More on the (non) comic violence

[jack_ryder]

One of the mysteries about the "cartoons of Mohammed" controversy is where the three more offensive cartoons that have shown up in the Muslim world, but weren't part of the initial twelve published cartoons, came from.

Also, bear in mind, that since images of the prophet are blasphemous, many of the protestors would not have seen the originals anyway.

One ljer believes he's found the answer

Comments

[iwoolf.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that, its fascinating! I haven't seen anything on Australian TV or print news about the 3 fake extra cartoons. Looking at them from your earlier post, they are very different to the 12 published. Not only are they enormously more offensive, but they are crudely drawn.

The only issue the TV news mentioned was that most of the Muslims violently protesting haven't seen any cartoons just the descriptions. It sounds like the people defending them haven't seen the descriptions!

Both sides have been beautifully set up.

LJ isn't much linked to the rest of the web, I hope his article gets a wider audience.

[jack-ryder.livejournal.com]

There is a link within his article to a more general website (I think.)

The local coverage of this event has been quite dismal (probably due the ethnic sensitivities - no-one wants to admit that the Islamic yahoos are being duped into rioting.)

I do have to say that as we live in a visually dominated culture, if Islam is going to have an effective and meaningful dialogue with the west, they will have to get used to visual representations of the Prophet. Especially when the Islamic Press (at least the Middle Eastern papers) depictions of jews are incredibly offensive (and not at all funny.)

(though the site I saw them on may not have had any funny ones.)