Why doesn't Denmark start World War III?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Wasn't burning down their embassy an attack on Danish soil, technically?

I agree (for those who were planning on lecturing the OP about posting such a stupid, self-destructive question) that it's in Denmark's and the world's best interest NOT to enflame things more than they already are, but is the principle of free expression not at stake here? Shouldn't every free society (i.e., society with a free press, not subject to overt state censorship) line up here with Denmark and send a message, with standing armies if needed, to the Muslim world that if they're so concerned about cartoons or articles they find offensive to their religion, then they should simply restrict access to foreign media within their own borders?

"We're offended by these blasphemous cartoons."

"Yah, fine. Don't let them in your country."

"No, we want you to ban them in your country, and punish those responsible for thinking them up."

"Not the way it works, Abdul. We get to ban what we feel like, which is precious little, thankfully, and you can live in the 12th century if you like and ban every medium that might offend your sensibilities. It's your call, not ours."

"But if you don't, we will commit acts of war upon you."

"That's cool. And we will respond to your acts of war. You'll be better off learning to live with tolerating free expressions outside of your borders, believe us."

Admittedly, I'm a free-expression fanatic and think this is a principle worth going to war over, and fully expect that few people on the SDMB or in the world, feel as strongly as I do about tolerating the expression of obnoxious points of view. I'm just wondering why so many Western nations are being as gentle in response to this blatent attack on the freedom of the press as they seem to be.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Because no Western nation is genuinely commited to freedom.

They are genuinely commited to the ruling class.

Also, Denmark probably couldn't do much militarily if they wanted to. No strategic reach.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Denmark probably couldn't do much militarily

Isn't that the whole idea behind defense treaties? If the Soviets set off an A-bomb in downtown Copenhagen, wasn't NATO prepared to respond militarily? How is this different (in principle, obviously)?

[tagos]

Because we need their oil more than they need anything from us and if that means sucking up to the dark age fantasies of a bunch of savage fanatics then that's what we'll do. Sell them weapons to keep their own publics in check, hedge and trim free speech in the name of 'respect'. Anything.

Sweden has just announced its intention to make its society energy independent by 2020. We should all follow suit.

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by tagos

Sweden has just announced its intention to make its society energy independent by 2020. We should all follow suit.

Lotsa luck, Sweden.

[Ravenman]

If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics, there'd be an awful lot of dead bodies piling up and those principles would be no further advanced.

By the OPs rationale, China should have started World War III when NATO bombed its embassy in Belgrade -- a war that was also without international sanction. OTOH, the US could have started World War IV when China forced down a US reconnaissance plane. And Ukraine could have started a war with Russia over its tampering with its elections. And the Middle East could have started war with France over the whole headscarf thing. End result of all these hypothetical wars? Many people dead, no real solutions.

If freedom of the press is so important to someone, I'd rather have those offended individuals storm the Syrian embassy, rather than send someone else to go do some killing because some people's view of freedom of the press is ruffled by some angry mobs.

[El_Kabong]

[Sarcasm]Yes, we should immediately abandon any sense of proportion, launch a shooting war and kill many thousands of civilians in every country in the Middle East over a bunch of crappy cartoons. Right, sounds like an eminently sensible plan.
[/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Admittedly, I'm a free-expression fanatic and think this is a principle worth going to war over, and fully expect that few people on the SDMB or in the world, feel as strongly as I do about tolerating the expression of obnoxious points of view. I'm just wondering why so many Western nations are being as gentle in response to this blatent attack on the freedom of the press as they seem to be.

Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Freedom of the press has not so far been attacked in any significant way; news media in Denmark are precisely as free to publish whatever offensive crap they want as they were prior to last week's rioting.

2. No one who has participated in the burning of an embassy has any particular power to stop free expression outside their home country; that is to say, they are no direct or significant threat to anyone, or to the abstract concept of free expression, in Europe or elsewhere.

3. Because despite your characterization, the burning of an embassy by an unruly mob is not generally considered an act of war.

