All Muslims are the Same

The truth has verily been revealed unto me

from JoeUser Forums
It wasn't until the recent flood of articles on Joeuser about the cartoon incident and its follow-up that I came to this revelation. But the words of brave advocates on this blog site have persuaded me - there is no difference between a Muslim who explodes a bomb and a Muslim who a)doesn't know it happened, b)is appalled or c)doesn't care.

They're all the same!

I don't know who exactly I have to thank for this revelation, but it really makes my life easier to be able to combine Laskar Jihad, Fatah, Muhammadiyah, Nahdatul Ulama, The Australian Council of Imams, PKK, PKB, and all those other *Muslims* into a single monolithic enemy.

Because the truth is, they're all the same. Nahdatul Ulama may have publicly condemned acts of terror, but that was obviously just a sneaky trick to fool us into thinking all Muslims aren't the same - they won't fool me any more! The world's largest Muslim countries have all publicly condemned terrorism - but their stands are also sneaky tricks. After all, who could be supplying terrorists with explosives like fertilizer and guns like Kalashnikovs if not these southeast asian giants of industry?

Those Muslims are so devious, they outwit those crazy kid liberals at every turn! And they have outwitted me for too long!

Today I stand by you, free world. We must fight the Muslim menace on the beaches, on the streets, on the carpet of their living rooms (be careful though - bloodstains will make a quick sale difficult!) - everywhere the menace can be found.

Because stupidity, mindless aggression and blatant racism are attributes only the great enemy could possibly possess!
5,611 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
cacto,

Come on now, nobody has made that claim.

For years, many critics of Christianity claimed that moderate Christians needed to separate themselves from the abortion clinic bombers and similar radical elements, and they were right. And now, virtually every incidence of such violence that does occur is quickly denounced from the pulpit. Fred Phelps and his company of believers is relegated to the fringe of even the fringe elements. I highly expect to see an ATF raid on a compound of WBC members within my lifetime.

It is no different for Islam. When protestors burn embassies and denounce those who DARE impugn the reputation of Islam, even though they are outside the faith, and the majority of Muslims DON'T speak out, their silence speaks volumes. Remember the support for the 9/11 attacks on the streets of Pakistan in the days and weeks following? It took most of the moderate Muslim community MONTHS to speak out against these actions. And the regular suicide bomber attacks on INNOCENT civilians are not only not largely denounced by the Muslim community, but are in fact, SUPPORTED by a claim of moral relativism; that is, that they are somehow equivalent to retaliation for such attacks on MILITARY targets.

Nobody has ever said that all Muslims are the same, cacto, or even IMPLIED such. What we ARE saying is that they need to take an active voice in teaching their youth that the actions such as the burning of the embassies in Damascus are unacceptable, and that they do not support the leaders that support these actions. In other words, they need to take an active hand in helping us stop the slaughter of innocents from members of their own community. And the fact that they're not doing it speaks volumes.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the fact that they're not doing it speaks volumes.


They are. You just don't hear about it. Perhaps not in the Middle East, but that underpopulated region could hardly be considered as the most Muslim of all areas, particularly considering how often regional groups disregard the sura, as pointed out by someone here a few days back (that whole 'Israel will have its own state and the Jews shall return - I find that fascinating, and a little sad and ironic to be honest). I think more live outside it if I've got my figures straight. And in the areas with big Muslim populations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, the UK and the US moderate Muslims do speak out. They don't tend to protest - I honestly don't know why, save perhaps that there's no symbol to protest at. Where do you protest against a suicide bomber if it's never happened in your city? I'm a little puzzled but I suppose there must be somewhere significant. For the life of me I don't know where though.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually I think I'll take down this post in a few hours. On reflection it doesn't really reflect how I feel in any way. Basically I dislike intensely how it's always the weak who suffer from arguments like this. The terrorists, the devious and underhanded governments who use them as pawns in their power plays - they'll all come out fine in the end. But it's the innocents who'll get blown up, or stabbed to death in a dark alley for being Muslim or not being Muslim. It's nearly always the weak who suffer. And I hate to see my own people make the same sweeping generalisations that the enemy they seemingly consider monolithic makes.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The world's largest Muslim countries have all publicly condemned terrorism


And why wouldn't they? Arafat regularly condemned the very terrorist attacks committed by his own Al-Aqsa brigade. Publicly condemning terrorist means nothing.


