We need a cartoon of our troops serving in Iraq, standing tall, or perhaps including the wounded as in the Tole cartoon, and with their families with various administrative officials crouching behind them saying, “If you shoot at us, you will hit them

They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules.

And when the European colonial powers ruled the Muslim world they expected Muslims to live by European rules. What goes around, comes around, I guess.

So will all these European champions of free speech now come to the defense of Abu Hamza al-Masri, convicted today in Great Britain of "incitement to murder" and "stirring up racial hatred" because his sermons were a bit too virulent for British tastes?

Why is it somehow a good thing to insult the beliefs of that other  billion ? These cartoons made approximately the same contribution  to the independence of western reading as did the ( far worse) Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Of course neither should be banned. But neither should we pretend they are not causing needless distress to the non rioting  majority of the religion that is being insulted.  

The people of the West stuggled and died for a 1000 years to free ourselves from the tyranny of religious dogma and oppression. Why should we let the worlds Muslims dictate the terms of blasphamy and non blasphamy to us? Why must the people of Europe hold the figures of Islam as more sacred than the figures of Chistianity. Why? Because if we don't Muslims will kill us? So far this is the argumentation of these riots. It is religious intimidation at its most viceral and evil. It strikes at the root of Western civilization and Western freedom. It is an abomination. And only having been freed for so long from the dictates of the Catholic Church can Western intellectuals forget how horrible that tyranny can be. There is a marxist temptation to side with the "oppressed of the earth" because they are the underdog, but if you look at the content of the rioters argument you really should realise that it goes against all the progress our civilization has made, including leftist progress. 

Finally you overstate your case when you compare these cartoons to the protocols of the Elders of Zion. Do you imply that the protocols simply blasphemed the Jews? Do you have no memory of their use in justifying the killing and extermination of the Jewish people? How exactly do these Danish cartoons contribute to the desire to kill muslisms?

I think we on the left of center all need to brush up on our Voltaire as our thinking here has gone dangerously limp. And the fact that the Bush administration cravenly caved in to this religious intimidation should give us pause. The Christian totalitarians of the USA and the Islamic totalitarians are making common cause against civil society in favor or traditionalist religious society. Be careful before you try to explain the rioters.

And when the European colonial powers ruled the Muslim world they expected Muslims to live by European rules. What goes around, comes around, I guess

No.

The problem was that European rules were never extended to the Muslim world. The Imperial office manipulated the local elites in running the middle east during the 19th century and let their societies stay traditional. No rule of law, no responsible government, no property rights, no labour rights, no freedom of speach; if only we had let them live under European rules.

It is instructive the the most successful muslim nation, Turkey, systematically adopted European rules of conduct to revive their nation from defeat in 1918.

So because the West did it badly in the 19th now that we want to correct our mistake and share our values it is still bad because it comes from us? This is the argument of Sayyid Quatb, the muslim brotherhood intellectual. That the West is a poisoned fruit and it has to be rejected completely.

Here is the bottom line. Bush has completely botched everything by repeating the mistakes of the 19th century and trying to change the ME by force. Let us distinguish between the fool in the white house and what is good in our society. Let us not forget to defend the Enlightenment values of our culture. Bush will not do it and the islamist will not do it. We (the center left) have to do it. Which is tough because traditionally in the USA the center left has been outside the establishment since FDR and it can be hard for an outsider to articulate an argument about the inherent goodness of his culture. But interestingly enough I think that articulating what is truly good about America and the goodness of our culture we can take on the American right and the islamic fundamentalists. And I see this life affirming narrative coming together on sites like this and dKOS and FDL. We instinctively know what is good about our society and we are going about building the vocabulary and the arguments. I think we do ourselves and the world a bucket load of good when we stand up and state our case.

