More about the cartoon crap,,1712159,00.html

There’ve been a few announcements like these like some imam somewhere said that this wouldn’t have happened if the “apostate” Salman Rushdie had been killed as per ordered by Ayatolla Khomeini, or whatever Ayatolla was in power in Iran at the time of the sentencing. I think there was a million dollar bounty on his head at some point.

I was expecting this to happen sooner or later, but I still feel really sorry for the cartoonist since he’ll probably have to go hide after this, regardless of how the political situation develops. Cash is always a good way of perpetuating the motivation of an angry mob.

Ooh, tastes like barbarism, how yummy.

See it IS a reality he might need to hide because of how Theo VanGogh was killed in the Netherlands.

Yeah, this guy is nuts. It’s not clear exactly who he is (it says he’s a “prayer leader,” which is kind of vague), like if he really has the authority to speak on behalf of “all imams.” Probably just some asshole who wants to use this incident to gain influence.

<A href=“;_ylt=Ahy3Fy_8W8mAuqcFChYMzMas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--” target="_blank">Bounty is now touted to be $1,000,000 - plus the original bounty.</A>


“Whoever has done this despicable and shameful act, he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get $1 million from the association of the jewelers bazaar, 1 million rupees ($16,700) from Masjid Mohabat Khan and 500,000 rupees ($8,350) and a car from Jamia Ashrafia as a reward,” Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

My wallet isn’t big enough.

<s>Rupees, hmm? Get Link to do it</s>

And a car. Heh. I wonder what kind they had in mind?

Poor cartoonist. All he did was draw a funny picture that had a political/religious reference. I guess there’s one good thing to come out of this, and that is the cartoonist will probably be famous now. hahaha! perhaps fame isn’t that great of a thing, but when it comes to art its nice to get noticed. although in this case i’m sure he wishes he didn’t!

This is only one cleric, though. Besides that, the rioters in Syria and Lebanon were not spontaneous Muslim hordes, but Muslim militants bused to the embassies by the Syrian government, for the purpose of protesting. The protests were organized by the Syrian government. Here, read this:

People watching TV news may think that the whole Muslim world is ablaze with righteous rage translated into “spontaneous demonstrations.” The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, even if offended by cartoons which they have not seen, have stayed away from the street shows put on by the radicals and the Iranian and Syrian security services.

The destruction of Danish and Norwegian embassies and consulates happened in only two places: Damascus and Beirut. Anyone who knows Syria would know that there are no spontaneous demonstrations in that dictatorship. (Even then, the Syrian secret police failed to attract more than 1,000 rent-a-mob militants.) And the Syrian government refused the Norwegian Embassy’s request for additional police protection. It was clear that the Syrians wanted the embassies sacked.

The rent-a-mob attacks in Beirut were more cynical. The Syrian Ba’ath — which has been murdering, imprisoning or deporting Sunni-Salafi militants for years — was suddenly transformed from a radical secular and Socialist party into “the Vanguard of the Faith.” The mob that committed the atrocities in Beirut was bused from Syria and consisted of Muslim Brotherhood militants who are never allowed to demonstate on their own account.

The Muslim crowds that have demonstrated over the cartoons seldom exceeded a few hundred; the Muslim segment of humanity is estimated at 1.2 billion. And only three of Denmark’s embassies in 57 Muslim countries have been attacked.

Here’s the link to the rest of the article:

Now that is a good article.

Are you fucking kidding me? He makes a number of assertions without any backing whatsoever. For instance, he just states, without argument, that al-Jazeera “specializes in inciting Muslims against…democracy in general,” and just expects it to be taken as fact because he said so. When somebody makes blanket assertions of this nature, you don’t have to look far to find out who’s paying him. Not surprisingly at all, “Benador Associates,” the vaguely named organization where this fellow is affiliated, is actually a neoconservative think tank and public relations firm; if you look at the members of this organization, you’ll see the names of all of the most prominent neoconservatives, such as Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes, James Woolsey, and on and on.

So? Do you then think that people can protest in Syria without the government’s permission? This seems more like a well-known fact than a shady assertion. Does the author’s ties to neoconservatives disqualify that?

The one question I have in light of this information about the Danes is why I just read an article that said there was a police clash with protesters that killed 10+ people and saw the Italian embassy torched. Either that was staged or Curtis’ article might have issues.

Sorry, that wasn’t what he said. The assertion was that the Syrian government actually <i>organized</i> the protests, which is a bit different. Furthermore, there were also reports about demonstrators fighting with police. In the case of Lebanon, the government actually brought in troops to contain the rioting, and in Damascus, police set up barriers to keep the rioters away from the embassies. The author’s ties to neoconservatives simply serve to explain why he makes so many vehement statements without backing.

Where did the clash happen?

If Syria is such a tightly run country that they can stop people from protesting(and they are that totalitarian - ask any of the poly sci professors wherever you go to college), people aren’t going to protest. They’re going to keep their heads down. Syria probably did organize the protest.

Hm there goes my question, its in Lybia.

However, let’s take into consideration what happened a year ago with Hariri. Lebanon shit itself and huge swarms of people protested. Then Hezbollah and Syria organized a Pro-Syrian protest. Syria has the ability to do these things. While SK’s reservation is well taken, I don’t think it necessarily invalidates all of the claims made in the article. I think the points that were brought forward warrant further investigation.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese nationalist organization and political party with many positions in the Lebanese government and a lot of support among the Lebanese public. If Hezbollah organized a demonstration, that doesn’t make that demonstration any less Lebanese. I don’t see why the simple fact that there were “huge swarms of people” is valid when they protest against Syria, but suddenly not valid when they protest in favour of Syria, especially since the pro-Syrian protests were much larger than the anti-Syrian ones.

It wasn’t just Libya. The Lebanese government brought in troops to contain the rioting, and the rioters in Damascus clashed with police and broke through barriers that were set up to keep them away from the embassies.

What invalidates the claims in the article is a lack of arguments or evidence in support of those claims, and an abundance of loaded statements instead of arguments and evidence. The neoconservative affiliation of the author just explains why he is so adamant about this subject.

This is a ridiculous chain of reasoning. It’s like making an accusation against someone and concluding that, because the accusation could be true, then it necessarily must be true. The premise is false, anyway. Saddam Hussein also ran an authoritarian government in which protests were prohibited, but occasional rebellions and uprisings on the part of Islamic groups happened nonetheless.