"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoonist goes into hiding on FBI advice(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoonist goes into hiding on FBI advice
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9I9AHCG0.htm
11 comments
Genuinely newsworthy? Yes.
Worth thinking about? Absolutely.
Toxic to Hacker News? Unfortunately.
Count the unproductive conversations we're bound to have here. Flag burning? The actions of moderate muslims in response to crazy people? Comparisons between Islam and the mafia? Gun rights? Al Gore? ASCII art of Mohammed? Short skirts and rape?
It's almost, when you look at it, as if there's some sort of Bayesian classification you could use to detect toxic articles without even having to know that the actual article was about politics or religion (or in this case politics and religion simultaneously).
In the meantime, I flagged this, and you should too.
Worth thinking about? Absolutely.
Toxic to Hacker News? Unfortunately.
Count the unproductive conversations we're bound to have here. Flag burning? The actions of moderate muslims in response to crazy people? Comparisons between Islam and the mafia? Gun rights? Al Gore? ASCII art of Mohammed? Short skirts and rape?
It's almost, when you look at it, as if there's some sort of Bayesian classification you could use to detect toxic articles without even having to know that the actual article was about politics or religion (or in this case politics and religion simultaneously).
In the meantime, I flagged this, and you should too.
I have only one thing to say to this:
~O:-(
~O:-(
The Koran burning fiasco generated a lot of criticism by peaceful muslims, but I wonder if they also criticize the myriad flag/effigy burnings by angry muslims across the world?
Terry Jones was just plain dumb to propose burning the Koran (not least because he would be up in arms if the Bible were to be burned). But in my view, muslims who are offended by Koran burnings should be equally as offended when people burn American flags and effigies in the name of Islam. Yet somehow I think their concern dies down for the latter, and I view it as a real problem.
But I have to say, the muslim clerics defending the Islamic center in NYC are really a credit to their religion when they oppose the Koran burning not on religious grounds, but because it will endanger American troops.
Terry Jones was just plain dumb to propose burning the Koran (not least because he would be up in arms if the Bible were to be burned). But in my view, muslims who are offended by Koran burnings should be equally as offended when people burn American flags and effigies in the name of Islam. Yet somehow I think their concern dies down for the latter, and I view it as a real problem.
But I have to say, the muslim clerics defending the Islamic center in NYC are really a credit to their religion when they oppose the Koran burning not on religious grounds, but because it will endanger American troops.
But in my view, muslims who are offended by Koran burnings should be equally as offended when people burn American flags and effigies in the name of Islam. Yet somehow I think their concern dies down for the latter, and I view it as a real problem.
1- You realize this is a belief you hold, not a fact, right?
2- Allegiance to one's religion and one's nation often hold different importance to different people.
1- You realize this is a belief you hold, not a fact, right?
2- Allegiance to one's religion and one's nation often hold different importance to different people.
It's a belief based on valid logic, which is much closer to a fact than the simple word "belief" would imply. If they are offended by rudeness towards one group but not equivalent rudeness towards another, that's either chauvinism or hypocrisy.
Maybe it's the press not doing their jobs, but I never really read about how moderate mosques put out any statements against flag burning, which I think they should be doing every time it happens in their country (like Britain very recently).
If it does, and it's just not reported, then I'm wrong.
If it does, and it's just not reported, then I'm wrong.
which I think they should be doing
right - you think they should be doing. that's fine and all, but the point is you're assuming _they_ should view the world the way you do. which they clearly do not.
("they", of course, being millions of people, or at least their religious leaders. let's leave the issue of painting such a large and diverse population with the same brush for another time, shall we?")
right - you think they should be doing. that's fine and all, but the point is you're assuming _they_ should view the world the way you do. which they clearly do not.
("they", of course, being millions of people, or at least their religious leaders. let's leave the issue of painting such a large and diverse population with the same brush for another time, shall we?")
