped to deal with the flames? Just reading Frank's comment how much of disconnect there is between reality and perceptions in the "West". The majority of Muslims are looking around in bewilderment at the hijacking of the Middle East's air of discontent by these so called "extremists" who are displaying heinous acts of violence on a chronic bases. The majority of the Muslims certainly don't either identify with these acts as part of their belief system (ironically, islam translates to peace in Arabic), nor do they agree with their actions. But of course, their quiet discontent is not what is displayed time and again on our news stations - and the images of violence helps to serve as a validation for the US's army in Iraq. Could it not be seen by those who keep running the cartoons - as inconsequential as most people (including Muslims) see them to be - are just aiding those who wish to manipulate the power struggle going on there. My disdain with the "western" (read: US) is this is exactly what they had established and wanted. They have never wanted a stable or democratic gov't in the Middle East - that would be unlucrative if the Middle East operated on self-interest alone.
The present state in Iran, in fact, dates back over 30 years when the CIA (with the help of English again)overthrew a progressive and democratic gov't (as they have done in many oil rich nations in South America) and installed a religious shah who would play puppet to the West - this was known as Operation Ajax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax. They also put the backward US-boot licking Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, they kept a well-armed Saddam in charge in Iraq, and the worst crime - they put the predecessors of the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan. This effectively removed any chance of those living in above mentioned regions to have access to the education they once enjoyed or the lifestyle - and threw many of them back into the dark ages. Women in Iran started wearing a bhurka just recently under the totalitarian rule - it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with corruption in any which way you look at it. The cartoons simply aren't funny right now, and are being seen as hate literature within the enlightened concept of freedom of speach.

But in the end, I think Pearl's sister and his widow are trying to do something besides just bearing witness to Danny Pearl's memory. I think they are trying to engage in an project that struggles to find a common language that will speak to everyone about the humanity we all share and the elements of that humanity that might serve to bring us together. I don't believe for a moment that the US project in Iraq and the Middle East, Israeli hegemony over the Lebanon or Palestinian terrorist bombings, or for that matter, cartoon campaigns against Islamists are contributing much of value toward that goal.

Avenncia:
I couldn't agree with you more on all of your points except one. I'll remind you that it does have everything to do do with beliefs (religion). What does the U.S. empire with their own oppressive regime believe? Who is their God? The God of war or self serving and pursuit of success at absolutely everyone elses expense? The God of lies and Bigotry?

Its as obvious to me what the U.S. has oppressed and "suppressed" in the middle east as it is with you. You won't finding me disagreeing with you on any of this in terms of what you said, other than me pointing out that it is about disfunctional beliefs world wide as a whole, and how the coming generations are conditioned by it.

What you will find me doing is adding to what you have to say, because it does come down to beliefs and how or why we believe in what we believe to begin with. What causes it? What is its effect?

And while it is obvious to us both that the U.S. beliefs in control at all costs including selling their own soul, death to life and its very environments that support it, along with their complete disregard for human and life rights world wide... some of it is exercized by the the middle East as well, along with the rest of the worlds nations, and while you argue that it is a minority of people who do so there, it is also a minority of people who do so here, perhaps everywhere except... Rhawanda.

We need a complete shift in thinking and beliefs. We believe that power corrupts, while at the same time, refuse to realize that this belief opens the gates to those who are corrupt and seeking power as a result... while refusing to acknowledge that someone has to take on this responsibility to lead and assume powerful roles!

Actions, inactions, we again, both agree that it is inactions that are sinking us in these regards. Inactions to atrocities, inactions fueled by protecting our own "self interests" and yet, when we analyze it here at home in this country, never mind U.S. empirical control of South America that is learning to say FU, or the middle East that has yet to regroup and unite against such oppressive Empirical U.S. regimes, we seem to be quite content to be taken over quite literally by the states in our markets, control of our resourses, heck, our very identity. Look at the government we just chose!

Light a fire? We can't water something or preserve it or keep it alive if its destined for death, so while it seems rather dry in the Middle East, there's still stuff worth burning, and the ideology of a huge nation south of ours has enough ideological deadwood to be the fire of all fires. Bush's regime epitomizes everything that is wrong with this world at this point. And, we need some fire under our own asses to stamp out this braindead destructive thinking here at home.

What disconnect would that be?