4. Even if there turns out to be a link between a given government and the mob behavior cited, if one is inclined to respond, the breaking off of diplomatic and economic relations with the country in which the embassy-burning occurred would be perfectly sufficient.

Originally Posted by Tagos

Because we need their oil more than they need anything from us and if that means sucking up to the dark age fantasies of a bunch of savage fanatics then that's what we'll do. Sell them weapons to keep their own publics in check, hedge and trim free speech in the name of 'respect'. Anything.

How much of the petroleum used in Denmark comes from Lebanon and Syria? Are those countries not where most of the rioting occurred? Oh, and how about from Iran, which is already a world pariah?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics.

Isn't there a difference between mere ciritcs (whom I'm seeking to protect here) and violent state-sanctioned mobs?

[tagos]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

[Sarcasm]Yes, we should immediately abandon any sense of proportion, launch a shooting war and kill many thousands of civilians in every country in the Middle East over a bunch of crappy cartoons. Right, sounds like an eminently sensible plan.
[/sarcasm]



Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Freedom of the press has not so far been attacked in any significant way; news media in Denmark are precisely as free to publish whatever offensive crap they want as they were prior to last week's rioting.

2. No one who has participated in the burning of an embassy has any particular power to stop free expression outside their home country; that is to say, they are no direct or significant threat to anyone, or to the abstract concept of free expression, in Europe or elsewhere.

3. Because despite your characterization, the burning of an embassy by an unruly mob is not generally considered an act of war.

4. Even if there turns out to be a link between a given government and the mob behavior cited, if one is inclined to respond, the breaking off of diplomatic and economic relations with the country in which the embassy-burning occurred would be perfectly sufficient.



How much of the petroleum used in Denmark comes from Lebanon and Syria? Are those countries not where most of the rioting occurred? Oh, and how about from Iran, which is already a world pariah?

Who knows? Oil is a world market (and Iran is the 4th largest oil producer), as Bush's lackies were saying when they qualified his recent remarks. Are you seriously contending the world economy can run without Middle East oil? Iran is not a pariah state - the world trades with it and sucks down its oil. If it turned the taps off tomorrow the price would rise significantly and the world economy would take a massive hit unless other Arab producers stepped up production.

Iran warns world

Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions

"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," he told Iranian state radio.

Mr Danesh-Jafari's comments echoed fears voiced by energy market analysts after crude oil prices last week rose above $64 (£36.50) a barrel as hopes faded of a diplomatic solution to the dispute.

Last week, Manouchehr Takin, of the Centre for Global Energy Studies, argued that crude prices could hit $100 a barrel if Iran stopped exporting. "Supply and demand are very tightly balanced," he said.

Sweden plans to be first oil-free economy

The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises.

"Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. "There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."

Iranian Planned Bourse

Interesting if somewhat speculative analysis of the impact Iran moving away from petro-dollars to petro-euro's will have on the world economy in general and the dollar in particular. I'm no expert on international finance but I've seen many less ideological analyses and programmes that back up the point that by being the single world reserve currency the dollar allows the USA to punch above its already considerable weight.

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates.

US Dollar Hegemony - Asia Times- Henry C K Liu, chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group.

A strong-dollar policy is in the US national interest because it keeps US inflation low through low-cost imports and it makes US assets expensive for foreign investors. This arrangement, which Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan proudly calls US financial hegemony in congressional testimony, has kept the US economy booming in the face of recurrent financial crises in the rest of the world. It has distorted globalization into a "race to the bottom" process of exploiting the lowest labor costs and the highest environmental abuse worldwide to produce items and produce for export to US markets in a quest for the almighty dollar, which has not been backed by gold since 1971, nor by economic fundamentals for more than a decade. The adverse effect of this type of globalization on the developing economies are obvious. It robs them of the meager fruits of their exports and keeps their domestic economies starved for capital, as all surplus dollars must be reinvested in US treasuries to prevent the collapse of their own domestic currencies.

And for what it's worth The Prudent Investor Blogspt

A Renunciation Of The $ Is Worse Than An Iranian Nuclear Attack

Steering away from the almighty commodity, currency and commodity currency - the US dollar - can have a deeper impact on the US economy than a direct nuclear attack by Iran. The permanent demand for dollar denominated paper stems to a good part from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it.

