Christopher Bollyn American Free Press
Under the guise of free speech, a leading Danish newspaper published a
dozen
provocative anti-Islamic cartoons clearly designed to offend Muslims.
The
predictable result has greatly increased the possibility of violence
and left
Denmark in a costly and dangerous predicament.
Four months after Jyllands-Posten (JP), Denmark's most widely read
morning
paper, published 12 anti-Islamic cartoons, Danes woke up to the fact
that there
is a very high price to be paid for promoting the "clash of
civilizations."
The fact that the editors behind the anti-Islamic images claim to be
exercising
free speech while refusing to address Europe's strict censorship laws
regarding
discussion of the Holocaust and the ongoing imprisonment of historical
revisionists reveals the existence of a more sinister agenda behind the
provocative cartoons.
"Agents of certain persuasion" are behind the egregious affront to
Islam in
order to provoke Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the University
of
Copenhagen told the BBC. The key "agent" is Flemming Rose, the cultural
editor
of JP, who commissioned cartoonists to produce the blasphemous images
and then
published them in Denmark's leading morning paper last September.
The International Herald Tribune, which reported on the offensive
cartoons on
January 1, noted that even the liberalism of Rose had its limits when
it came to
criticism of Zionist leaders and their crimes. Rose also has clear ties
to the
Zionist Neo-Cons behind the "war on terror."
Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he
would not
publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian
baby, since
that could be construed as 'racist.'"
Asked why he was protecting Sharon, a known war criminal, while abusing
Muslims
and their Prophet in the name of free speech, Rose told American Free
Press that
he had been "misquoted" in the Times article.
Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes,
the Neo-Con
ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through
a total
Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about
Pipes, who
compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.
In April 2003, President George W. Bush nominated the rabid anti-Muslim
Pipes to
the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a congressionally
sponsored
think tank dedicated to "the peaceful resolution of international
conflicts."
Ministers from 17 Muslim nations condemned the publication of the
cartoons as an
egregious "offence to Islam" and called on the Danish government to
ensure that
it would not be repeated.
When the Danish government, which supports the "war on terror" with
more than
500 troops in Iraq, refused to issue an apology for the offensive
cartoons,
Muslim consumers across the Middle East began a boycott of Danish
products.
Within days the boycott had severely affected Danish exporters and the
politicians in Copenhagen scrambled to undo the damage. Arla Foods, a
large
Danish-Swedish dairy company, was badly hit by the boycott. The
company, which
had annual sales of some $480 million in the Middle East, saw its sales
in the
region plummet to nil as Muslim shopkeepers pulled Danish products off
the
shelves.
"We have taken 40 years to build up a very big business in the Middle
East, and
we've seen it come to a complete stop in five days," company
spokeswoman Astrid
Gade Niels told the BBC.
"Our sales in the Middle East have come to a complete stop - in all
countries in
the region," she said. "We have found ourselves in the middle of a game
that we
have no part in."
As the boycott damaged Danish business and a bomb scare closed the
office of his
newspaper, Rose continued to defend his decision to commission and
publish the
offensive cartoons. "We stand by the publication of these 12 cartoons,"
he said.
Asked if he would have done it knowing what the reaction would be, Rose
said:
"That is a hypothetical question. I would say that I do not regret
having
commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like
asking a
rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the
discotheque."
The dangerous "game" that was started by the Danish editor has now been
picked
up by at least 7 newspapers across Europe. Supposedly in support of the
Danes,
papers in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and
Switzerland
simultaneously reprinted the cartoons on February 1. The timing
suggests that
this response was coordinated by a hidden hand.
In Paris, for example, Arnaud Levy, editor-in-chief of the
financially-strapped
France-Soir, chose to print all 12 of the offensive cartoons. Asked if
there had
been coordination between European editors about the simultaneous
publication of
the cartoons, Levy said, "Absolutely not."
The following day, Jacques Lefranc, managing editor of France-Soir, was
fired by
the paper's owner Raymond Lakah, an Egyptian magnate, according to
employees.
Chief editor Levy, however, remained on the job.
Peter Mandelson, Trade Commissioner for the European Union, strongly
reprimanded
the newspapers for pouring "oil on the fire" by reprinting the
offensive
cartoons.
