Equality?
The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

From www.jihadwatch.org...

In a February 3, 2006 Friday sermon, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), and the spiritual guide of many other Islamist organizations across the world (including the Muslim Brotherhood), exhorted worshippers to show rage to the world over the Danish paper Jylland Posten's publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The sermon was aired on Qatar TV on February 3, 2006. The following are excerpts from the sermon:

[...]

"The nation must rage in anger. It is told that Imam Al-Shafi' said: 'Whoever was angered and did not rage is a jackass.' We are not a nation of jackasses. We are not jackasses for riding, but lions that roar. We are lions that zealously protect their dens, and avenge affronts to their sanctities. We are not a nation of jackasses. We are a nation that should rage for the sake of Allah, His Prophet, and His book. We are the nation of Muhammad, and we must never accept the degradation of our religion.

[...]

"The governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets - to the prophets of the Lord and His messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places. This is so that nobody can cause them harm. They enacted such laws in order to protect the Jews and Judaism. Like some Danes have said: 'We can mock Jesus and his mother.' They were asked: 'Can you mock the Jews?' Here they stopped. The Jews are protected by laws - the laws that protect Semitism, and nobody can say even one word about the number [of victims] in the alleged Holocaust. Nobody can do so, even if he is writing an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis, and discussing it scientifically. Such claims are not acceptable. When Roger Garaudy talked about it, he was sentenced to jail, according to the laws. We want laws protecting the holy places, the prophets, and Allah's messengers."

Originally posted by Odium

Equality?
The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

So, is it honestly about "Freedom of Speech" or is it about something else? Do we really have the equality that people seem to be claiming? Why is it O.K. to offend one group of readers, but not another? Why does the editor suddenly change his story?

Very odd this...

Danish editor would publish Holocaust cartoons
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Danish editor behind the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that ignited deadly riots in the Muslim world, said Wednesday that he was trying to coordinate with an Iranian paper soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust.

Huge:
Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity
Of exceedingly great scope or nature

Originally posted by yadboy
Did I say anything implying that all the people protesting are violent. I don't think I did. You might try re-reading the post a little slower. I made the point that I have a problem w/ the people who have turn the protests into violence. That does not imply that all people protesting have resorted to violence.

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by yadboy
But this in no way excuses the HUGE overeaction from the people who have decided to turn the protests into acts of violence. They can protest all they want, but they should keep their fists and firebombs to themselves.

Huge:
Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity
Of exceedingly great scope or nature

Originally posted by yadboy
Did I say anything implying that all the people protesting are violent. I don't think I did. You might try re-reading the post a little slower. I made the point that I have a problem w/ the people who have turn the protests into violence. That does not imply that all people protesting have resorted to violence.

By huge, it is making out as though it was a majority of the protest. The violence was a very minor part of it.

Dictionary.com

overreaction

n : an excessive reaction; a reaction with inappropriate emotional behavior