In my conclusion the IOB this way could help the Euro to become the interim primary reserve currency before China and India will rise to the first two slots in the global economic ranking in the next few decades, an issue discussed in the post "What will be the next big reserve currency."
A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the USA has only a minority market share. A global economy driven by tough efficiency demands in the light of thin profit margins almost everywhere is a good primer for accounting changes in other commodity markets. This process could begin in resources like steel and energy and spread to all other resources that are marketed globally. The world outside the USA has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from it.

[furt]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Shouldn't every free society (i.e., society with a free press, not subject to overt state censorship) line up here with Denmark and send a message, with standing armies if needed, to the Muslim world that if they're so concerned about cartoons or articles they find offensive to their religion, then they should simply restrict access to foreign media within their own borders?

Burning embassies aside, their various fulminations are all things they do on their side of the street. There's no need to defend free speech with armies unless they're trying to invade or something. Worst case scenario, you break diplomatic relations, and wish them well in the 12th century.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Because no Western nation is genuinely commited to freedom.

They are genuinely commited to the ruling class.

I've been to Denmark. They have a queen, a great big frickin brewery, and a whole lot of contented-looking social-welfare recipients. What I didn't see was much of a ruling class.

Ruling glass, OTOH...You can buy Carlsberg on draft every 15 yards.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by furt

Burning embassies aside, their various fulminations are all things they do on their side of the street. There's no need to defend free speech with armies unless they're trying to invade or something. Worst case scenario, you break diplomatic relations, and wish them well in the 12th century.

I wish you would all stop this '12th century' crap.

8th century, tops.

[Neurotik]

Plus, I think the Danes are still keeping all their forces focused on defending a crappy island in the Arctic from the Canuckistanis, so they don't really have the capacity for Mid East adventures.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

I've been to Denmark. They have a queen, a great big frickin brewery, and a whole lot of contented-looking social-welfare recipients. What I didn't see was much of a ruling class.

Ruling glass, OTOH...You can buy Carlsberg on draft every 15 yards.

Perhaps they saw you first?

Maybe they don't wear badges?

Maybe they don't frequent tourist spots?

Rich and powerful people move in different circles to you and me.

Well, you anyway.

[yojimbo]

The Danish don't do insults but if they did they'd probably be the best in the world

[Liberal]

I agree with the OP. The ethical purpose of war, in my opinion, is to defend and retaliate against coercion. I completely disagree with this rationale, offered by Ravenman: "If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics, there'd be an awful lot of dead bodies piling up and those principles would be no further advanced." It is a statement that is too broad. Certain principles (Pepsi tastes better than Coke) are not worth defending and cannot be settled by war. Others, however (Don't tread on me) are not only worth defending, but must be defended on behalf of individual dignity and worth. I almost hate to say it because Bush has made "freedom" into such a dirty word, but freedom is what is advanced when rights are rigorously defended.

[Dice]

"The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims, as a Jew, and the son of a holocaust survivor, I would not allow racism to happen. It was a mistake. Just like the attack on the USS Liberty was a mistake" said Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings.

Flemming Rose (born 1956) is a Danish journalist, author and the current cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was responsible for the first publishing of the cartoons in the Muhammed cartoons crisis.

He has links with US neoconservatives and in October 2004 travelled to the US to visit Daniel Pipes, the well known Zionist neoconservative thinker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose

Daniel Pipes is a HardCore Zionist who would stifle all academic criticism of his beloved Israel. Some describe him as a "leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist".

[Ravenman]

Liberal, pseudotriton, do you have any belief whatsoever that invading the Islamic world will be successful in achieving broader respect for freedom of the press?

If not, such a war would fail the first test of a just war. It would fail a lot of other tests, too.

I'll note that the attacks on the US Embassy on Beijing after the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade were also orchestrated by government machinations. I was there. I saw it all, including the city buses that were organized to shuffle angry students in and out of the embassy area.