>a credit to their religion when they oppose the Koran burning not on religious grounds, but because it will endanger American troops.
Hmm. That's the sort of kindness that you get from the mafia (or at least the mafia shown in films):
You really shouldn't do that now; who knows what our friends will do if you do. No, no of course we respect your rights to freedom - just, y'know we wouldn't want anything to happen to your little head now would we, capiche.
Hmm. That's the sort of kindness that you get from the mafia (or at least the mafia shown in films):
You really shouldn't do that now; who knows what our friends will do if you do. No, no of course we respect your rights to freedom - just, y'know we wouldn't want anything to happen to your little head now would we, capiche.
The difference of course being, the mafia will be the ones who break your legs, and have control over all people who fuck you up, while these religious leaders have no control over what the extremists might do. Just as many religious leaders have little say over what the pastor chooses.
I don't think the mafia comparison is helpful.
I don't think the mafia comparison is helpful.
>the mafia will be the ones who break your legs
So it won't be Muslims that are doing the burning and violent demonstration then?
Perhaps it's a stretch but this is clear - someone drew a picture suggesting that Islam may not be completely peaceful and the resulting self-enragement led to Muslims causing many deaths and much violent destruction around the world.
IMO it was simply a decision to be offended in order to excuse violent demonstration and terrorise none Muslims into submission, and it seems to have worked well.
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full... some Islamic depictions of Mohammed http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/02/04/shall-we-now-bur...
So it won't be Muslims that are doing the burning and violent demonstration then?
Perhaps it's a stretch but this is clear - someone drew a picture suggesting that Islam may not be completely peaceful and the resulting self-enragement led to Muslims causing many deaths and much violent destruction around the world.
IMO it was simply a decision to be offended in order to excuse violent demonstration and terrorise none Muslims into submission, and it seems to have worked well.
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full... some Islamic depictions of Mohammed http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/02/04/shall-we-now-bur...
I see this argument all the time on the internet, from people of every worldview. "Why doesn't group X spend more time speaking out against crazy fringe faction of group X?"
Because everyone knows crazy fringe faction is full of crazy people, and speaking out against them isn't going to accomplish anything, aside from giving the crazy people more of the attention they so fervently desire.
Because everyone knows crazy fringe faction is full of crazy people, and speaking out against them isn't going to accomplish anything, aside from giving the crazy people more of the attention they so fervently desire.
Why would Muslims be offended when people burn American flags? Why wouldn't they be more concerned with their own symbols than everyone else's?
you can't compare Religous Book(Koran, bible, etc) to a flag. they are totally different, flag represents one nation while the other (religous book) might represent many nations. muslims don't burn Bible. americans can burn iraq's or iran's flag and no body will speak about that.
Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_i...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_i...
So then it's OK to burn one nation's flag, but wrong to burn the flags of multiple nations?
There's really no difference between a flag and a holy book. They are both inanimate objects that some significance has been attached to (be it nationalistic or religious).
There's really no difference between a flag and a holy book. They are both inanimate objects that some significance has been attached to (be it nationalistic or religious).
[deleted]
But I have to say, the muslim clerics defending the Islamic center in NYC are really a credit to their religion when they oppose the Koran burning not on religious grounds, but because it will endanger American troops.
Burning the Koran doesn't endanger US troops. Assholes whose culture that belongs back in 700 AD endanger troops.
Al Gore's documentary didn't endanger discovery channel employees, some asshole put them in danger.
Burning the Koran doesn't endanger US troops. Assholes whose culture that belongs back in 700 AD endanger troops.
Al Gore's documentary didn't endanger discovery channel employees, some asshole put them in danger.
Did the FBI advise Trey Parker and Matt Stone to change their names, "wipe their identities" and go into hiding too?
This is terrible, but I'm conflicted. I very much respect this cartoonist for taking a stand, but she shouldn't be surprised at the outcome, people have been killed for this sort of thing before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#A...