The US and Britain have imposed gov'ts on the Middle East in the past and are doing so again in Iraq. However, how is boycotting Danish goods and shooting Dutch film makers helping fix this problem?

If the Moslem world does not want to be ruled by Western imposed dictators then they should direct their attention not at cartoons but at their own leaders. Iran had a revolution and deposed the shah. This option is open to other countries too.

Currently the Moslem "street" is doing the bidding of its gov't controlled press and gov't sponsored religous leaders. Even taking part in "spontaneous" gov't sanctioned protests. For what purpose? Whose interest is being served by this? That of the average Moslem? Nope.

Deflecting attention from bad domestic policies by pointing at foreign enemies is as old as the hills. The political and religous leaders of the Middle East will continue to enjoy their abundant oil wealth while keeping the masses focused on European cartoonists, film makers and novelists. Western corporate interests will heartily approve and fire the responsible party if any of these people offend and thereby upset the global trade applecart.

I'm sure in a few weeks the powers that be will cool everything down and the average Syrian will spend his time scanning Danish newspapers for depictions of the Prophet instead of asking questions about domestic policies.

All I know is I wish I had 50,000 burnable Danish flags and a chain of gift shops from Riyahd to Islamabad to Sumatra. I'd be raking in the petro-dollars.

Avienncia:
Frank's comments are a part of this truth. Standing alone, these partial truths are a distortion of the whole truth, truth be told, but what he is saying is correct. And while you have shed light on a "major" chunk of truth, it too, isn't complete.

Its about the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and if I was to step outside of the realm of generalities and get specific, I, too, would fail to tell it all, or make errors trying because there is simply too much to tell, unless I narrowed its scope and talked generalities in ideological principle/philosophy/history and causal effects of origins and their conclusions and even then, how much do we lose watering it down?

Simple and extremely incomplete truths like "God is love" don't work for your average. A good portion of us believe moreso in 3 hots and a cot (specially if you have an empty stomach and no roof over your head). Ah... which comes first? And is one any more right or wrong than the other to at first believe? Its environmental. How can we judge?

But it shouldn't stop us from trying or choosing to see that big picture regardless of how sketchy or detailed it might become, as this belief that it cannot be done promotes ignorance. I betcha Daniel Pearl knew this, and was willing to die for such principles. I'll remember him as a Jew I can love, no problem. (I'm getting emotional here... I gotta eat)

Frank: lol :-)
Avicenna: :-)

Frank:

If the Moslem world does not want to be ruled by Western imposed dictators then they should direct their attention not at cartoons but at their own leaders.

As usual, Frank: right on!

I have much sympathy for the opinions expressed by brain, Avicenna, and others. For sure, over the years, the ordinary people of the middle east have been dealt a raw deal. The guilty parties include certain western powers, but the rulers of most of these nations are have been complicit with western governments and corporations.

As Frank says, the focus ought to be deposing corrupt governments, not protesting silly pictures.

.

Thanks grub, as usual :-)

All this violence by people you normally feel sorry for makes one kinda nostalgic for the salad days of Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Now there was a pair of uncomplicated guys you could really get a hate-on for and the best thing was all your drinking buddies agreed with you.

Very good observations, Avicenna. I agree entirely.

As other than "believers" have observed before, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." And the West and Western Imperialism in particular is in the process reaping all the bitter fruit of what it has sown in the Middle East, especially since the Second World War, but especially as the consequence of the flight of the Jews and the encouragement of that out of Europe to Palestine-, and then using the artificially created Jewish State of Israel as a bastion of European and US influence thrust into the side like a sword of the Arab Middle East.

We may be about to get another historical example, post the defeat of the US Empire in Iraq, of the fact that what can be created by one set of men, can be as quickly undone by another. Maybe even an added lesson, for those who buy into the bullshit that the US Empire is really attempting to establish "democracy" in the Middle East, (as opposed to "imperial control" as I contend), that every people has to create their own "democracy" out of their own living experience. It cannot be imposed out of the barrael of a gun.

Like I keep saying, it is in the interests of more than just the peoples of the Middle East that the current US led imperialist coalition should be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is of no less interest to everyone in this country who want to see a truly free, progressive and independent Canada.

The West and Western Imperialism has actually reaped a good quantity of non-bitter fruit also. Canada is a very good example. It's not perfect, but we accept refugees, we do not produce them.

I wish the Pearl family the best of luck in their attempts to bridge the gap between cultures but I don't have high hopes for much to be accomplished.

