med venlig hilsen

“…I will remain sceptic about your unsubstantiated claims until you provide me with at least two different links to proof presented with reliable sources.”

It seems he is skeptical of the socialists. I am puzzled, though, by just what claims Thomas is thinking about. I suspect he may be skeptical about the claims made about Fleming Rose, the JP editor who authorized the publication of the cartoons. Here are a few alternate sources for my concerns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1707526,00.html

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

One of my claims is that the Danish Prime Minister, or an appropriate official of the Danish government, should have distanced the government and the people of Denmark from the content of the cartoons published by the JP. Although this notion may have been suggested by other people, it seems an obvious precaution in such a situation. There seems no reason why we should think the PM would have endangered Danish freedoms by pointing out that the actions of an editor or a newspaper did not represent the position of the Danish people or their government.

Such a claim need not depend on sources. Does Thomas want a better argument for such a claim? Is there some reason to think such an action by the PM in a timely manner would not have prevented the reaction in the Muslim community that has come to pass?

Maybe Thomas doubts that there was some plan to create the violent reaction, that the Muslim reaction was expected. If he has such doubts, I’d like to ask whether Thomas doubts that Pipes , Rose, and others would want such a reaction, does he doubt that they would do such a thing, do you doubt that the printing of these cartoons caused the violence?

I am puzzled too about how the claims I have made support Syrian or Iranian propaganda. Suppose the Iranians, for example, were persuaded that the cartoons were published as part of an effort to isolate the Muslim community in Europe and to undermine world resistance to further aggression against Muslim countries. Would Thomas reject their position? What would his argument be?

Finally, perhaps I am wrong, but when Thomas said,

“…‘the socialists’ you are talking about are they the same socialists who who continue to excuse all the ‘problems’ under Stalin with that Communism is misunderstood?”

I looked at these particular socialist’s website. What I read seems to make no apologies for Stalin, but endorses the idea, which I’ve also heard elsewhere, that Stalin’s efforts were to seek out and destroy socialism in the Soviet Union. One piece discusses a history of the era, saying,

“…Professor Vadim Rogovin presents a detailed and penetrating analysis of the causes, impact and consequences of Stalin’s purges.

Rogovin demonstrates that the principal function and aim of the terror was the physical annihilation of the substantial socialist opposition to Stalin’s bureaucratic regime.”

http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/title.htm

Does Thomas have a story behind his claim about these socialists that would show their real support for Stalin? And besides, should support for Stalin undermine their credibility when it comes to their account of this issue at this time? In what way?

Thomas would be right to be skeptical of the argument that we should go along with whatever the socialists suggest. Of course, we should try to put together our own understanding of the question of what the cartoons mean and how we can resolve the conflicts revealed by their publication. I’m just saying they provided a starting point which put together a fairly comprehensive account of the situation. That is, the cartoons are part of an effort by powerful people to isolate the Muslim community for their own purposes.

Does Thomas have some reason to think otherwise? I don’t think I can ignore what the socialists have claimed just because I didn’t think of it myself.

tsk..tsk..tsk…Im utterly disappointed..for a moment I almost believe what u said..that a true blue Dane has the ability to laugh at himself..or are u referring to a thorough bred Great Dane? Im confused :)which is which..make up you mind!
Kindly refrain from your myopic assumptions…For a start, you dont need to be a muslim to fight against discrimination, racism and cheap provocation in any forms..etc We fight for equality, tolerance and respect..regardless of your race or religion. And stop being paranoid and xenophobic..
By the way..I notice a slight improvement in your last posting..:) at least it’s much shorter and clearer..:) there is hope!Keep it up!

I don’t really care what the socialists are saying and I don’t accept your comments as anything else than political propaganda viz. the Syrian and Iranian propaganda to capitalize on the issue.

That does not mean that I write it off as not the truth, but I will remain sceptic about your unsubstantiated claims until you provide me with at least two different links to proof presented with reliable sources.

Sorry, but using ‘the socialists’ as argumentation and proof is the same thing as hiding behind any other religious or political ideology without having the courage to think and build an independent argument.

By the way, ‘the socialists’ you are talking about are they the same socialists who who continue to excuse all the ‘problems’ under Stalin with that Communism is misunderstood?