Andrew Sullivan has an interesting story up about some fake cartoons that have found their way into the collection of 12 that originally sparked the rioting.

nonsense.  a perfect example of wingnuts grabbing hold of something that's obviously offensive, clearly meant to illustrate the connection between Islam and blowing things up, oneself included,  which whether you agree on the reasons and/or whether there is a correlation, doesn't matter. And using it to whip up some outrage from otherwise sensible people.

i don't care if they do run a holocaust cartoon as some Iranian papers now appear to be soliciting.  I think it's a little passe in light of the tone of what's going on now, but, hey, throw it out into the market place of ideas and, if someone finds someone relevance, maybe it will spark a useful debate.

 "battle hardened"  i like it.  i think its clever and an accurate satire of the indifference rumsfeld and bush have for the safety of our troops.  offensive, you bet.  but why does the cartoon make you uncomfortable while the truth of it does not.

 pure religous nonsense about sacred figures.  when will mankind grow up?  is your god so weak he is injured by words and pictures?

I'm wondering if those same generals expressed their outrage in the portrayal of war hero Max Cleland as a terrorist.  Repetition  does not tranform a lie into a truth. FDR

 And, besides, when was the last time Denmark was smack in the middle of a global controversy?

Hmmm...I believe it was when Charlemange set up his HQ at Aachen.

But my thinking with regard to the points you are making is that this should be conceptualized as a unique event.  Think of 1968, for example.  The Year of the Barricades, if you will.  If nothing else, David Caute shows us the incredible complexity of culture and how the confluence of myriad, seemingly unrelated, events can converge into crises whose outcome can change things forever.

Cartoons?  How strange this situation fermented since last September and then exploded into today's events.  While we may opine about the merits of a free press, cultural sensitivity or any of the other positions that this issue my engender, we should also account for the bare-bones influence of mass media culture (mmc) on our personal and social lives, and how mmc shapes our very attitudes about this.  I mean, few of us were even aware of the cartoons and the boycotts response in September.  Is violence requried to bring it to our attention?

So what's new - new in the sense that historical comparisons fail to explain the phenomena? 

1. Mass media itself. It has now penetrated deeply into the recesses of Muslim culture worldwide.  So-called Western culture is no longer as exotic.

2. Globalization.   Economic intrusion into the private lives of Muslims everywhere - sometime beneficial, often detrimental.

3. Destruction of govenments.  Afghanistan and Iraq were toppled by the other - the lack of merits of these governments is beside the point.

4. Economic boom.  This is incredible, in my view.  The Gulf States are awash in bucks since the Neocons took over.  Sort of underscores an observation that Edward Said made in al Ahram shortly before his death: "The Neocons aren't really smart." As I understand this boom, high oil prices are not the only explanation - it is that international investors are shying away from the dollar due to it's gargantuan debt. 

5. Muslim Brotherhood success in Egyptian elections; Hamas.  

6. Western tanks at the gate of Iran.

My shopping list can go on and on, of course.  The point is that this cartoon issue represents the confluence of several trajectories, historical and modern.  In other words, there's a hell of a lot more than cartoons at work here, and the cartoons may well be only the perciptitating cause of something enormous and ill-understood.  

It's like this, in my mind.  On several occasions during my life since 1968 an event would arise that caused me to think "If that had happened in the 60s there would be a huge public response and outcry - what's wrong with this generation" (heh).  So you have to think about timing.  Or more appropriately, the matrix of other events that exert influence and context to the issue at hand.  So I would agree with you about this not being the first time Mohammed was imaged in the press.  What's changed is this mighty and complex context.

And I'd like to say that Brockoff's quip about President  Bill is silly.  Does Bill Clinton want to counsel tolerance toward intolerance? Obviously Clinton - a very smart man - understands that this issue goes far beyond cartooning and is also complex.

Neoboho

The Pentagon generals are likely just trying to brown-nose Rumsfeld, if Rummy didn't actually order the response. Any 2nd grader could read the US Army in the Toles cartoon at the bottom of the bed know it was about the condition of the Army, not a troop.

A lot of muslims are understandably pissed off that Bush brought 'freedom' to the heart of Islam. Along with 'shock and awe', tens of thousands dead, maimed, tortured, imprisoned, all for a bunch of lies. The war is only going to bring penury, death, debt and enmity, exactly what that guy in the cave wanted. Maybe Bush should go join him. 