I see a parallel to the anti-Western protests and the recent anti-Japanese protests in China. In totalitarian regimes the highest priority is to maintain their hold on power. Their secret police heavily infiltrate any organized form of "non-sanctioned" political activity. Which in an
oligarchic regime means anything other than the ruling political party.

The fact these protests/riots can take place indicates implicit allowance by local authorities. They probably see protest against foreigners as a safety valve to release internal tensions.

If the regime's legitimacy is seriously threatened it can react
violently using full military might against civilians. Prominent examples of this are the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen square or the 1982 massacre of the Syrian city of Hama. In both cases unknown thousands lost their lives.

Which has to do with what, I am not sure. First, we take refugees as part of the annual boatloads of immigrants we take in because left to our own devices, our population would be is decline, rapidly moving toward zero. (Either low sperm counts in the males for one reason or another, life and work styles that don't leave quality room for making and raising babies, or too many "career focussed" women uninterests in men and contributing, at least until too late, to the reproduction of the species.)

We are producing so few babies of our own that we are not even maintaining our own population, let alone building it, as is the constant need of the capitalist economic system of endless growth.

Secondly, we are the peoples who depleted and were the surplus populations of Europe, and out of the cyclical crisis of startup capitalism's Industrial Revolution Europe were forced to flee to, and steal the continent of the North American natives, near extinguishing them along with the buffalo and numerous other species in the process and since,.

And what we took from the original people inhabitants of North America was a continent scarcely exploited for its resources, and rich in flora and fauna. It is this relatively untouched and unabused continent, then full of fresh water and fishes, timber and minerals in the ground which has enriched us so. We would have had to be total gits NOT to have thrived on this bountiful stolen Shangrila. (And we are working migtily, driven by endless growth capitalism, to seriously fug it up, no doubt.)

Keep going the way we are going, selling off these resources and other riches to the US just as fast as they can haul it away, and we may yet create a generation that wishes it could flee elsewhere-, except there is no where else to go of course.

They better find another habitable planet soon.

A tad more critical thinking, and less true believer fluff there Yammer, and you could be deadly. Indeed, from time to time you do show brief flashes of potential and brilliance.

I'm not interested in your kudos or brickbats until you answer ONE of my many questions posed to you in the past, e.g. have you compared the human rights reports from Iraq pre and post invasion?

From Rense.com
The Satanic Pictures
By Israel Shamir
2-12-6

"The West was not amused by burning embassies in Beirut and elsewhere. "Them there Muslims do not understand our sense of humour; they do not understand our idea of liberty". - droned the newspapers. Others condemned the tactless escapade of the Danes but thought the reaction was quite out of proportion. However the flare up was anything but incidental.

A resourceful American journalist Christopher Bollyn investigated the Danish Satanic Pictures and their procurer, one Flemming Rose, and found out that Rose was not an innocent lover of freedom of speech, neither was he some quaint Scandinavian collector of smut pictures with religious connotations who kept his presentations of the Muslim prophet next to that of a Nun-with-the-Great Dane. Rose was a devotee of the Zionist Neo-Con cult, and made a pilgrimage to the pope of this persuasion -- Daniel Pipes, wrote Bollyn."

My comment is: how convenient this all is to persuade folk that Muslims are irrational anyway...so let's "liberate" Iran!

Chatter has it the invasion is set for the end of March.

Ask Ernst Zundel and David Irving about "Free Speech" in the West.

I think Daniel Pearl probably did know too much....about Al Qaeda being a false flag operation!

http://www.rense.com/general69/htm

I have no illusions about either Sadaam or Bush's Amerika, and what it is doing over there. Only you seem to.

But then I think it is patently clear that regardless, it is six of one and a half dozen for the other. Though one's chance of death, starvation and being bloody cold is probably greater now. Even most of the Iraqis they interview in the corporate media over here, even CNN, tell us life under Sadaam certainly had its problems, but it was still better and safer then than it is under the US Empire occupation.

Besides, what the fuk does "the state or absence of Iraqi democracy" have to do with US imperialism anyway. Who set it up to decide the issues of our nations lives and content?