I don’t engage with clowns on serious matters..just for your infor..:)I’m definitely on different level and therefore not easily provoked by your silly antics. You are reading all over the places..I only disagreed with all your points..yes all..and see it pointless to discuss meaningfully with your one way traffic. At any instance i see befitting to enlighten u on any issues..I will be gracious enuff to share with u.Sometimes, brevity is a virtue..the longer u write, the more it exposes your ugly hairy legs (only a pun..surely u Danes can take jokes rite?)…:)

“…if you are unable or unwilling to accept the information I provide, what is the point of this so-called dialogue?”

I suspect Jan was frustrated that I challenged what he said about the JP, particularly because it seemed I did not have that much evidence to refute his claims that JP is not right wing, or that it supports various anti-Muslim policies. I understand that I did not then have solid unshakable counterevidence. However, my point was that Jan made claims for which he did not provide any evidence at all. I just wanted him to provide something to back up what he said.

The point of my challenging him on this has to do with whether the publishing of these cartoons was an innocent experiment gone awry, or something that was expected to make the reactions we have seen. I think he believes the cartoons were published innocently, and I do not agree.

Come to find out from Carston that,

“…JP is generally a right-of-center, traditional-value and economically-liberal newspaper. Regarding immigration policy and religion, however, its editorials have long been known to harbour xenophobic and anti-Muslim points of view very similar to those of the Danish People’s Party, a rather right-wing party which is home to some *very* negative and rather paranoid points of view regarding Islam and Muslims (e.g., that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian ideology, that the Muslims wish to take over and kill us, likening to them cancer cells whom we should be deporting to Russian jails – yes, this is true, and it is shameful for Denmark). Jyllands-Posten has, as I said, for some years been harbour to views of this Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter/Daniel Pipes variety (while at the same time they have also from time to time had excellent coverage of Muslims and immigrants being succesful in Denmark – needs to be said, in all fairness).

The publication of the cartoons were a part of this trend – there’s no use in denying it.”

This seems to characterize the JP in much the same terms I’ve heard about the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ has good economic reporting and presents issues in a fairly sympathetic and even handed manner, but it’s editorial writers push as hard a right-wing pro business-uber-alles line as anyone in the U.S.

Jan goes on to criticize the socialist argument for promoting the lie that the Danish Prime Minister could have seen the Muslim Ambassadors in order to distance the government and the Danish people in general from the insults committed by the publication of the cartoons. Jan argued that the PM could not have seen the Ambassadors because that would have embroiled a member of the Danish legislative body in a potential legal dispute. Further, the PM should not have seen the ambasadors because, as he has argued, the government has no right to interfere with whatever Danish papers want to publish.

I don’t think Jan considered the arguments made by the socialists. In part they claimed,

“…The decision of the right-wing Danish government to defend the newspaper that initially published the cartoons, and of newspapers in Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland and Hungary, both conservative and liberal, to reprint them has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the defense of secularism. Such claims make a mockery of these democratic principles.

The promulgation of such bigoted filth is, rather, bound up with a shift by the European ruling elites to line up more squarely behind the neo-colonial interventions of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is no accident that it occurs in the midst of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, new threats against the Palestinian masses, and the preparations to launch sanctions, and eventual military aggression, against Iran.

It is, moreover, a continuation and escalation of a deliberate policy in Europe, spearheaded by the political right and aided and abetted by the nominal “left” parties, to demonize the growing Muslim population, isolate it, and use it as a scapegoat for the growing social misery affecting broad layers of the working class.”

By my reading of this passage, the issue that seems more important about the PM is not whether his refusal to see the Ambassadorswas as he said, he had no right to stand in the way of their “freedom of speech,” or because the Ambassadors had brought up the possibility of a legal dispute. The more important issue is whether the Prime Minister or someone else more appropriate could have pointed out that the insults the JP committed did not reflect the policies of the government or the will of the Danish people. It seems the PM should have simply distanced Denmark from the actions of a few rogue elements of Danish society.

The fact that the PM felt no urgency to build a wall between the actions of the JP and franchise-Denmark lends weight to the socialist’s claim that it’s the “ruling class” in Denmark and Europe, in general, that wants to promote the demonization of Muslims.