They are [speaking out]. You just don't hear about it.


You don't hear about it, because few Muslims speak out against terrorism. Incidentally, you are wrong. It's not Muslims outside the middle east that speak out. Morocco and Jordan have seen the greatest demonstrations against Al-Qaeda, but only since the Iraq war.


particularly considering how often regional groups disregard the sura, as pointed out by someone here a few days back


I pointed that out. Except I believe you mean the "Sunnah" which is a collection of laws and traditions. A sura is a chapter in the Qur'an. I don't know what the Sunnah says about Israel, but the suras I referred to are in the Qur'an.


Where do you protest against a suicide bomber if it's never happened in your city?


Not voting for Hamas would have been a good protest.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you should leave this up Cacto. expressing how YOU feel and think is a good thing.

btw I do not feel all Muslims are nuts there is this one guy I know............ heh heh heh
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
No one said they are all the same. As a matter of fact, most of us admit that most muslims are probably peace loving and as good citizens as any of us.

But...

This situation in Europe with the cartoons is damning. As you said on my blog, the attitude is who cares if they kill Israelis, right? What's more run-of-the-mill than some terrorist blowing up a bus full of Jews.

Cartoons, on the other hand, now THAT will get you out of your seat and making a statement. It's shameful, and if Islam wanted to be seen differently, then I don't think we'd see this now, and hear little when real terror occurs.

Consider this situation as the same logic that the Middle East hands us. We are expected to soak up blanket judgements and misspent outrage when Arabs decide to toss a fit. Well, the West is building toward a fit. I doubt they'll appreciate their own logic when it comes plummeting out of the sky.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, the West is building toward a fit. I doubt they'll appreciate their own logic when it comes plummeting out of the sky.


And that's what I hate most of all. We can't ever be better. No one is allowed to try and be the noble one, the good Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever. I hate that belief that we have to sink to their level, because if we don't we lose. But nobody cares what we lose when we sink. We just get sucked into the quagmire and nothing ever gets any better. Is that the world you want to leave your grandchildren?

We need to take the stand and start living the ideals we claim to believe in or all we're going to get is more of the same - unending war, fear of the other, claiming ourselves saints while sitting on a throne of skulls. I don't think there's much of a chance Emperor's horrible dream is going to become the horrible reality - that would take true evil, and I don't think the west has the stomache for that anymore. But why should tomorrow be just like yesterday?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
And why wouldn't they? Arafat regularly condemned the very terrorist attacks committed by his own Al-Aqsa brigade. Publicly condemning terrorist means nothing.


Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim nation and home to roughly 20% of all Muslims - cooperates quite heavily with the Australian and US international police in order to help crush potential home-grown terror groups before they get powerful. It's not that popular in the polls (the whole 'interfering neocolonialism' agenda) but it has strong support from the government and the local police.

I pointed that out. Except I believe you mean the "Sunnah" which is a collection of laws and traditions. A sura is a chapter in the Qur'an. I don't know what the Sunnah says about Israel, but the suras I referred to are in the Qur'an.


Thanks. I couldn't remember where I read it, but I knew it was on JU. And I was speaking specifically about the point you made, so sura is probably the right word. My Arabic is a little rusty though so if I did misinterpret you feel free to correct me or drop a link to your article here.

Not voting for Hamas would have been a good protest.


I don't think the Palestinians had a choice did they? Was there a viable third party with no connections whatsoever to any form of resistance/terrorist group? I never heard about them if there was. And the rest of the Muslim world must have made a good protest then in your eyes - they didn't even vote at all!

You don't hear about it, because few Muslims speak out against terrorism. Incidentally, you are wrong. It's not Muslims outside the middle east that speak out. Morocco and Jordan have seen the greatest demonstrations against Al-Qaeda, but only since the Iraq war.


They do it very often in Indonesia, although perhaps that's also influenced by how heavily Indonesia relies on the west for contracts, aid and trade. I thought Jordan and Morocco were anti-terrorist, but I wasn't sure so didn't include them.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cartoons, on the other hand, now THAT will get you out of your seat and making a statement. It's shameful, and if Islam wanted to be seen differently, then I don't think we'd see this now, and hear little when real terror occurs.