What's interesting to me is the political aspects of the rioting. The cartoons appeared in September, but only now are seeing the light of day. Why? Does the timing suit someone's political interests, and whose?

Though Muslims around the world are unhappy with the cartoons, only in the most repressive countries are riots and acts of violence occurring. Again, why is this, and whose interests are being served? People in these nations rarely see outside media that hasn't been approved by their governments. These governments have often found it expedient to treat with the West on one hand and stir up anti-Western sentiments in their populaces with the other. Think about that.

Though Muslims around the world are unhappy with the cartoons, only in the most repressive countries are riots and acts of violence occurring. 

These governments have often found it expedient to treat with the West on one hand and stir up anti-Western sentiments in their populaces with the other. Think about that.

I think it's obvious that there's something to this, that the mullahs and Assad are cynically using this as an opportunity to whip up popular sentiment and anger to bolster their positions.  But the riots also happened in Gaza, and to a lesser extent, elsewhere.  Some of the outrage is manufactured; some of it is genuine, and some of it is anger at other issues spilling over into this, a sort of straw breaking the camel's back, as it were.  And that's what's so unfortunate about the whole situation.  The usual suspects are out using this situation to either shore up their support in the case of the Islamics, or pound on Islam in the case of the bigots  -- and you can see the bigots everywhere, even on this site.  What people aren't doing is looking at the big picture, at the policies and attitudes that create this undercurrent of anger people are now so upset about.  It seems you have a choice: either the Muslims are a bunch of intolerant religious fanatics hell bent on world domination, and this is a sign of it, or they are victims of a discriminatory Western press.  In other words, all the focus is on the Muslims, none of it is on ourselves, our attitudes, our behaviors, our policies.   

The Danish newspapers . . . are now reaping what they sowed.

But from the point of view of Jyllands-Posten, the right wing anti-immigrationist newspaper that commissioned and published the cartoons, isn't that result exactly what the editors were looking for? As Sancho Panza would say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Muslims can kiss my ass...for all I care about their taboos.  They've shown no consideration for the feelings of others so they've forefitted all right to consideration. 

You don't know the best way to change their outlook.  Stop pretending that you do...and what makes you think the cartoonist was less aware than you of the realities, and less fit to make proper decisions?  Who gave you the right to judge his actions from on high?  

"For the average non-critical reader who does not follow the careerist bureaucratic infighting of Washington elites such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it may have appeared that their letter to the Washington Post criticising Tom Toles' cartoon was written in defense of the sensibilities of the troops; nothing could be further from the truth."

That's how the posting, IMHO, ought to have begun. 

"And when the European colonial powers ruled the Muslim world they expected Muslims to live by European rules. What goes around, comes around, I guess."

And when the Muslims were colonial powers they expected those they ruled to live by Muslim rules.  What goes around, comes around.

So in the name of fairness do you want to be conquered? 

"the JCS is a group ... to whom normal emotional motivations ought never be ascribed.  JCS has proven itself incompetent ... and negligent in its duty ..."

This is how you tell me I'm "naive, non-critical, and easily swayed by surface appearances"?  What language are you speaking? 

Just so we're clear, Robert D. Kaplan - he of "The Ends of the Earth" and "The Imperial Grunt" - has a rather different view of our military.  I find him to be astonishingly perceptive.  Do you feel he, too, is "naive, non-critical, and easily swayed by surface appearances".?

Would you contend that our military leaders have always been so awful or is this a recent phenomenon?  Would you characterize George Marshall, Joe Stillwell, Dwight Eisenhower the way you do our modern leaders?  If not when did the change take place and why? 

Do not, selfinterest, be so naive as to confuse "our military" with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

N.B.  The JCS was established in 1947 -- that is, post Marshall, Stillwell, and Eisenhower.  Since 1986 they've lost operational command and now are relegated to "advising" POTUS and SECDEF in the form of telling them what they want to hear.  Oh, and the JCS is responsible, as well, for force readiness -- you know, like up-armoring Humvees, providing the troops with body armor, and designing anti-IED defenses.