So you're saying that people should just avoid doing anything that could possibly offend extremist muslims?
That is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that there have been people killed for exactly this type of thing, and that she should not be surprised at the outcome of her cartoon since that is what she was being told would happen.
It is peoples' own choice if they want to heed this or not. I personally would avoid angering any group of murderous extremists, no matter their religious affiliation.
It is peoples' own choice if they want to heed this or not. I personally would avoid angering any group of murderous extremists, no matter their religious affiliation.
I personally would avoid angering any group of murderous extremists, no matter their religious affiliation.
This is, of course, precisely their strategy. By being irrational and murderous every time their demands are not met, they slowly advance in the cultural war.
First, they stop us from drawing their prophet. Once that gain is cemented, they can start agitating for something else: maybe they'll tell us that our eating pork is offensive to them. And it'll take a while, but by a combination of extremists who actively kill people who eat pork and "moderates" who merely sit around tut-tutting and saying that while they personally deplore violence they can certainly see how somebody else might get upset about it.
Then alcohol, then unveiled women, then... who knows? The eventual goal is, of course, to eradicate everything other than Islam, and while I don't think you can get there from here, I can at least see how they think you can get there from here.
As such, I applaud anyone who is willing to stand up and say "No, sod off" to the whole idea.
This is, of course, precisely their strategy. By being irrational and murderous every time their demands are not met, they slowly advance in the cultural war.
First, they stop us from drawing their prophet. Once that gain is cemented, they can start agitating for something else: maybe they'll tell us that our eating pork is offensive to them. And it'll take a while, but by a combination of extremists who actively kill people who eat pork and "moderates" who merely sit around tut-tutting and saying that while they personally deplore violence they can certainly see how somebody else might get upset about it.
Then alcohol, then unveiled women, then... who knows? The eventual goal is, of course, to eradicate everything other than Islam, and while I don't think you can get there from here, I can at least see how they think you can get there from here.
As such, I applaud anyone who is willing to stand up and say "No, sod off" to the whole idea.
There are lots of subtle things they have already achieved that you might not know about because they are not covered extensively in the press because if they were...
For instance, Random House recently bowed to pressure and did not publish a novel about Mohammed's 9 year old wife.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9350312...
For instance, Random House recently bowed to pressure and did not publish a novel about Mohammed's 9 year old wife.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9350312...
Indeed. And while ultimately the novel doesn't matter (well, except maybe to the person who spent ages writing it) what does matter is that every time this happens they're learning one very important lesson: violence works.
That is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that there have been people killed for exactly this type of thing, and that she should not be surprised at the outcome of her cartoon since that is what she was being told would happen.
It is peoples' own choice if they want to heed this or not. I personally would avoid angering a group any group of murderous extremists, no matter their religious affiliation.
I might be crazy but to me that reads as "people should just avoid doing anything that could possibly offend extremist muslims".
It is peoples' own choice if they want to heed this or not. I personally would avoid angering a group any group of murderous extremists, no matter their religious affiliation.
I might be crazy but to me that reads as "people should just avoid doing anything that could possibly offend extremist muslims".
This has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with choosing your battles.
More like "People should expect extremist Muslims to react the same way as always if they do something that is likely to offend extremist Muslims." If you're unafraid of the extremists' reactions, go ahead. You should know to expect it, though.
Similarly, if you want to leave your laptop on a park bench and walk away, that's your prerogative, but you should know the possible consequences.
Similarly, if you want to leave your laptop on a park bench and walk away, that's your prerogative, but you should know the possible consequences.
And if you wear a short skirt you shouldn't be surprised if you get raped? I mean, seriously, we've been down this road before. It's not a pretty place.
I think Ryan is trying to say "people should just avoid doing anything that could possibly offend extremists, if they don't want to have death threats put upon their life"
Which is pretty common sense... If you don't want to be hated, then don't commit hurtful and damnit actions.
