If you want to discuss that artist then please do so in another thread, this thread is about the image itself.
-
Features
Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
If you want to discuss that artist then please do so in another thread, this thread is about the image itself.
angelo
Deleted
Don't you think the muslim world was well and truly farked long before the American intervention in Iraq? Terrorist orgs like Hamas, Hezbolah and the rest of them existed, and continue to exist today!
arkirk
Veteran Member
You can't seem to see that aside from merely being a western concept (terrorism is done by our enemies to people like us or people who like us), terrorism is just the flip side of military domination. It actually is simply asymmetrical warfare...from the side that is outgunned. It has nothing to do with religion, though religious people can participate in it. It is primative and barbaric as all war is, but really if we count the civilians killed by our drones, we have a pretty big tally of terrorist deaths to account for. The murders on any list will only consist of the murders done by the other side.
Which taints the artist, not this piece of artwork.
And while I'm not managing to find the list I did find a map with the death numbers on it--and looking at a spattering of the lesser hot spots they're areas with Islamist violence. I can't actually verify the 90% figure but it's probably right. The only other thing that's even in the ballpark is the narcoterrorism.
- - - Updated - - -
They're attacking the artist because their attempts to attack the image itself flopped and they have to tar it somehow.
You can't understand that there is a fundamental difference between war and terrorism. Asymmetrical warfare is attacking from the shadows and the like, it is not terrorism. Things like the USS Cole are asymmetrical warfare.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
No, I'm sticking with the interpretation of the cartoon as it is. You are the one who scours the author's blog and psychoanalyses his motivations from his writings, even when it contradicts his other statements, to support your far-fetched interpretation. The reality is that while the author may be a bigot, the cartoon itself is fairly harmless (possibly with the exception of the Hitler moustache) and makes a valid point about free speech and Islam.
But the cartoon is not making that point. And even the article doesn't support the exaggeration that everyone who practises their faith is taking part in organized religion. You just want to interpret everything he wrote in worst possible light, and ignore parts that disagree with your narrative.
Based on your writings on this board, one could easily draw a conclusion that you are a zelous, bigoted apologist for some of the worst aspects of Islam who spews insults at anyone who disagrees with him. But that doesn't mean that everything you say is a personal insult or a bigoted attack on free speech. Same with Bosch Fawstin, name of whom nobody here would even know without your tirade against him.
An unsupported claim. Repeating something doesn't make it true, and I'm not going to indulge your childish "you fucking motherfuck go read it fuck shit fuck bah bah bah" temper tantrum. Your argument is not made stronger by being a dick and I have no need to prove anythign to you. And it seems that even you yourself realize that you've completely missed the point:
See?
The issue here is the cartoon and whether that's bigoted, not whether the cartoonist himself is a bigot. He's on par with you in his bigotry: plenty of words but at least you guys don't go around killing people. The whole point of the cartoon and others like it is to show that while muslim extremists tend to use violence, the cartoonists only resort to pen and paper. Liberals don't have to promote Fawstin's political ideology or Geller's nutjobs, but this single cartoon is hardly doing that. And definitely isn't comparable to saying "kill all muslims" as you'd have us believe.
Translation: you realize that your original claim, which is that he doesn't actually hate Muslims, and my accusation as such was unfair and no different than the things Geller et al say, is wrong, undercut entirely by your own source. And so now you want to shift the goalposts to something other than what you originally argued.
A) That wasn't your argument; your argument was that the idea that he hates Muslims generally is baseless and an idea that exists "in my own head." That is, of course, utter fucking bullshit; the link you produced yourself makes this abundantly clear. But you obviously did not read said link thoroughly, have recognized your mistake and are pissed off about it, but are unable to own up;
B) A depiction of Obama as an ape or Netanyahu with a hook nose rubbing his hands together is not itself saying anything about blacks or Jews, but it's obvious to any intelligent person that it does so indirectly. Similarly, the quotes you linked to yourself, and the artist's other work, make it abundantly clear that his subhuman depiction of Muhammad and the Hitler mustache reflect his views about Muslims. So my interpretation is the correct one.
Silly nonsense; as I said, if someone claimed all Jews who attend synagogue or participate in the Jewish community are essentially evil and want to destroy Western civilization, then not a single person - not you or anyone else here - would raise a word of objection if I claimed that that person hates Jews and doesn't deserve praise or promotion.
A person might think that, if they're a complete fucking idiot with zero critical thinking skills, or they have an agenda that makes them spring to the defense of anti-Muslim bigots who deserve nothing but scorn, like Mr. Fawstin.