That's not what I meant. People only protest that which is novel. Old news is no news at all. The social context may be important, and the timing may be poor, but it's the fact it's the first time in years that makes it important, not the fact it's a cartoon. It's ignoring the alleged western belief in 'tolerance' in order to attack a core belief of Islam in a blatant and very public way. To be honest it could have been practically anything. The nuts on both sides have been spoiling for a fight for years. I hope for the weak's sake they don't get it.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not that popular in the polls (the whole 'interfering neocolonialism' agenda) but it has strong support from the government and the local police.


That's the point. If you were right and Muslims would speak up, such measures would be popular in the polls. They are in Jordan now!



My Arabic is a little rusty though so if I did misinterpret you feel free to correct me or drop a link to your article here.


My own Arabic is about as good as my ability to find similar words in Hebrew.

My article is here: http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=99648

It's basically about how Hamas specifically contradict the Qur'an about what Allah wants with Israel.



They do it very often in Indonesia, although perhaps that's also influenced by how heavily Indonesia relies on the west for contracts, aid and trade. I thought Jordan and Morocco were anti-terrorist, but I wasn't sure so didn't include them.


If you have a pointer to an article about huge demonstrations against Al-Qaeda or other terrorists in Indonesia, please post it. I have not heard of any such events.

With very few exceptions all the governments in the world speak out against terrorism. It's the people I talk about when I say "Muslims". Apart from Jordan and Morocco, where hundreds of thousands finally spoke out after their own people were being attacked by Al-Qaeda, I have not heard of many Muslims speaking out.

The point is that by and large "the Muslims" as a group did not speak out against terrorism committed in the name of Islam until after the invasion of Iraq when Al-Qaeda started targeting fellow Arabs.

The only Muslims I heard speaking out against terrorism before military action were the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan who immediately announced that they would hand over Bin Laden to America if they caught him and started firing missiles at his location (then well-known) at the same time, and Turks in Germany (I lived in Germany in 2001 and the picture I remember was the father of an established Turkish family in my street who was wearing a hat with an American flag on it shortly after the attacks).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only Muslims I heard speaking out against terrorism before military action were the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan


Bad example in my eyes. The Northern Alliance were butchers and thieves when they were in power, and there's no good reason to assume they've changed since then.

I don't recall any large-scale protests against al'Qaeda or terrorism as such in Indonesia. In the main there's been little save public statements from the large groups. But protesting isn't a traditional Indonesian response to big issues; it's only come in with democratic reforms and is still largely student-based. Students naturally have little sympathy for large western powers, who they see as oppressors. But most major organisations do make regular statements about halting terror.

Political turmoil in Indonesia itself has meant that really only students and the preman (a euphamism for gangsters which translates as 'free man'; only a criminal has free time in modern Indonesia) protest. The first because of a belief in social justice or youthly ambitions, the other because they're getting paid under the table. And naturally increases in school fees, freedom of the press and concerns over civil liberties have put protesting against extremists on the backburner.

Of course that's all excuses; I suppose in the modern world nothing can be considered more importantly than lending moral support to anti-terror forces with large, job-killing demonstrations.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cacto,
Until I read your follow-ups I thought you were just being sarcastic.

Good article, though I am somewhat off-put by your broad generalizations. I gotta admit, though, I haven't heard any outcry from the greater Muslim community denouncing the violence that seems to be in every nation. Not just Israel, not just outside Danish embassies, not just in Bali, not just in lower Manhattan... it seems to be everywhere and not relenting any time soon.

As for the Muslim outcry? The silence is deafening.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually come to think of it Australia didn't see any large protests against 9/11. So maybe Australia doesn't do as much as it should to show its willing.

That's assuming, of course, that public protests are the only valid way for a people to show disgust with something.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
not just in Bali,


Bali is majority Hindu. The police have to work very hard to prevent genocide against the local Muslims these days, who unfairly get the blame for the regular attacks on the island's main industry.

As for the Muslim outcry? The silence is deafening.