The political argument is whether citizens of other countries, specifically western countries like the United States, should respect other countries who have a clear majority religion that isn't necessarily Christianity.
Which is pretty common sense... If you don't want to be hated, then don't commit hurtful and damnit actions.
The political argument is whether citizens of other countries, specifically western countries like the United States, should respect other countries who have a clear majority religion that isn't necessarily Christianity.
The common sense is to stay away anything that could danger your life, or be ready for the outcome.
you can vote me down, but that is the reality.
you can vote me down, but that is the reality.
Freedom of speech relies upon people less craven than you.
You are absolutely correct, and I am grateful for them.
Freedom is not free, and I appreciate everybody who defends it at their own personal risk. But part of that freedom is that it is your own choice to take that risk.
Freedom is not free, and I appreciate everybody who defends it at their own personal risk. But part of that freedom is that it is your own choice to take that risk.
Freedom of anything also relies on people smart of enough to choose their battles; especially if this enables them to live to fight another day.
That's utter cowardice.
When someone tells us to shut up or they will kill us, Americans have only talked louder.
Our principles have never been free of cost.
When someone tells us to shut up or they will kill us, Americans have only talked louder.
Our principles have never been free of cost.
I suppose you don't drive or fly? :-)
Her cartoon (not shown in the article):
http://media2.myfoxdc.com//photo/2010/09/16/EverybodyDrawMoh...
http://media2.myfoxdc.com//photo/2010/09/16/EverybodyDrawMoh...
Isn't issuing death threats illegal? What happened to the cleric who issued these public threats?
U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.h...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.h...
This is why anonymity online is still very important.
It sucks that she didn't actually create the Facebook page or encourage EDMD.
At the same time, based on the Danish uproar, she had to know this was a possible outcome.
At the same time, based on the Danish uproar, she had to know this was a possible outcome.
So, you are put on a crazy muslim's hit list.
Do you
A. Run? B. Fight?
Do you
A. Run? B. Fight?
She lives in Washington, so I'd take "reasonable precautions" with a threat like that, but not go overboard. You can get a concealed pistol license on a shall-issue basis in WA (I have one, it took about an hour), pick up a gen3 glock 19 and holster, take a couple Massad Ayoob LFI classes, get an unlisted phone number and an alarm system for your house, register some stuff to a PO box vs. a home address, and that's pretty much enough for any non-specific non-state threat. And even that is probably overkill.
Obtaining, training with, and carrying a firearm are not "reasonable precautions" for a lot of people.
I absolutely agree, for the average citizen of a first world nation who isn't at any particular special risk. However, when you face a credible death threat for your (principled, honorable) actions, you have the choice of backing down, running, or standing your ground. If you're going to stand your ground, it is prudent to be armed.
During the Civil Rights movement in the south, Rabbi William B. Silverman stood up for the rights of blacks. Some racists threatened him and his children. Instead of backing down or running away, he got a .38spl revolver (and became a deputy sheriff), and drove his kids to school every day vs. having them ride the bus; no one touched him.
From a practical perspective, is it a bigger sacrifice to change your name, give up your job, and go into hiding, or to spend a few thousand dollars becoming credibly able to defend yourself with a firearm?
During the Civil Rights movement in the south, Rabbi William B. Silverman stood up for the rights of blacks. Some racists threatened him and his children. Instead of backing down or running away, he got a .38spl revolver (and became a deputy sheriff), and drove his kids to school every day vs. having them ride the bus; no one touched him.
From a practical perspective, is it a bigger sacrifice to change your name, give up your job, and go into hiding, or to spend a few thousand dollars becoming credibly able to defend yourself with a firearm?
Sorry, I didn't write very clearly in my post. What I meant to imply (and did poorly) is that many people, no matter what, would not be comfortable with the notion of picking up a gun in the name of self defense.
You sound like you would, I know I would, but there holds a large body of people for whom that is just not an option they would pursue. Those with a doctrine of non-violence, turning the other cheek, etc., are the people I have in mind.