It's also worth noting that the first protests of this cartoon, and many subsequent protests, were NOT state sponsored.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I agree with the OP. The ethical purpose of war, in my opinion, is to defend and retaliate against coercion. I completely disagree with this rationale, offered by Ravenman: "If every country went to war to defend its principles from critics, there'd be an awful lot of dead bodies piling up and those principles would be no further advanced." It is a statement that is too broad. Certain principles (Pepsi tastes better than Coke) are not worth defending and cannot be settled by war. Others, however (Don't tread on me) are not only worth defending, but must be defended on behalf of individual dignity and worth. I almost hate to say it because Bush has made "freedom" into such a dirty word, but freedom is what is advanced when rights are rigorously defended.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that attacks on an embassy such as we are seeing is worth fighting WWIII over? Would the world be a better place after this hypothetical WWIII?

[Nancarrow]

Guys, can I just point out that, to any rational human being, the thread title is practically a self-answering question? And it remains so with the substitution of any agency in place of 'Denmark'.

What set of provocations might "starting World War III" (remembering what the last act of World War II was) be an appropriate response to? Other than, I suppose, the instant transformation of the entire human race into a pack of flesh-eating zombies?

Seriously, I love the way that the Straight Dope has no 'unthinkable propositions', I think it's great that we can dispassionately dissect the most extreme propositions as if discussing the finer points of early Renaissance musical notation...

but, DAY-UM!

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Dice

"The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims, as a Jew, and the son of a holocaust survivor, I would not allow racism to happen. It was a mistake. Just like the attack on the USS Liberty was a mistake" said Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings.

Flemming Rose (born 1956) is a Danish journalist, author and the current cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was responsible for the first publishing of the cartoons in the Muhammed cartoons crisis.

He has links with US neoconservatives and in October 2004 travelled to the US to visit Daniel Pipes, the well known Zionist neoconservative thinker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose

Daniel Pipes is a HardCore Zionist who would stifle all academic criticism of his beloved Israel. Some describe him as a "leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist".

So one guy hates Muslims, prints a cartoon and therefore he "started the shit"?

Uhh, no. Idiots (which he may be) are always going to publish inflamatory material. The answer is not buring of embassies. Nor is it to try and stifle their right to be idiotic.

[Nancarrow]

(or, what John Mace said )

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Liberal, pseudotriton, do you have any belief whatsoever that invading the Islamic world will be successful in achieving broader respect for freedom of the press?

If not, such a war would fail the first test of a just war. It would fail a lot of other tests, too.

I'll note that the attacks on the US Embassy on Beijing after the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade were also orchestrated by government machinations. I was there. I saw it all, including the city buses that were organized to shuffle angry students in and out of the embassy area.

It's also worth noting that the first protests of this cartoon, and many subsequent protests, were NOT state sponsored.

I'm specifically saying that going to war over cartoons would be a terrible thing, and that the western world should do almost anything to avoid going to war over it.

But I think Denmark, and all the allies with whom they have defense treaties, should be telling any country that has allowed an embassy to be fire-bombed, or which is not clearly and vigorously denouncing and punishing those who committed such an act of war against Denmark, that by its actions they are risking a war that they do not want. If this is perceived as a bluff, then send troops in to stand on their borders. If that is perceived as a bluff, have the troops invade fifty feet into the offending country but not fire a shot. If that is perceived as a bluff, etc. If the choice is living in a world where atrocities are committed by fanatics seeking to impose their religious standards on secular nations by force or tolerating life under those standards, I'm for asserting the price to pay, with every warning that this is intolerable behavior.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Dice

A Jew started the shit

Is there any particular relevance of your entire post to this thread? Regardless of the ethnic or religious heritage of one Danish editor, the topic under discussion is the appropriate international reaction to violence when launched in response to publications. There is nothing in this thread that requires any reference to Israel or to any person identified as Jewish.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

If this is perceived as a bluff, then send troops in to stand on their borders. If that is perceived as a bluff, have the troops invade fifty feet into the offending country but not fire a shot. If that is perceived as a bluff, etc.