I'm not so sure the Islamic world realises 1) it's supposed to be unified or 2) that it has to speak up against every terror that many in it consider to be naturally abhorent. I don't know for sure but I think there could well be a cultural or at least societal reason behind the un-publicly-stated opposition to terrorism I saw so often in Indonesia. People seemed willing to talk about it in private, but no one was willing to say it in public. I think they were embarrassed but it's hard to tell when you're using a second language.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And that's what I hate most of all. We can't ever be better. No one is allowed to try and be the noble one, the good Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever. I hate that belief that we have to sink to their level, because if we don't we lose. But nobody cares what we lose when we sink. We just get sucked into the quagmire and nothing ever gets any better. Is that the world you want to leave your grandchildren?


We can't ever be better? I find it difficult that you can equate the standard operating procedure of Islamic diplomacy over the last 50 years with that of the West. We have wars, sure. We have diplomatic disputes as well. Look out our reaction to them.

If you can show me the Cindy Sheehan of Palestine, I'll start to buy your claims. Oh, sorry, 'Cindy' would have to be silent. Where are the peace protesters upset about the civilian casualties in Arab wars? WOuld we ever hear about them, given that most Islamic states would probably just make them disappear silently?

We in the West have our problems, sure, but equating them to the functioning governance in Islamic nations is a joke. People in western culture feel that war is abhorrant, but oddly they are very, very vocal about it. I'd like to know where the people camping outside Hamas headquarters to make them stop blowing up Israelis are.

Not equitable at all. Islamic nationalism and fundamentalism is represive, period. Maybe there are many people who MIGHT protest actions of terrorists, and maybe there are many who might fight for change. They can't, because they face prison, torture, or death for it. If you think we aren't better than that, well, you have a seriously skewed idea of Western Civilization.

And anyway, it isnt' the West trying to impose change on Islam in this case. Islam is insisting we keep to their religious mandates by not portraying their religious figures in any way. Again, I see little equity between our, and their concept of freedom.

And what do you suggest? They make a demand and offer violence as an alternative. We bow to it? Or we "provoke" them by refusing to meet their demands? Either way you aren't going to consider us doing anything better. It's catch-22.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think what the west is today is good, but it could be better. I wasn't trying to compare the west to most Islamic states. I just think that the way we operate now can be improved upon. Why should we keep inflicting the same injustices on others over and over again? Sure, there are worse powers in this world - Iran is one, Cambodia was another, the drug belt of Latin America a swathe that's much alike. But that doesn't mean that smiting them with righteous fury and a few token aid efforts is going to make it any better there, and we're fooling no one save ourselves by saying so. it hasn't worked before; what makes us think it will this time?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
What injustices? This isn't a population sitting peacefully while we charge in and steal their women. This is a segment of the world's population that believes by frightening and intimidating the rest that they can deny basic freedoms.

There have been mistakes. Even then we thought we were responding to threats, though the response was admittedly a mistake. The situation in Saudi Arabia is a good example. People call us hypocrites for allowing the injustices there, but in reality we don't mind letting people be unjust to themselves. If we were what we were portrayed as being we'd have invaded there too and imposed our culture.

Denmark is no threat to the Middle East. Neither is France, and France has been more of a "friend" to them in the past decade than any other European nation. This is about imposing their standards on other nations, and in a far more heavy handed manner than the West.

What other optopn is there? Meet their demands? Do you really feel good about the idea of telling the press what they can and can't print just so people won't burn embasies? Once they start taking hostages and beheading them over cartoons, what then?

Sit and watch the mayhem, or strike back, or what? Bribes? What do you think the high road is when people threaten violence unless you do their bidding?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
What injustices? This isn't a population sitting peacefully while we charge in and steal their women. This is a segment of the world's population that believes by frightening and intimidating the rest that they can deny basic freedoms.


I'm beginning to think I don't know who you're talking about. What is Islam to you? I think I can figure out where it is - the Middle East, particularly Israel, Iran, Iraq, presumably Saudi Arabia, possibly Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan as well. Is that all? Because if that's the Islam you believe is doing all the wrongs, then I've been talking about something a little broader. I wish you'd been more specific in your choice of descriptions; Muslim and Islamic is a very, very large section of the world's population. Islamic politics cover the whole spectrum from ultra-liberal to arch-conservative. I feel a little like a fool for taking it so broadly when you mean it so specifically, and I'm not sure I could have avoided it with my limited grasp of English.

