Yes, because Muslims don’t have as much influence as Jews.
Last year, a Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten invited illustrators to provide cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed.
This was following a complaint from an author who found that no illustrator was willing to provide illustrations (of Islam’s founder) for a book he was writing.
Not surprisingly, many cartoonists refused the newspaper’s challenge because Muslims abhor any kind of iconic representation of the Prophet or Allah or even Jesus or Moses.
A few did come up with some cartoons.
One cartoon had the souls of blown-up “martyrs” (suicide bombers) going to heaven, only to find there are not enough virigins for them there.
The rest were pathetic.
Many of the cartoonists had confused Arabs with Sikhs.
Ideally, these fools should not have been allowed to print anything.
The cartoonists’ tryst with fame (or notoriety) did not start just then.
It seems Muslims in Denmark did not make much of a fuss about the Jyllands Posten cartoons.
There was a right-wing government in power, which was hostile to Muslim immigration to Denmark and the paper itself was known for its right-wing agenda.
Trouble started when the cartoons were reprinted in Norway and France.
France has a huge Muslim population, thanks to its imperialistic past and its closeness to the Mediteranean.
Soon, condemnations poured from all sides.
Gulf countries withdrew ambassadors.
Protests spread like wildfire.
Angry mobs went on rampage in Palestine, Pakistan and Iran.
American and British newspapers steered clear of the controversy by only reporting the news but not actually publishing any of the offending cartoons.
They have also tended to condone the protests.
A fake news article at White House.org puts it succinctly – When everyone is an innocent victim, no one is a guilty perpetrator.
I like the following comment by George Bush most interesting.
I guess we should … be kinda thankful that when liberals invented political correctness to criminalize “hurt feelings,” they inadvertently gave birth to the absurdist notion that ridiculing the intolerance and knee-jerk hysteria of violent extremists is “offensive.”
Jyllands Posten and other European media organisations that printed the offending cartoons have since repeatedly apologised for their actions but the controversy continues to rage in a recursive manner as the news spreads to new regions.
It simply refuses to die. When French newspapers first published the cartoons, they claimed it was a matter of freedom of expression.
No, not a word about increasing circulation figures.
This defence will not stand in light of their country’s laws on Jewish Holocaust.
A French court recently fined someone because he expressed doubts about the Ukrainian Holocaust (which is said to have caused by man-made famine).
This is a legacy of French laws created for protecting the retail glorification of the Jewish Holocaust.
After the WW-II, France and most of Western Europe have enacted laws that has banned any display of Nazi memorabilia, praise for Hitler, denial of the Jewish holocaust, etc.
Anyone who expresses doubts on the official (Jewish/Zionist) version of the Holocaust can be thrown into jail.
Zionist/Jewish organisations so ruthlessly defend their claims on the Holocaust that they absolutely do not tolerate any frank discussion on the subject.
This has lead to the rise of dissidents who call themselves as historical revisionists – British historian David Irving being a prime example.
This guy spent three years in an Austrian jail merely for expressing doubts about certain Holocaust claims!
He was made to retract his views because the Holocaust law did not provide a defensive position.
You had to accept the official version or you go to jail!
It has however brought to light an interesting contrast.
In Western societies, a liberal era has lead the society away from its religious moorings and religious icons have fallen from grace.
Because education has become wholy secular, few people can be considered as religious and even fewer people attend church.
It is no wonder that you find stores selling lingerie items with pictures of Jesus Christ on them.
But, Muslims, at least in Muslim-majority countries, are extremely devout religionists.
They do not ridicule Islam and do not tolerate any attempt to do so.
There is no reason why Muslims should lose respect for their religion just because Christians have done so with Christianity.
If Christians want to make fun of religion, they should have stuck to their own.
One should not however think that Western society is not without its holy cows.
Given the strengths of the Jews community in the West, certain things are still taboo – criticism of Israel and as mentioned earlier Nazi propaganda, Holocaust denial, blah-blah-blah.
Those who deviate from the line will be sought out and destroyed in one manner or another.
Similarly, in the U.S., you will find a big fuss being made about the few billion dollars of money that illegal immigrants from Latin America send back to their countries of origin.
But, you will find no mention of the Jewish diaspora, which sends tens of billions of dollars every year in remittances and tax-exempt donations to Israel.*
This is in addition to the billions of dollars that Israel receives as aid from the U.S. government and the billions of dollars that countries like Egypt and Jordan receive as (Israel) protection money.
The difference is one of influence.
Muslims and illegal immigrants come off like bad breath in a kissing booth because they don’t have enough influence.
This will definitely change if Arabs use their petrodollars to buy into big Western media corporations, just like what Jews have done.
I think the protests have less to do with offended religious sentiments and more to do with pent-up anger against Western countries.
The U.S. has troops† in almost every Muslim country in the Middle East.
And, there is a long history of unhealthy American involvement in the region.
The recent controversy is an example how this anger gets expression.
In Pakistan, mild and token state-sponsored protests have given way to an unwieldy grassroots-level campaign against the U.S.-allied Gen. Musharraf.
Ideally, the U.S. should withdraw its troops and let Arabs and Muslims go about their way.
But, this is not going to happen.
When the Cold War began, some opportunists decided that the U.S. should spend massive amounts of money on defence.
To keep the arms manufacturers going, the U.S. has to continously engage in warfware and it is not surprising that U.S. has done exactly that with one country or another almost continuously since WW-II.
With the fall of communism, there arose a need to justify the obscene amounts that defense contractors were raking in.
Enter new enemies of the “free world” – “Third World dictators” and terrorists.
As if to prove this, the U.S. military has confirmed that the war against terror is not going to be a short term affair.
All concerned have been asked to prepare for “long war” – one can almost hear the hurrahs from the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Bechtel, and Halliburton.
† – The U.S. has troops in 130 countries in the world. This is how they defend Freedom®™ Freedom now seems to be a a registered trademark of the U.S. government and probably refers to their freedom to exploit anything worth it. Read Tom Engelhart’s interview with Chalmers Johnson – Chalmers Johnson on Our Military Empire & Chalmers Johnson on Our Fading Republic.
It’s the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan,” he says, “the newest carrier in the fleet. It’s a floating Chernobyl and it sits a proverbial six inches off the bottom with two huge atomic reactors. You make a wrong move and there goes the country’s seventh largest city.” … So what kind of empire is ours? The unit is not the colony, it’s the military base. This is not quite as unusual as defenders of the concept of empire often assume. That is to say, we can easily calculate the main military bases of the Roman Empire in the Middle East, and it turns out to be about the same number it takes to garrison the region today. You need about 38 major bases. You can plot them out in Roman times and you can plot them out today. An empire of bases — that’s the concept that best explains the logic of the 700 or more military bases around the world acknowledged by the Department of Defense.