So, when Danish troops are standing in downtown Damascus, being subjected to car bombs and other terrorist actions, shall Denmark threaten to develop a nuke to turn Syria into a piece of glass? What should be done if the Syrian people call the bluff?

You don't avoid war by forcing yourself into a corner of having to go to war for fear of having one's bluff called.

Seriously, in a year or two this will all be a loooong way out of most people's conciousness. The embassies will be rebuilt, despotic governments will find new ways to rile up their people, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims will still not like acts that they take to be blasphemous. Going to war will only change the situation for the worse.

And, in answer to the last line of the OP, I fail to see why governments should be ready to send their people to kill and die to protect what is really racist speech. Defending people's right to say bad things doesn't mean you have to kill to protect bigotry.

On a related question, do you think that nations should threaten Germany with war if it does not abolish laws prohibiting Nazi speech?

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Is there any particular relevance of your entire post to this thread? Regardless of the ethnic or religious heritage of one Danish editor, the topic under discussion is the appropriate international reaction to violence when launched in response to publications. There is nothing in this thread that requires any reference to Israel or to any person identified as Jewish.

Because he's jackass posting in what is essentially a ridiculous thread.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

But I think Denmark, and all the allies with whom they have defense treaties, should be telling any country that has allowed an embassy to be fire-bombed, or which is not clearly and vigorously denouncing and punishing those who committed such an act of war against Denmark, that by its actions they are risking a war that they do not want. If this is perceived as a bluff, then send troops in to stand on their borders. If that is perceived as a bluff, have the troops invade fifty feet into the offending country but not fire a shot. If that is perceived as a bluff, etc. If the choice is living in a world where atrocities are committed by fanatics seeking to impose their religious standards on secular nations by force or tolerating life under those standards, I'm for asserting the price to pay, with every warning that this is intolerable behavior.

The "price" is that such nations would furthur isolate themselves from the rest of the modern civilized world.

I recall another such war where I believe it was Austria-Hungary that invaded some Balken nation to avenge some insult - the assassination of some minor aristocrat. I remember it ending very badly.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by msmith537

a ridiculous thread..

Maybe. But aren't defense treaties supposed to empower the weaker countries with the military might of all its allies? And if a country defends or justifies in any way an act of war against Denmark's sovereign soil, isn't it complicit in that act of war? I'm just not getting what's keeping this attack on Denmark's embassy, and the subsequent lack of a denunciation by the "host" country, from being an act of war.

Not every act of war must end in war, of course, and I'm all for every step to prevent that end, but I'd like this at least to be identified as an act of war which the West is choosing to tolerate in the interests of world peace. I feel it's being treated as some kind of regrettable minor incident, and I don't think the consequences, or potential consequences, for the firebombers is being noticed.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I recall another such war where I believe it was Austria-Hungary that invaded some Balken nation to avenge some insult - the assassination of some minor aristocrat. I remember it ending very badly.

Jeez, you must be *really* old.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Nice analogy though.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by msmith537

Because he's jackass posting in what is essentially a ridiculous thread.

And you are in violation of the rules of this Forum.

Do not hurl personal insults in GD.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

[Marley23]

Even if you accept that Iran and Syria have fanned the flames of this situation and that they didn't do anything to protect the Danish embassies, can you really call this an act of war?

I'm just wondering why so many Western nations are being as gentle in response to this blatent attack on the freedom of the press as they seem to be.

They aren't standing up for Denmark because they don't think there's anything in it for them.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Even if you accept that Iran and Syria have fanned the flames of this situation and that they didn't do anything to protect the Danish embassies, can you really call this an act of war?

They aren't standing up for Denmark because they don't think there's anything in it for them.

If the U.S. had firebombed the Soviet embassy during the Cuban missile crisis, would that have constituted an act of war?

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Tagos

Who knows? Oil is a world market (and Iran is the 4th largest oil producer), as Bush's lackies were saying when they qualified his recent remarks. Are you seriously contending the world economy can run without Middle East oil?