Robert MEnard, secretary general of Reporters without Borders, a
Paris-based
media monitor, however, supported the publication of the blasphemous
cartoons
saying, "All countries in Europe should be behind the Danes and Danish
authorities to defend the principle that a newspaper can write what it
wishes
to, even if it offends people.
"I understand that it may shock Muslims, but being shocked is part of
the price
of being informed," he told The New York Times.
However, when it comes to discussion of the Holocaust, media monitors
like
MEnard accept without question the government-imposed censorship laws
and
imprisonment of historical revisionists. At least 4 well known
historians are
currently in prison in Germany and Austria for writing and speaking
about the
Holocaust.
There is clearly a more sinister reason why the Danish Prime Minister
Anders
Fogh Rasmussen refuses to issue a formal apology as demanded by Arab
and Muslim
governments. The hard-line position taken by Rasmussen, an ally in the
"war on
terror," has more to do with advancing the "clash of civilizations"
than
defending free speech in Europe.
It is well known that Islam is an aniconic religion which prohibits
depictions
of the Prophet in the same way that the Second Commandment prohibits
"graven
images." The European editors are certainly aware of the fact that
Islam
prohibits the use of icons or visual images to depict living creatures
and that
it is blasphemous to publish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Yet,
they have
recklessly and intentionally insulted millions of Muslims and are
unwilling to
apologize.
"The Danish paper set out to offend and provoke outrage in the Muslim
community," a Muslim in Britain wrote to the BBC. "Muslims are able to
distinguish between those who wish to debate and those who wish to
insult.
Trying to camouflage insults under the guise of debate or free speech
fools
nobody."
There is a deeper reason behind the publication of the offensive
cartoons. Given
the unapologetic position taken by the Danish government and the
editors it
appears very likely that tension with Islamic nations will increase and
the
international crisis will deepen. This is, after all, exactly what the
global
planners behind the "clash of civilizations" want.
The completely predictable reaction among Muslims sets the stage for
violence
and "false-flag" terror attacks as Europeans prepare to host the
Olympics in
Turin, Italy. The Turin-based La Stampa irresponsibly published the
cartoons on
Feb. 1, two days after Milan's Corriere della Sera.
The anti-Islamic cartoon scandal is no laughing matter. If and when a
terror
attack does occur and the cartoons and angry Muslims are blamed for
being the
cause, the reason they were published will become clear. Europeans will
become
increasingly polarized and hostility to Islam will grow.
A month ago, when I first became aware of the provocative anti-Muslim
cartoons
published in JP, I immediately contacted the editors and asked why they
had
allowed their newspaper to be dragged into such a ridiculous and
provocative
situation.
With Europe already involved in two Middle Eastern wars and with the
political
tension with Iran increasing daily, I asked the editors, "Do you truly
wish to
antagonize Muslims?"
"I support freedom of speech and am against self-censorship," Rose, who
commissioned the cartoons, wrote in response. It was, however, clearly
not
simply to exercise Denmark's non-existent freedom of speech that Rose
commissioned the anti-Muslim cartoons. The more sinister motive of
advancing the
"clash of civilizations" among Europeans was evidently behind the
offensive
images.
"If the issue is really one of free speech, would you publish cartoons
making
fun of the Jewish Holocaust?" I asked Rose and the editors. "If not, do
you at
least support the right of newspapers and individuals to raise
historical
questions about the Holocaust?"
Yet after a month of correspondence with Rose and the editors, they
have
completely avoided answering my questions about the Holocaust and the
right of
free speech for historical revisionists in Europe.
Denial of the holocaust is typically extremely nationalistic. Interestingly, after WWII there were a great many movements of Nazis across the middle east and I am not entirely surprised that the old antisemitism, The Protocols etc resurfaced there. Coupled with the belief that the Jews made up a case against the Jew haters, that 6,000,000 who had never existed were claimed to have been killed by Nazi death camps, and the case against the Jews is shut. So it is a disgusting belief and it is understandable that there is a bar on promoting such views. I cannot imagine quite what it compares with, perhaps the denial of Milosevic's or Saddam's mass graves or a claim that Japan committed the attack on Hiroshima or very simply a claim that all Muslims are conspiratorial. If one were to disregard the immense insult to Jews, it is still candy to Nazis. The faintest whiff of holocaust denial is detestable and I am all for measures against it. Why not check out Auschwitz, see what they say happened?