As it was up to the citizens of the US to free themselves from the British Empire and develop their own democracy model and socio-economic content, so is it for the people of the Middle East. And there is more to democracy than a vote between tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Likewise it is up to Canada, regardless of whoever's report or whatever foreign opinions about what, though one may want to be aware of them and have their own "opinion", to free itself from US domination and develop such a system of economic and political governance and democracy as we might wish. I don't really think Canadians want the US in here defining our realities and solutions for us-, for as in Iraq, they are more likely to seek to line their own pockets with our national treasure. (Indeed, at which they are doing too good a job now.)

It ain't nobodies' business but our own. And in this case, the Iraqis. (And if we want to keep that right alive for ourselves, it is important we defend it for the people of the Middle East no less. For the US Empire would dearly love to extinguish that right, and continue to set themselves up, as Dorothy says on another thread, as judge, jury and executioner.)

Like I say Yammer, a tad more critical thinking and a little less "Me too!" old Canadian colonialist attitude and slave thinking would do wonders for your objectivity and the depth of your analyses. Just my opinion, for sure. It's your call, of course. Just like it is the Iraqis over there.

Part of the problem with answering most of the questions you pose Yammer, is they are merely rhetorically posed, tending to be shallow and jingoistic anyway, and hence of little point my giving serious treatment. Such as this one was I've just given my answer for, just to please you. :-)

Nana,

An interesting wee piece of your own, of some eloquence.

That link does not work for me however. I will try another approach on my own.

Try this link for that site Nana provides.

http://www.rense.com/general69/satanic.htm

Now, I'm goint to have to do a little more research of my own into this Israel Shamir, whom I glean is a "left-wing Jew, though I am uncertain, for there are elements in this piece I find a tad "uncomfortable", but nonetheless, it is an interesting and challenging piece.

Again Nana, a most provocative, and I am tempted to say "mysterious" piece. Thanks for it. Maybe after I've done some homework...

I'd be interested to hear your views of this one, Frank and Lynn.

Here is what I have been able to find out about this Israel Shamir, frankly, a man who has a similar view to my own of non-zionist solution to the Jewish-Palestinian issue. "In the midst of the endless talk of a "Two State solution", Shamir, along with Edward Said, has become a leading champion of the "One Man, One Vote, One State" solution in all of Palestine/Israel."

For your collective info.

Israel Shamir

" A native of Novosibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war. After his military service he resumed his study of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia. In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote Travels with My Son, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics. TOP

After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and the newspaper Al Hamishmar, and worked in the Knesset as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam). He translated the works of S.Y. Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew to Russian. His work was published and reprinted many times in both Israel and in Russia. He also translated selected chapters of Joyce's Ulysses, which were well received by publishers in Moscow, Tel Aviv, New York and Austin, Texas. Another of his translations, the Israeli-Arab Wars by President Herzog, was published in London. His most popular work, The Pine and the Olive, the story of Palestine/Israel, was published in 1988. Its cover carried a painting by the Ramallah painter, Nabil Anani. It was republished in a new updated version in 2004 by Ultraculture, Moscow.

As the first Palestinian Intifada began, Shamir had left Israel for Russia, where he covered the eventful years 1989-1993. While in Moscow, he reported for Haaretz, but was sacked for publishing an article calling to the return the Palestinian refugees and the rebuilding of their ruined villages. He wrote for various Russian newspapers and magazines, including the daily Pravda and the weekly Zavtra. In 1993, he returned to Israel and settled in Jaffa. He wrote for Russian newspapers both in Israel and Russia and contributed to various literary magazines. During this period, he also worked on a new translation of the Odyssey, which was published in 2000 in St. Petersburg, Russia. His next big project was translating a Hebrew medieval Talmudic manuscript into English.

In response to the second Palestinian Intifada, Shamir has abandoned his literary occupation and resumed his work as a journalist. In the midst of the endless talk of a "Two State solution", Shamir, along with Edward Said, has become a leading champion of the "One Man, One Vote, One State" solution in all of Palestine/Israel. His most recent essays have been circulating widely on the Internet and are now posted on many prominent media sites. With every new article, Shamir is establishing himself as a journalist whose work speaks to the aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. "

Somebody on this site wrote that what was needed is the kind of cartooning that lampoons both (or all) religious sensibilities. The following may be the answer to that need, see what you think:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Thx G West -- I love it!

Nobody is beyond ridicule =^)

And, just one more thing you might be interested in:
http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001001.shtml

And, thankfully, a voice of sense and moderation too:

http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=news&story=769

Interesting perspective, Coyote.