First, I'm impressed with the speed at which you put together all those cites; I'm guessing you must have had some of this stuff ready to go for just such an eventuality. Thing is, I'm not disagreeing with you on this particular point, and I would be foolish indeed to claim that the world economy is not dependent to some extent on oil from the Middle East. But that's not really the subject under discussion here. Let's go back to your original argument:

Originally Posted by Tagos

Because we need their oil more than they need anything from us and if that means sucking up to the dark age fantasies of a bunch of savage fanatics then that's what we'll do.

I don't see where Denmark or any other country has done anything specific to 'suck up' to a Middle Eastern country on this issue. For example, Denmark apparently has done nothing to change its laws, sanction the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, or really made any concessions at all. If you've got some examples of this supposed 'sucking up', specific to this issue, I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess).

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Wasn't burning down their embassy an attack on Danish soil, technically?

I agree (for those who were planning on lecturing the OP about posting such a stupid, self-destructive question) that it's in Denmark's and the world's best interest NOT to enflame things more than they already are, but is the principle of free expression not at stake here? Shouldn't every free society (i.e., society with a free press, not subject to overt state censorship) line up here with Denmark and send a message, with standing armies if needed, to the Muslim world that if they're so concerned about cartoons or articles they find offensive to their religion, then they should simply restrict access to foreign media within their own borders?

"We're offended by these blasphemous cartoons."

"Yah, fine. Don't let them in your country."

"No, we want you to ban them in your country, and punish those responsible for thinking them up."

"Not the way it works, Abdul. We get to ban what we feel like, which is precious little, thankfully, and you can live in the 12th century if you like and ban every medium that might offend your sensibilities. It's your call, not ours."

"But if you don't, we will commit acts of war upon you."

"That's cool. And we will respond to your acts of war. You'll be better off learning to live with tolerating free expressions outside of your borders, believe us."

Admittedly, I'm a free-expression fanatic and think this is a principle worth going to war over, and fully expect that few people on the SDMB or in the world, feel as strongly as I do about tolerating the expression of obnoxious points of view. I'm just wondering why so many Western nations are being as gentle in response to this blatent attack on the freedom of the press as they seem to be.

Well, we do the same to them. We protest their public executions, or their torture methods or their lack of democratic organizations. So we are both meddling in each other's internal affairs.

Even relavist morality is relative. Some people adopt abosolute morality. In the eyes of the protestors Americans and Europeans live on Allah's planet just like Arabs do. Here in the west we have absolute morality on human rights for example. We (the public, and to a lesser degree the government) feel human rights supercede politics, religion or ethnic situations.

So you can't get them to give up their protests anymore than you can get women in America to stop fighting to end sexism in Saudi Arabia.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Dice

"The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims, as a Jew, and the son of a holocaust survivor, I would not allow racism to happen. It was a mistake. Just like the attack on the USS Liberty was a mistake" said Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings.

Moderator's Warning: Dice, I was easily able to find a source for the first part of your Flemming Rose quote, up until "...insult Muslims"; see for example this article from the International Herald-Tribune. The rest of the quote which you attributed to Flemming Rose, from "as a Jew" to the end, does not seem to exist anywhere else on the Web except for your post to this thread. The description outside of the quotation marks ("cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings") also matches the Herald-Tribune article word for word.

From the Registration Agreement you accepted when you signed up for this board:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false....

Don't do this again. Any more violations of the Registration Agreement and you will be banned.

[Ravenman]

Look, there's no list of "acts of war" which automatically necessitate a belligerent response by a nation. There isn't, and it's just a damn embassy. They can be rebuilt for much, much less money than what it takes to even threaten to prosecute a war.

The thing you're not getting is that even if burning an embassy is on some magical list of 'acts of war,' it is completely unrealistic to view that as an actual threat to Demark's security. What you're suggesting is that Demark threaten to resort to arms for something that is more of an insult to the country, as opposed to being a threat to Denmark.

And on the silly Cuban Missle Crisis question, do you think Krushchev would have launched his missiles if an American mob pelted the Soviet embassy? I don't. It would have escalated the tension, to be sure, but hey -- he already stood back and let the US Navy cordon off Cuba. Why should he kill millions -- and have millions of his own killed -- in order to protest some broken windows and maybe some smoke damage?