It is entirely reasonable to request a retraction of the cartoons on grounds of intolerance. The fact they show Mohammed is worthy of comment but not of complaint. What makes me inclined to think that having apologised they don't have to do anything else, is that threats are emanating from some quarters all across Europe against anyone who even dares challenge Muslim beliefs or even publish an image of Mohammed quite incidentally, and it would be absurd and dangerous to credit that threat, just as Hamas credit themselves for Israeli withdrawals. And what makes me concerned, albeit relieved to be here, is that in Denmark the extremist nationalists and extremist Muslims have come to a head.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
100 as far as I can ascertain, the argument runs that ALOT of jews were killed by Hitler...but that the Holocaust is an exageration, and that the final solution may have been less...final?
Sorry but its about all I could glean from my source, [size=7]who by the way is German.[/size]
The source kept reitersting that the chronicled histories were affected by the views of the historians, but it was seriously hard to get any figures and any alternatives to the horror of The Holocaust.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Dawud,
:roll:
No, that is not the only revisionist claim. In any event are you saying you know of attempts to ascertain the number of Jews murdered that have met with difficulty, as opposed to campaigns to discredit evidence? Or was your comment just a random, ill-conceived sort of ejaculation?
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
I think the point the article is making is that it is dishonest to defend the cartoons on the grounds of free speech being part of "western civilization" when there isn't actually free speech.
I'm curious then as to the other revisionist claims, except those that claim no one was killed.
yes I was trying to say "attempts to ascertain the number of Jews murdered that have met with difficulty." and especially in possible revisionist claims.
and yes, definately "as opposed to campaigns to discredit evidence"
Ill concieved, perhaps. Random? not intentionally. Sponateously emmitted? perhaps that says more about your expectations of what was to come, and what should have come. But a little spontanaity can be refreshing and well needed, however the way you attempt to pass of ('discredit' is perhaps too strong a term) my statement with the non-committing conjunction 'or' to classify it as something spontaneous, and furthermore your use of the word "just" in this context affirming a trivialisation shows you have little respect for what is implies to you, or infact for what you think I am implying.
In response to this parting commentry I would like to choose carefully my own parting comment:
Mass murder, oppression, brutality and wrongfull accusations as well as scapegoating = very bad. Not cool. Not nice.
Trying to be nice = cool + nice.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
The holocaust is European history. Fortunately (or unfortunately) it is well documented by the Nazis themselves, i've seen lots of attempts to "change the number" but they are usually by extremely prejudiced parties and I don't pay them much attention. Not to mention when you look at the staggering evidence it's more than clear what happened.
What bothers me though - is that the holocaust is brought up so often when discussing matters relating to muslims. For example to counter the mean spirited cartoons put out by [i]a Danish newspaper[/i], Iran will be publishing cartoons poking fun at the holocaust. Aside from the fact that's incredibly childish - why did Iran go straight for the holocaust? - Why does Salaf's article compare the way we talk about the holocaust, and the way we talk about an islamic issue. What is the muslim world's preoccupation with the holocaust?
Is it raw antisemitism stemming from Israel, an attempt to challenge the fundamental "reasons" for it's existence or is it totally unrelated to Israel?
I don't know how to respond, I was never particularly nationalist or pro Iran, but this?
Wallahi when I read that, there were tears in my eyes.
I honestly hope you're mistaken Dave, 'cause otherwise the world just became a slighlty less happy place.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
[url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCE073DD-7F1B-4714-95F0-DD1F354F1...'m afraid it looks like they are for real.[/url]
Just in time for their Holocaust history revising commission oddly enough.
I don't see what's so hard to grasp here.
Insulting religion=freedom of speech=legal
Denying (one particular) historical event=evil=punishable by jail time
Maybe the reason the holocaust is brought up straight away is because it is the ONLY exception to the rule. I'm not aware of any other historical event that you can be punished for denying in Europe.
