It's hard to know where to start on this article on UK Indymedia
speculating the 'real story' behind the cartoons of Mohammed and the ensuing Muslim violence.
So, what did Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten do at this time of heightened racial tension? He defied a strict taboo, to publish twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a terrorist, inflaming Islamic nations.
Noting the nearly six month gap between the Jyllands-Posten printing the cartoons and the outbreak of violence, I think "inflaming" is the wrong word. Smouldering perhaps?
Arnauld Levy of France-Soir also chose to exercise his freedom to blaspheme when race relations with French Muslims are at an all time low, after urban riots and a ban on wearing headscarves in school, another infringement of Islam’s cherished precepts.
Doesn't blasphemy only refer to your own religion?
Defamation of their beliefs in newspapers was a dirty trick and not about free speech, but the slander of a billion Muslims, and there are laws against that, although the ADL only seem to activate when Jewish sensibilities are offended. European freedom of speech is thin on the ground when historians inquire into the accuracy of the Holocaust.
It is of course completely unclear what the Jews have to do with any of this.
These drawings were not simply insensitive, but deliberate provocation, goading a reaction from Muslims worldwide. The anticipated backlash from angry extremists, who used their freedom of expression to demand the death of their enemies, was opportune for the ‘Racial and Religious Hatred Bill’ which outlaws ‘glorifying terrorism’ and was recently defeated in the House of Lords.
Anticipated backlash? You mean the killings or the threats of beheading. In any case, Surely Jyllands-Posten gave up anticipating after 3-4 months. Who knew?
This legislation is really intended to curb dissent in the ‘war on terror’ and in light of the timely “hate-filled” protests in London, will likely be reintroduced. Ministers insist the new law would not affect “criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths” but denigrating Islam is clearly acceptable in the UK anyway.
The warmongers want a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ with a showdown in the Middle East, and a terror attack by “al Qaeda” will be more plausible in the aftermath of this furore. Therefore, if a degenerating US city gets a surprise nuclear makeover, there will be guns blazing all the way to Tehran and beyond.
It would be a Godsend for the War President and both Bush and Blair said on the same day this week, that they are looking forward to a free and democratic Iran, which reveals that ‘regime change’ and an ‘oil change’ are the true motives for confrontation and Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions were never the issue.
We are reminded that a free press is fundamental to democracies, who instigated the present crisis, but Europe is the current target of Muslim indignation. President Chirac has previously warned that he is prepared to use France’s nuclear capability against States responsible for a terrorist outrage in his country.
Another ‘false flag’ will be the catalyst to prompt retaliation, which will trigger WWIII. Religious intolerance and fanaticism are being blamed for fanning the flames of conflict and the proposed solution for peace among men, is the integration and unity of all faiths. That old chestnut again, a Global Religion.