If Nikita Friggin' Krushchev can withstand the US Navy blockading an allied country, I think Denmark is rational enough to not start a world war over a cartoon.

[Ravenman]

Khrushchev. Khrushchev. I studied this in grad school. I should know this.

[yojimbo]

From a economic POV the EU have issued warninng to ME countries about an official boycott on Danish goods.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line...3620185816.htm

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Well, we do the same to them. We protest their public executions, or their torture methods or their lack of democratic organizations. So we are both meddling in each other's internal affairs.
.....So you can't get them to give up their protests anymore than you can get women in America to stop fighting to end sexism in Saudi Arabia.

Do you really mean to characterize burning down an embassy as equivalent in any way to a peaceful protest?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

If the U.S. had firebombed the Soviet embassy during the Cuban missile crisis, would that have constituted an act of war?

Are Denmark and Iran in the midst of a cold war right now? I think this is one of those situations where the circumstances matter.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Can you clarify? Are you saying that attacks on an embassy such as we are seeing is worth fighting WWIII over? Would the world be a better place after this hypothetical WWIII?

The alleged WWIII is an extended hypothetical. It is government's duty to defend the rights of its citizens. One does not look to the ends, but to the means for ethical justification. Defend your liberty, whatever the result may be — even death. The result of failing to do so is not living, unless you equate human life with that of a bacterium in a dish drain. A man who is not free is alive only in a technical and insignificant sense.

[Ravenman]

Do you believe that burning a faraway embassy constitutes an actual threat to free speech in Denmark? How so? Are people in Denmark now not free to speak their mind?

If the protests that started in Denmark had turned violent, in the manner of torching a building, do you believe the Danish police should have opened fire on the protesters? If not, what justifies the shooting of Lebanese or Iranians, but not Danes, for similar acts?

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Do you really mean to characterize burning down an embassy as equivalent in any way to a peaceful protest?

No, not at all. I was addressing this part of the post.



"We're offended by these blasphemous cartoons."

"Yah, fine. Don't let them in your country."

"No, we want you to ban them in your country, and punish those responsible for thinking them up."

"Not the way it works, Abdul. We get to ban what we feel like, which is precious little, thankfully, and you can live in the 12th century if you like and ban every medium that might offend your sensibilities. It's your call, not ours."

"But if you don't, we will commit acts of war upon you."

"That's cool. And we will respond to your acts of war. You'll be better off learning to live with tolerating free expressions outside of your borders, believe us."



You can't live in a totally relavistic sense of morality. For people some things transcend relavism. For some muslims images of Mohammed transcend geography, religion, politics or anything else. For some westerners human rights transcend geography, religion, politics or anything else.

Telling people to 'keep it in their own borders' wont work anymore than Saudi Arabia telling americans to not pay attention to their treatment of women or North Korea telling the world to nevermind how it treats its dissidents.

[gum]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Do you believe that burning a faraway embassy constitutes an actual threat to free speech in Denmark? How so? Are people in Denmark now not free to speak their mind?

I don't know about Denmark, but the threats to people who criticize Islam and the beheading of a filmmaker who made a movie about the abuse of muslim women, certainly stopped us from speaking our minds.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...399263,00.html

But then: We're not as brave as the Danes.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by gum

I don't know about Denmark, but the threats to people who criticize Islam and the beheading of a filmmaker who made a movie about the abuse of muslim women, certainly stopped us from speaking our minds.




http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...399263,00.html

But then: We're not as brave as the Danes.

I would totally agree with this response, only without the first-hand credentials of gum. This is a perfect example of a chilling effect on an entire culture, and the precise reason I feel it's important to insist that dictating morality, as repugnant as that concept is, needs to be limited to the borders of the people doing the dictating. When they seek to export their sense of morality on people who may choose a different set of standards for themselves, by killing random civilians, burning foreign embassies, assassinating political leaders, and so on, they must be told in the most crystal-clear terms that such acts can lead to war.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

I don't see where Denmark or any other country has done anything specific to 'suck up' to a Middle Eastern country on this issue. For example, Denmark apparently has done nothing to change its laws, sanction the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, or really made any concessions at all. If you've got some examples of this supposed 'sucking up', specific to this issue, I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess).