I'm really suprised you ask this. The obsession with the Holocaust comes from Europe and America. Rememberance of it has become part of the national culture although in Europe I'd say that's appropriate. If it has become an "obsession" in the muslim world it's because they've adopted it from the west as they've adopted many things such as protesting which previously was an unknown feature.
I do not deny the holocaust.
Admittedly I have not actually studied it either. But denying the deaths of 12 million people is too much without any proof.
And its sad the much of the muslim world uses it to cause pain.
I saw a documentary recently. A grave of a Prophet
was esecrated by muslims in palestine. Why? because the peophet 
was also revered by jews. Things like that make me extremely angry.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Here's something that cheered me up:
there was a little palestinian kid playing with a toy gun, got killed by Israeli military person (cos he looked like a gunman).
ANYWAY the family freely donated the little bioys organs to israeli hospitals and one guy who realised the heart that had been transplanted into his childs chest and helped keep her alive was from this family was overcome with emotion...He said:
"this is a beautiful thing, I don't know what to say...[b]I would like for them to think that my child is their child[/b]"
When i read it I was blown away.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
bad wording at the end there...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
yeah. muppet (me).
But it had an instant effect on me.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
I'm not pursuaded. Aside from the fact there are no laws prohibiting holocaust denial (except perhaps Germany for obvious reasons), the closest thing (and what you are confusing it with) is anti-semitism. However that falls under the general category - in British law - of inciting racial hatred, and by virtue of new British statutes inciting religious hatred.
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/03/nbnp03.x... Griffin[/url] is presently feeling this laws' wrath.
It is an erroneous claim that Holocaust denial is prohibited by law. And as you can see from Nick Griffin, legally proscribed speech extends beyond twhat you assert as the "only" example of the Holocaust - which ironically enough is not an example at all.
While your sketchy article from Christopher Bollyn - a mindless tool of conspiracy nuts - alludes to "respected historians" imprisoned in Germany and Austria for their revisionist opinions of the holocaust, he never actually cites who these men are; and given the countries it's more than clear why laws against anti-semitism would be especially stringent. It would have been nice had Christopher provided links to the 4 well known historians imprisoned in German that he was "reporting on" alas, sources are not a luxury afforded to the readership of online "news organizations" like the American Free Press, and we must assume that these men were indeed jailed for breaking an unjust law, rather than for committing a more grounded crime which was colored in with the authors poetic license. I certainly hope one of this "well known historians" wasn't the likes of David Duke or Udo Walendy who have made careers out of Holocaust denial rather than history.
Short of German or Austria your assertion there is a legal double standard on the Holocaust in the West falls short, not that that matters in light of the numerous other examples of codified law proscribing hateful speech which protects muslims as well. This constant preoccupation with the holocaust must stem from somewhere else.
Does it? Europe and America have other obsessions too, i'm not aware of a muslim obsession with the vestiges of segregation in the Southern United States. Nor am I aware of a muslim interest in the plight of Native Americans - except of course as a pointless jeer toward the US whenever a reactionary wishes to make a point about "American Hypocrisy"
I suspect that this obsession with the Holocaust is equally as superficial as that of the ad hoc islamic interest in the plight of the Native Americans.
It's not "adopted" concern or interest in a historic event - it's a single minded occupation with revisionist histories. Look at the support Iran's Holocaust Conference is recieving, when it's little more than the world's biggest anti-semitic conference since the '33 Nuremberg rally.
This goes well beyond interest in some inherited historic event, and "remembrance" has little to do with islamic interest worldwide.
Iran has opted to further embarass itself and the Islamic world with "Holocaust Cartoons" to counter the Danish "prophet cartoons."
They could have just as easily done offensive and tasteless cartoons about American and British soldiers being killed in Iraq. Or about 9/11, 7/7, Madrid or the murder of van Gogh. These are far more pointed and relevent to modern Europe - why continue this obsession with the Holocaust?
And why does so much of the Muslim World get behind it?
I see it as indicative of massive prejudices directed against the Jews due to the conflict with Israel. It seems to best explain why the interest in the holocaust focuses mostly on those aspects with best justify the existence of Israel and the Wests continued support of it - and why the focus is so heavily on revisionist histories.
Hear, hear!
Dawud, that is a tragic and beautiful story.
I didn't understand why you wrote the line about trying to be nice, which is OK if you like.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]