Of course not; it's not like you marched in here accusing me of being no different than Pamela Geller and being totally unfair to the artist, citing an article he wrote that undermines your position and validates mine. Only you didn't realize it because you didn't bother reading it.
No, it's not. That's the issue you want to shift the discussion to, because the issue you originally talked about is one you realize you cannot defend your position on.
This is so fucking dumb as to not even really merit a response, but honestly, I didn't think you'd stoop this low.
Do you think reasonable people are not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between my disdain for Fawstin et al for the things they actually believe (beliefs you disputed, only to be proven wrong by your own source and a plethora of quotes and pictures), and the hatred of Fawstin, Geller et al for Muslims because of the beliefs they ascribe to them, simply because they're Muslim?
What do you hope to accomplish with a false equivalency this intellectually bankrupt and moronic, Jayjay?
Let's recap (again), Jayjay.
Your original defense of the artist, which is that he doesn't actually hate Muslims because he said he doesn't, and that I'm no better than Pamela Geller for accusing him of being one, has collapsed, due in large part to your own source. And you've quietly walked away from that rather than admitting your mistake.
So now, you've fallen back to the same fallacious position of others: yes, he's a bigoted cunt, yes, he hates Muslims in general, he portrays them in exactly the same way as in this cartoon, and yes, he admits in his own words that the cartoon is a commentary on ordinary Muslims (the Hitler mustache in particular). But you still get to treat it as purely political commentary, because you choose not to see its intended meaning.
And that's no better than saying that we should view Geller's phony "contest" as being some purely political statement, and not the drip pan for anti-Muslim, bigoted filth that it actually was. The artist's intentions don't come out of the equation just because you want them to. And if you want to defend free speech, you can do it without giving support to these fucking assholes.
Last edited:
Well, in this case one of the terrorists was born in Texas and the other in Illinois. If think it would lhelp if you adjusted your apologetics accordingly.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
And this here just goes to show that you have not undesrstand what you are arguing against. I am not defending the artist, I was defending the artwork. But even when I pointed this out to you, you insist on deliberately misrepresenting me.
Rest of your trolling is not worth responding to.
untermensche
Contributor
If an artist is a racist then how do we separate his ignorance from his political expression in the form of art?
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
If the artists racism (not that criticism of Islam is racism, but let's talk in general terms) isn't visible in his artwork, then is there a problem in showing the artwork? Take Frank Miller for example, who's got similar views as this guy. Does it mean that I can't appreciate any of his work because of it? Or worse yet, boycott and suppress his work because of it?
untermensche
Contributor
Racists should be allowed to sell their art.
But rational people should be able to recognize racist imagery when it is right in front of them.
I see the cartoon as a little more nuanced. He does appear to be drawing a negative stereotype of muslims, but he is doing it very specifically and explicitly in regard to those who murder in the name of Islam, and they do pretty much embody that negative stereotype.
People who kill over a cartoon are horrid. They are comparable to Hitler. The mustache fits. It compares two evil ideologies.
The problem comes when readers generalize the image to all muslims, because they fail to separate the ideology held by terrorists from that held by other muslims. The cartoon does make the distinction, but perhaps it should be more explicit.
Maybe if the hand shown drawing the image was somehow indicated to belong to a muslim itself, or better yet a bracelet marking the hand as Mohammed's own.
As for the other work or writings of the artist, they are not relevant when judging this particular drawing, and by going to them and viewing this through them you would only be biasing yourself, as warpoet looks like he has done.
People who kill over a cartoon are horrid. They are comparable to Hitler. The mustache fits. It compares two evil ideologies.
The problem comes when readers generalize the image to all muslims, because they fail to separate the ideology held by terrorists from that held by other muslims. The cartoon does make the distinction, but perhaps it should be more explicit.
Maybe if the hand shown drawing the image was somehow indicated to belong to a muslim itself, or better yet a bracelet marking the hand as Mohammed's own.
As for the other work or writings of the artist, they are not relevant when judging this particular drawing, and by going to them and viewing this through them you would only be biasing yourself, as warpoet looks like he has done.
Last edited:
The nuances of this brings a few random questions to my mind..
If the "Mohammed" in the cartoon was a white muslim, would you still object to the hitler mustache?
Would you have the same reaction if somebody drew a hitler mustache on a Jesus cartoon? Perhaps as a commentary on how the Catholic church supported or failed to condemn the nazis? If it was drawn in that context, would you think it to say that all Christians in general are Nazis?
If you find the cartoon racist, do you feel that Christian Turks should feel targeted by it and Indonesian Muslims should not?