No sucking up? In the UK our leaders were falling over themselves to express their 'respect' for Islam and practically begging the UK press not to publish anything. While a maniacs demonstration that urged beheadings and murder passed by without a single arrest. (compared to the UK 'terrorists' reading out the names of the 100 dead UK troops, who soon had their collars felt)

Add to this the endless attempts Blair makes to get his pet 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' Bill through, regardless of the impact on free speech. This Bill is widely seen as the 'Sucking Up to Muslims so they'll vote Labour Again After that Unfortunate Iraq Fracas' Act (and i speak as a Labour voter).

Chirac is at it constantly and from threads on this board we can see the US media is trumpeting its restraint under the rubric of 'respect' when they flat-out mean 'we don't want our Middle East offices burned and our reporters beheaded'.

I don't buy this as 'respect', particularly as none of our media has any problem with knocking other religions (quite rightly). It's only Islam that we all tiptoe round like a rabid sleeping dog because we know it has a large body of excitable and violent adherents.

And no - I didn't have any cites prepared. Just the awesome power of google.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I would totally agree with this response, only without the first-hand credentials of gum. This is a perfect example of a chilling effect on an entire culture, and the precise reason I feel it's important to insist that dictating morality, as repugnant as that concept is, needs to be limited to the borders of the people doing the dictating. When they seek to export their sense of morality on people who may choose a different set of standards for themselves, by killing random civilians, burning foreign embassies, assassinating political leaders, and so on, they must be told in the most crystal-clear terms that such acts can lead to war.

Absolutely. If lines in the sand have to be drawn you draw them at the first opportunity. As the saying goes: 'If you give and inch they will take a mile.'

[tagos]

Originally Posted by tagos

Absolutely. If lines in the sand have to be drawn you draw them at the first opportunity. As the saying goes: 'If you give and inch they will take a mile.'

Not 'Absolutely' to war - but to uncompromisingly refusing to compromise on free speech issues.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by tagos

I don't buy this as 'respect', particularly as none of our media has any problem with knocking other religions (quite rightly). It's only Islam that we all tiptoe round like a rabid sleeping dog because we know it has a large body of excitable and violent adherents.

However, one must assume that this self-censure or as they call it: "respect" (though I personally find it disrespectful to assume religious people cannot handle satire) shown to Islam, will in the future spread to Christianity as well. You can't very well say on Monday that you won't publish a news story out of respect for Islam, and then Tuesday publish some satirical material on Christianity. The double standard and hypocracy would simply be too obvious. So that's that for Christ in Piss and Maria in Dung, Jesus on a Surfboard and what not. And as much as I dislike such art works, I do think this is a very bad direction. The last thing we need now is to give religion a free pass and hold it above critical investigation.

And now the Swedish secret police have started to close down internet sites that dare to show the cartoons.
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.j...usRenderType=6 What contemptible, weak-spined, cowards.

[Rune]

And just to show how far it's possible to turn your world upside down if you really put your back to it, the Swedish Foreign Minister Leila Freivalds says on the reason she decided to close down the homepages: “it is terrible that a small group of extremists are exposing Swedes to danger [by reprinting the cartoons].” - and by "extremists" she's not here referring to those who cry death over all Danes and Swedes and such, but to those private Swedish citizens who have the cartoons on their homepages.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by gum

I don't know about Denmark, but the threats to people who criticize Islam and the beheading of a filmmaker who made a movie about the abuse of muslim women, certainly stopped us from speaking our minds.

So, this naturally leads to three questions:

1) Does the burning of a faraway embassy limit your speech?

2) Has the conviction of Theo van Gogh's murderer helped you regain your right to speak out?

3) If his conviction has not, how would killing thousands of Muslims in distant countries solve the problem?

And I'm curious about what you have censored yourself from saying, but that's not really here not there.