You sound like you would, I know I would, but there holds a large body of people for whom that is just not an option they would pursue. Those with a doctrine of non-violence, turning the other cheek, etc., are the people I have in mind.
Definitely, those people exist. I would not advise those people to pick fights with terrorists.
I think those are more reasonable precautions than changing your name and going into hiding.
However, owning and carrying a firearm is a great defence against muggers and burglars, but a lousy defence against assassins. The thing about gunfights is that the guy who shoots first has a huge advantage.
However, owning and carrying a firearm is a great defence against muggers and burglars, but a lousy defence against assassins. The thing about gunfights is that the guy who shoots first has a huge advantage.
Generally the kind of people who act on fatwahs to kill people like that are not super ninja assassin masters, but actually fairly incompetent. Being alert (which is one of the main things taught in self defense classes) would be a huge advantage, but in a place like the home, being armed would improve one's chances substantially.
You don't have to be a super ninja assassin master, you just have to be hidden. Even walking behind the target is good enough, especially if you're happy not to escape.
John Hinckley Jr was neither particularly competent nor particularly sane, but he managed to shoot Ronald Reagan and not get shot himself despite the fact that Reagan was surrounded by quite a few armed guards at the time. And there was another president who got shot by some random bozo in a good hiding place, whom I shall refuse to mention because this is the internet and you just know it would immediately summon a horde who want to discuss their conspiracy theories.
Basically, if I had people actively trying to assassinate me, the simple act of carrying a gun would probably only increase my confidence by a few percent.
John Hinckley Jr was neither particularly competent nor particularly sane, but he managed to shoot Ronald Reagan and not get shot himself despite the fact that Reagan was surrounded by quite a few armed guards at the time. And there was another president who got shot by some random bozo in a good hiding place, whom I shall refuse to mention because this is the internet and you just know it would immediately summon a horde who want to discuss their conspiracy theories.
Basically, if I had people actively trying to assassinate me, the simple act of carrying a gun would probably only increase my confidence by a few percent.
So an offended Muslim could also get a "gen 3 glock 19 and holster" too. Why does that make you feel safer?
Offended but law-abiding armed Muslims are fine. (and I think some of the EDMD cartoons were offensive, and if I were a Muslim, more of them would be offensive to me).
Non-law-abiding potential-assassins aren't going to have difficulty becoming non-law-abiding armed potential-assassins. Armed but historically fairly incompetent assassin vs. somewhat trained, alert, armed target has a lot better odds for her than vs. an unaware target. She would get more value out of training than the weapon itself, in that it would allow her to spot threats, but there are definitely situations where then being armed would be the best response to a threat (particularly in the hope).
Non-law-abiding potential-assassins aren't going to have difficulty becoming non-law-abiding armed potential-assassins. Armed but historically fairly incompetent assassin vs. somewhat trained, alert, armed target has a lot better odds for her than vs. an unaware target. She would get more value out of training than the weapon itself, in that it would allow her to spot threats, but there are definitely situations where then being armed would be the best response to a threat (particularly in the hope).
C. Realize that a crazy fundamentalist does not have battalions of assassins at his beck and call. (Although honestly, I don't know what specific events caused the FBI to believe that this artist required anonymization.)
http://jp.dk/uknews/article1263133.ece
There are some instances where people chose to pick up a weapon and attempt to kill people because some fundamentalist said so.
There are some instances where people chose to pick up a weapon and attempt to kill people because some fundamentalist said so.
So you don't worry about a guy so dangerous that the US government has put him on a 'kill' list?
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl... "The Obama administration's decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen"
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl... "The Obama administration's decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen"
We don't have freedom of speech if a foreign-based extremist can remotely destroy your life if you say something he doesn't approve of.
[1] That means continuing to be published too.
[2] The British managed to do this with Salman Rushdie.