Denmark is no threat to the Middle East. Neither is France, and France has been more of a "friend" to them in the past decade than any other European nation. This is about imposing their standards on other nations, and in a far more heavy handed manner than the West.


Really? Nondemocratic states outside the west have had sanctions imposed when they refuse to be democratic. That seems very heavy-handed. But Cuba aside, I largely agree. The response from a number of non-state actors has been extreme, although in keeping with their traditional approach to the west - ie hate-filled and based on ridiculous stereotypes. The actions of states like Syria also seem over-the-top, until you realise that Syria has reacted to aspects of the west in much the same way for decades. Insofar as a state can be prone to hissy fits, Syria is the one.

What other optopn is there? Meet their demands? Do you really feel good about the idea of telling the press what they can and can't print just so people won't burn embasies? Once they start taking hostages and beheading them over cartoons, what then?


Ignore them. Tell the newspapers they're bloody stupid for being so provocative, tell the foreigners to butt out of domestic issues, and move on. The cartoons aren't the harbinger of the apocalypse. Sure they got protested, sure some embassies got torched, but embassies don't seem to last long in the Middle East anyway. At least, there seems to be another one demolished every few weeks. Ignore the whole region would be my move, only paying them the slightest bit of attention when we need something. And tell them that there won't be any military aid for any purpose until they wake up to themselves. Drown them in educational and health aid though - it's the ultimate PR coup to have the entire medical and educational system of a nation have your logo on it, and makes claims the west doesn't care ring rather hollow.

Stephen Mayne wrote something interesting in today's Crikey which is pretty close to what I think:

As soon as an issue is framed as a test of press freedom, the temptation is to publish for no better reason than to assert that freedom. And in some circumstances, where the threat is real, that might be reason enough to publish. But in this country, and most others where newspapers have strutted a hairy chest on this issue, Muslims are a small minority of the population and we are free to offend their religious sensitivities if we want to.

The only question to consider is, why would we want to?

There are really important occasions to invoke "the precious right of freedom of speech." By choosing the wrong one, the Dominion Post has devalued the concept, given more ammunition to opponents of free speech for no reason, and made it a little bit harder for all other journalists to invoke it in the future.
(He was commenting specifically on the NZ press' decision to republish the cartoons as a sign of 'press solidarity')
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, I understand that Islam is bigger than the Middle East. It's in the Phillipines, it is in Indonesia, it is in Asia. It is in Somalia and Africa proper. If YOU are talking about Muslims in the West, then you are also talking about a very small slice of Islam. All of those places have succumbed more and more to radical Islam in the last decade or two.

As for injustice, what injustice has been brought upon those Muslims in the West so far? I agree that I think France has been pigheaded, but they have also been pigheaded about religion in general, which is also a matter of free expression in my opinion. I think France is wrong to villify personal religious expression in publicly owned buildings.

Other than that, what injustice have those mainstream muslims in other areas tolerated to create the kind of apathy you describe? Show me injustice to Muslims that I have been apathetic to, and I'll do my best to correct it. Palestine has suffered as much because of the hate of their Arab neighbors than they have from Israel.

Cuba, and Syria as well for that matter, aren't just paying for being different. They are paying for their involvment in the Cold War. Syria is paying for decades of being pro-terrorism and anti-Semitic. Trace the history of the Middle East back to WW2 and the Arab state's alignment with Nazism.

I think we will ignore this for the most part. I don't think we will start bombing countries because an embassy or two is burned. On the other hand it is one more sign that *mainstream* Islam values a few cartoons more than they do the lives of innocent people. Sitting idly by while people are beheaded isn't just apathy, it is neglect. They need to weed their religion, and refuse to.

I don't hold any grudge against any Islamic person that doesn't wish to impose their values or wink at terrorism. I don't consider it apathy, though, that this brings this kind of response worldwide, and terror doesn't.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll add that I think Muslims should be able to chant "Death to Israel" all they want. I don't think the Koran should be banned for excusing the killing of infidels any more than the Bible should be banned for saying "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

But lets be honest. This standard would be far, far more of an imposition on Muslim expression than they would on Western expression. In terms of pure hate, can you really say that there is more stuff like these cartoons in the Western media than anti-semeitic rhetoric in the Arab media?