And regarding warpoet's tangent about a black person drawn as an ape or a jew drawn as hook nosed, would you in any circumstance find that acceptable? Would it be wrong to draw Jane Goodall (researcher who lived with apes) in a cartoon as an ape? If she was black, would it then be wrong? At some point does the direct point being made (such as Goodall acting as a chimp to do her research or terrorists being evil and "subhuman") overshadow any potential racism issue?
If the "Mohammed" in the cartoon was a white muslim, would you still object to the hitler mustache?
Would you have the same reaction if somebody drew a hitler mustache on a Jesus cartoon? Perhaps as a commentary on how the Catholic church supported or failed to condemn the nazis? If it was drawn in that context, would you think it to say that all Christians in general are Nazis?
If you find the cartoon racist, do you feel that Christian Turks should feel targeted by it and Indonesian Muslims should not?
And regarding warpoet's tangent about a black person drawn as an ape or a jew drawn as hook nosed, would you in any circumstance find that acceptable? Would it be wrong to draw Jane Goodall (researcher who lived with apes) in a cartoon as an ape? If she was black, would it then be wrong? At some point does the direct point being made (such as Goodall acting as a chimp to do her research or terrorists being evil and "subhuman") overshadow any potential racism issue?
You told me that the idea that he hates Muslims generally is "all in my head," and that I was being unfair, citing an article from him that demonstrates exactly the opposite.
And you went further by making the ludicrous accusation that my calling him a bigot makes me the bigot, no better than Geller et al.
So no, I didn't misrepresent you. I showed that your own link proves you wrong and validates what I originally said, but you can't own up to it so you shifted the goalposts. And your argument there failed too, for the reasons I gave.
Obviously not for you, since you've realized that you've boxed yourself in and can't get out without admitting an error, which you clearly can't do publicly.
Patently absurd reasoning. When the artist has stated plainly that the Hitler mustache is a commentary on the beliefs of ordinary Muslims (not just the ones killing people), and the artist has a long history of spewing hatred against ordinary Muslims and portraying them in exactly the same subhuman manner as in this drawing, then yes, it's pretty fucking relevant.
Whether or not certain people can get themselves to acknowledge this is what's ultimately irrelevant, although quite telling.
Axulus
Veteran Member
Warpoet,
Would you say that someone who drew anti-Nazi cartoons in the 1930's is a bigot who suffers from Naziophobia and/or is racist against Germans? There were many national socialists in Germany and elsewhere who were horrified to find out about the concentration camps and didn't support them in any way. Some people were just nominal Nazis, getting swept up with the times and political movement in their country, and not in any way a Nazi fanatic. Such anti-Nazi cartoons would not seem to represent them.
Would you have similar criticisms for those who drew such anti-Nazi cartoons in the 1930's and who spouted anti-Nazi slogans and painted all Nazi's with a broad brush?
This one, for example:
Surely, not every Nazi participated in the book burning or supported it?
Note: I'm not suggesting that the cartoonist being discussed in this thread is not a bigot. I just notice you have a tenancy to automatically equate anyone who ruthlessly criticizes extremist Islam and the extremist followers of the religious/political ideology of Islamism automatically as fear mongering bigots.
Would you say that someone who drew anti-Nazi cartoons in the 1930's is a bigot who suffers from Naziophobia and/or is racist against Germans? There were many national socialists in Germany and elsewhere who were horrified to find out about the concentration camps and didn't support them in any way. Some people were just nominal Nazis, getting swept up with the times and political movement in their country, and not in any way a Nazi fanatic. Such anti-Nazi cartoons would not seem to represent them.
Would you have similar criticisms for those who drew such anti-Nazi cartoons in the 1930's and who spouted anti-Nazi slogans and painted all Nazi's with a broad brush?
This one, for example:
Surely, not every Nazi participated in the book burning or supported it?
Note: I'm not suggesting that the cartoonist being discussed in this thread is not a bigot. I just notice you have a tenancy to automatically equate anyone who ruthlessly criticizes extremist Islam and the extremist followers of the religious/political ideology of Islamism automatically as fear mongering bigots.
Warpoet said:
There you go. It is ultimately irrelevant indeed. It doesnt matter what the artist intends. It matters what the drawing actually is. It matters what we see. And I see something conveying an important social message. So again I say good drawing. We need more like it, preferably by muslims themselves.
The Nazi party is an exceedingly poor analogy for the Muslim religion, and Godwinning in general is just awful.
I reject the comparison wholesale.
And I don't give a rat's ass about people who attack extremist Islam or extremist Muslims. I have a problem with people who engage in broad-brush smear against ordinary Muslims from all walks of life, which is what this artist does.