I have agreed with others who argue that the purpose of these cartoons was to promote anger and the violent reaction that has come to pass. This was expected. I suspect it was desired because, the socialists are correct to think that the violence in the Muslim community will isolate them from the rest of Europe, and from the world community, and thereafter make them much better scapegoats.

I am willing to agree with the socialists on this point, that it’s a planned operation, because the same process of demonization happened to the American black community of slaves. Blacks in America were isolated and made into 3/5′s of a human so that they could be blamed for the economic hardships that poor working Americans experienced throughout the early life of the country.

I don’t see why we should stand around and let the Muslim community take the blame for hardships and suffering most likely caused by the short sighted and selfish policies of the powers-that-be.

I am also aware of Thomas’s sensitivity about pots calling kettles black, as here,

“…I object to your notion of xenophobic Denmark and the other Denmark, because that makes you sound like a certain politician who is famous for saying “Either you are with us or you are against us!” and you completely ignore the diversity that I think Denmark should be proud of.

I do NOT sympathize with the agressive and intolerant attitidue towards the new Danes of the right-wingers and I do NOT sympathize with the submissive and appeasing attitude towards the new Danes of the left-winger.”

I am aware that Thomas might want to argue that both I and the socialists are “submissive” and have an “appeasing attitude” towards the “new Danes.” He might think this was a bad idea because some Muslims have made unreasonable demands like asking the Danish government to censor cartoons, or to punish the publishers. He might argue that it was unfair and painful to boycott Danish products because of the actions of a handful of journalists.

I’d agree that there have been some thoughtless or hurtful responses to the publication of the cartoons. People have died! I would just reiterate the socialist’s argument that the pain and thoughtless responses were just what those behind the cartoon’s publication expected. It’s what they thought would happen and what we can expect they’ll argue justifies the isolation and further punishment they would want to inflict on the Muslim community in the future.

Here’s a letter from Another Denmark to the Muslim world:

http://www.anotherdenmark.org/letter

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/01/11/freedom-of-racism/

Second, Thomas is right: We can’t really consider Jyllands-Posten (JP) a Fascist newspaper based on what it said before WWII.

JP is generally a right-of-center, traditional-value and economically-liberal newspaper. Regarding immigration policy and religion, however, its editorials have long been known to harbour xenophobic and anti-Muslim points of view very similar to those of the Danish People’s Party, a rather right-wing party which is home to some *very* negative and rather paranoid points of view regarding Islam and Muslims (e.g., that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian ideology, that the Muslims wish to take over and kill us, likening to them cancer cells whom we should be deporting to Russian jails – yes, this is true, and it is shameful for Denmark). Jyllands-Posten has, as I said, for some years been harbour to views of this Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter/Daniel Pipes variety (while at the same time they have also from time to time had excellent coverage of Muslims and immigrants being succesful in Denmark – needs to be said, in all fairness).

The publication of the cartoons were a part of this trend – there’s no use in denying it. Our prime minister’s initial refusal to meet with the 11 Muslim ambassadors was arrogant and was done in catering to the extreme right.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that our friend Jan’s version of the story is not true and suffers from the same Pipes-isms as do Jyllands-Posten (in my opinion). I think he should be excused, since tempers are known to be hot on many sides, but we also need to point out that the origins of this conflict can never be understood from a “freedom of speech” point of view.

It *is* a question of hiding behind free speech in order to hide a deliberate insult to an already marginalized minority. That is, as Haitham pointed out, hiding behind freedom of speech to demand freedom of racism. They are allowed to do so, of course (and thus nobody in Denmark are actually challenging their freedom of speech) but that does definitely not exempt them from criticism.

What Jan is saying is that Liberals, Conservatives, and Socialists are not exactly the same as in the US. The have different locations on the political sprectre (in general a little more towards the left).

I am not sure I agree, with Jan that JP is following the line of the Danish government only. They do critizise the governments regardless of color.

Also, I do not buy the argument that JP is a fascist paper based on its point of view almost a hundred years ago. Don’t blame my grandfathers actions on me and don’t ‘hate’ the Germans for WWII. New times, new people, new opinions!