Let's just let EVERYONE say what they want, and realize opinions don't hurt anyone. If we burned embassies every time someone preached "Death to America" in Arab nations, well, you could make a fortune in the American embassy building business.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Northern Alliance were butchers and thieves when they were in power, and there's no good reason to assume they've changed since then.


When were they in power and why do you call them butchers?

They ARE in power now. And I haven't heard any really bad news about Karzai's government.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
They were in power before the Taliban. After the fall of the Russian attempt in Afghanistan the Northern Alliance's key figures took power. After murdering, raping and drug-dealing their way into ignomy the Taliban got together the popular support to take over. The Northern Alliance were forced to flee to the north -hence the name. They're not entirely back yet, as the US has managed to mostly keep them in check. Karzai is president in name only; according to the rumours, he might have control over his own palace after nightfall, but even that's not certain.

Afghanistan is pretty dismal, but it's always been that way.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's just let EVERYONE say what they want, and realize opinions don't hurt anyone.


Well not directly, no, save in the psychological sense. But we're not dealing with 6-yr-olds here so presumably the psychological damage won't be longlasting.

It's the longterm effects that concern me. A poorly stated opinion does affect the opinions of others towards you. Do we really want to be thought arrogant pricks by the rest of the world? What purpose could it possibly serve? I've always liked the approach proposed by one of your dead presidents - speak softly and carry a big stick.

Or to put it in South Park terms - and I wish I could do this with every issue - there doesn't seem to be much point in saying "You don't own me bitch - I do what I want!" at every opportunity. Sure, we should be able to do it. But what does it serve to do it about a few particularly unfunny cartoons? Okay, 11 unfunny cartoons and one that's kind of clever - the one with Muhammad saying, "stop! we've run out of virgins!" to all the suicide bombers.

But no one has the power to stop us from doing it at this point and there are no plans to stop it from occuring as far as I am aware, so whether we say muslims are incompetents and dangerous or not isn't exactly bolstering free speech. It's basically being said for shits and giggles. Personally I'm against insulting others purely for that reason, but I suppose that comes with an excessively Catholic upbringing. Maybe had I had a more conventionally conservative background I'd understand why it's so important to be rude for no good reason, purely because I can. But at the moment it's a little unclear.

I would however, think less of anyone who just sat still and took it if I was abusing them. The only thing worse than an arsehole is a spineless little wimp.

If we burned embassies every time someone preached "Death to America" in Arab nations, well, you could make a fortune in the American embassy building business.


True. If I was a really good stereotyped liberal I suppose I'd be saying the US CIA global conspiracy arranged the cartoons so that US megacorps could get building contracts, and that the whole antagonism between Middle Eastern states and the west was designed solely for that purpose by secret US thinktanks.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
So I take it you publically condemn every comedian, cartoonist, or satirist that engages in insults for humor's sake? You plan to be the comedy censor of the world now, cacto?


No. Because they expect their audience to laugh. The Danish cartoons were published to make the point that the Danish press should have the freedom of speech to publish regardless of the sensibilities of their targets. If it didn't have such a big political build-up prior to the printing I wouldn't give a second thought. But from what I've managed to find out the cartoons were designed not so much to be funny but to be provocative.

Good satirists and comedians understand the need to be funny first and provocative second, at least if they want a broad audience they do. I have no intention or desire to police it, but I do wish they'd try harder to be funny if they're going to insult other people. Tell me honestly - how many of those Danish cartoons did you laugh at? For me it was a smile at 2 or 3, but only one got a laugh. The rest were so unfunny they may have been children's artwork.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've decided to close this and have a think about my own position on the vast swathe of issues I seem to have meandered over in answering your replies, and then I'll post a hopefully more rational and less illogical statement tomorrow. Until then I'm locking this one. Thanks to all though for the points you've made and the insights you've brought to my attention. I like having a place like this where I can be guaranteed hardly anyone is going to agree with me; it makes sure that if I decide to take a stupid position on something I do it for the right reasons.