Clarity

[vakkotaur]

So a Danish newspaper solicits cartoons about Islam and publishes 12 cartoons in October and then solicits opinions about it all. Then muslim radicals trying to stir up trouble add three cartoons because the original 12 just are not sufficiently offensive. In February (let's see... October, November, December, January, February.. yeah, how's that for spontaneity?), this erupts into a boycott and flag burning of conveniently available Danish flags (quick, where can you get a Danish flag in a hurry?), protests with signs in English (not Danish, or any local language), and eventually the burning of embassies. And this is supposedly about images that damage Islam? Isn't the reaction providing more of those than a Danish newspaper could imagine?

The image that stands out for me in all this is not the turban-bomb cartoon. That doesn't even register. After all the nutcases in the middle east blowing themselves and others up, it's hard to argue that that isn't a fair representation of the nuts, their supporters, and those who let it all slide. The image that stands out for me is not a cartoon. It is a photograph.

This one:


REUTERS/Luke MacGregor

Comments

[aedifica]

The image isn't showing up for me. What is it?

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

It should be visible now, but if not, it's a protester holding a sign which reads "FREEDOM GO TO HELL."

[aedifica]

Oh my. There's really nothing I can think of to say to that.

About the picture

[yakko.livejournal.com]

I can only speak as an American, and even then as an American who hasn't really followed this mess, but wouldn't these guys be screwing themselves if they were successful in abolishing "freedom?" Wouldn't they not be able to do simple things like practice their own religion freely?

Or maybe this is just the meatspace equivalent of the troll that just won't hurry up and die.

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

The only thing this proves is that education is a necessary part of freedom. This moron obviously knows nothing about what freedom really is.

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Strange.

I wonder if one person was doing those signs.

I can't find it now, but I saw a different protestor (or terrorist wannabe, if you prefer) holding a very similar sign, written with the same sort of lettering. It almost makes me wonder if that could be a photoshop job...

Oh! Here it is!
http://www.coxandforkum.com/
Take a close look at the photo of the guy holding the sign that says "Behead those who insult Islam". Look at the handwriting of the letter "E". Oddly similar.

No, I'm not saying either one is a photoshop job, but they must have been done by the same sign maker. The handwriting is just too similar to be an accident.

This irrelevant bit of trivia brought to you by an exasperated cartoonist who's pretty damn fed up with Terrorists.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I pulled the above photo from Yahoo news who had it from Reuters. That doesn't guarantee it's not photoshopped, but it's not something right off some web site trying to stir things up. In the picture you mention, it is odd that the E at the end of 'those' has a curved look but the Es in 'behead' are made of straight lines. I suspect that the curved script is sort of a written accent as the writer(s) is(are) used to writing with different characters.

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

The "Behead" photo was supposedly taken in London.

The one you've got kind of looks Londonish. It could have been from the same protest.

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Ah, here we go: Both are from a London Protest. More photos here:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm

A lot of signs all done up in the same black marker, with the same odd sort of writing.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I'm leaning toward Ursula Vernon's views on this. Trying to get artists to draw Mohammed was a stupid idea to begin with, then it just escalated into ever-increasing stupidity. She had an especially good point: if someone's able to make you angry, they have you on a leash and can control you.

http://ursulav.livejournal.com/441171.html#cutid1

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I don't know if was "draw your impression Mohammad" or "draw your impression of Islam" or "draw your impression of radical Islam" but the case remains that this was an orchestrated or choreographed response months in the making. Falling back on the bit that any depiction of Mohammad is verboten seems very hypocritical when there are several instances of his depiction that have not been a problem for a long, long time.

Considering these (http://levin.nationalreview.com/archives/089357.asp) and other cartoons I've seen that are on that order, I'd say that the complainers have no business being angry about much gentler depictions. As for the anger and control, I think it would be very interesting to find out who was fanning the flames and who was supplying the fans. Who is directing the inciters? The answer to that would be most revealing.

[foolscap001.livejournal.com]

Dr. Sanity has an interesting article about the reaction to the cartoons, based on a claimed distinction between "guilt-based" cultures (the West) and "shame-based" cultures (e.g. Islamic cultures—though he kind of handwaves a claim that Japan was shame based before WWII but not after; I have a hard time believing that Japan switched).