Sep 25, 2006 5:11 pm


I received a very bitter email this morning from a Danish friend.

It hurt:

Thank you very much for your support, but alas there is aboslutely no reason whatsoever to thank the official US. Join the coalition of the "willing" (become a prostitute, it seems like now) as one of the very few civilized nations, get your young men killed in Basra and receive a knife in the back from the Bush-administration as a most civilized thank you. Shame on that crooked administration of slow readers in The White House.

And shame not only on Labor but on the British press, calling Jyllands-Posten "Der Stürmer" planning a new Holocaust, while Jack Straw is condemning us. Not exactly a new Churchill.

Shame on our two disloyal ex-allies. And shame on weak and fearful Annan and the UN The world's gone topsy-turvy: Germany and France show common sense, backbone and true loyalty. Our warmest thanks fly in the direction of Wolfgang Schäuble.

In London the demonstrators now emphasize, that there is no reason to apologize, we don't have to, it is not required, and it won't make any difference. The 12 cartoonists just must be executed - by us or else they can fix it, it will be beheading, they explain, sooner or later. Perhaps in ten years time. And then the whole matter is forgotten and DK can live in peace again.

Do not forget: Buy Danish!

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Wayne Dougherty - 2/5/2006

If Jyllands-Posten wants to sell T-shirts with the cartoons, I'll buy and wear them.

Heidi H - 2/5/2006

The only lesson I've learnt in this past week is:

The religion of Islam is GOOD

Freedom of speech is EVIL

The representatives of Islam are EVIL

The representatives of Freedom of speech are GOOD

Thank you to the Arab world for making that clear!

Der Juden - 2/5/2006

Is everyone blind, or hasn't EVERY terrorist in the past ohhh FOREVER been MUSLIM.. I mean, I'm not one to create a "2nd holocaust", but F*&K! I am an intelligent Iranian, non-muslim (thank God) who fled that country in hopes of freedom in the wonderful freedom of US. And NO, I'm not Jewish - it's a joke name.. I am actually thinking to become Coptic Orthodox.. Yes, the US may have their tails between their legs my Danish friends.. but you have to admit (one less Islamic dictatorship/sh*thole) is not a bad price for prostitution. Alas, the comics are funny NO MORE VIRGINS, these Muslims need to stop blowing things out of proportion.. oh the fun with pun! =) Fight On Danes!

Petersen - 2/4/2006

We commend Danish Prime Minster Rasmussen's responsible statements in recent days urging tolerance and respect for all faiths and for freedom of the press. We stand in solidarity with Denmark and our European allies in opposition to the outrageous acts in Syria today.

Thanks folks - finally the came around to it.

Petersen - 2/4/2006

Four embasies burned to the ground.
I haven't heard one Arab country say sorry for that...

So it's not ok to bring a cartoon, but to burn down embasies are quite all right....

Well - I've almost had enough - if thats the way they think in the Islam world, I think I'll go burn some mosks.
Can't be as bad as printing cartoons?

Now - have to go - those Molotov cocktails can be left unattended....

Ups - can't find my lighter, can anyone help me out?

Pomerol - 2/4/2006

"Some Danes might call us one of the richest countries in the EU and/or world but IRL this is far from the case. We might be self-sufficient in oil, but all of our oil-rights are at the hands of one businessman"

Rick this really isn't true. I know who you are referring to, but this company really isn't the only part playing a major role in Danish economy.

We are in fact one of the richest countries of this world. Do a search on the net. Check any international report on this matter. Look at the living expenses in Copenhagen. Even the americans are shocked by the prices when they pay us a visit. Couldn't help it. Had to comment on this one.

The rest of it I agree upon almost except fot this statement.

"He has more power than the Danish community all together, so perhaps we should begin to look within our own country before libel others."

He couldn't have stoped this conflict. He is simply not powerful enough. And he does not have more power than the danish people.

The European people will stand tough on this one. And we will be the ones who stops this nonsens I think.

Petersen - 2/4/2006

Theres some very "big" politics involved here, and I think the americans deleberately are holding back, thought I'm not sure for what reasons.

The Imans sparked this raw, the dictatorshipis in the middel east fueled it to the point whrere it is now, to move attetions from internal problems and create an external enemy.

Never the less, I belive, that if the US dosen't support the Danes, at least in a symbolic way, they are going to loose our support.

I find it very remarkeble, that Denmark is the target here, but its logical. Small country, not a big army, soldiers in Afganistand and Iraq. The perfect target so to speak. No real muccle to get back....

What should however be remebebered is, that we are a Nato member, and an EU member.

However, the lack of support from GB and the US is disturbing, and is allready beeing raised in the papers here. If the lack of support continues, I think we redraw from Iraq - but what the heck - we are just a small country - we are expendeble so to speak in the bigger political game played by the US and GB

Frederik Treue - 2/4/2006

Ahh, thanks. This seems somewhat more balanced than the media coverage. What he says is basically along the same lines as the danish PM.

Soren - 2/4/2006

Bucket: Let me add my support to the sentiments voiced by your Danish friend.

I am a Dane. I have no problem with the US being a bit careful, and as the full transcript displayed above demonstrates, the US position is a bit less one-sided than was widely reported (which reminds us not to believe everything the media tell us the intant we hear it - a lesson that apparently must be relearned again and again).

But none of us need the situation in Iraq complicated more than it is, which could easily happen if the US did not tread softly. I can easily see the Iraqi government forced by popular sentiment to ask the Danish forces to leave Iraq if this continues. And then we will leave.

Of course, I would hope that the US will strongly condemn the embassy torchings (one assumes that attacks on embassies in the Middle East would resonate somewhat with certain memories from Iran).

And of course toppling Saddam was the right thing to do in and of itself. But by aligning so closely to the US (while rejecting any military cooperation with the EU), Denmark has in a sense bet on US support when it is threatened. I am sure the disappointment voiced by my countryman above (even if based on a selective reporting in the MSM) is genuine and likely to be widespread. At least if that view is reinforced in the coming days.

Rick (dane) - 2/4/2006

Well you about right on all your comments.
We believed Iraq was a nuclear threat, and at the same time we wanted to disregard the slow UN process in order to stand up for our belief, that none should be allowed to attack ones allied.

If we live in a free world and we have mutual respect of each other hence democracy, then it would never become our duty to remove a regime, no matter the reason. Why the only acceptable reason for us to go into war with Iraq was that they were a part of a coalition that attacked a friend and one of our allies.
In the WWII many Europeans lost their lives due to governments not living up to their word of honor - the American allies (except France + Germany) were not to see this happen again, why we stood by the US and its believes - most of them are very much the same as ours in Denmark.

Why, some Danes feel left alone on this matter, is probably due to our own insecurity (small country with a very small army - less than US land based troops in TX) But at the same time, we have managed to send a few troops to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. due to our strong ties, by which we wanted to show our support - we probably do not make much difference due to the small amount of troop, why our support is primarily of symbolic value.

BUT it is exactly this symbolic support some Danes might miss from our allies through this crisis. We might be self-sufficient in oil and most goods, but I am not sure if people around the world realize the consequences we might have to face in order to stand up for our believes. Some Danes might call us one of the richest countries in the EU and/or world but IRL this is far from the case. We might be self-sufficient in oil, but all of our oil-rights are at the hands of one businessman / company, and the same company is the primary transporter of oil from the Middle East and most of the world. Without him, their boycott would be just the same, because they would find it hard to eat and drink their oil, their oil only has value if they can sell their goods.
Has this businessman done anything to show his support to our country? – Nope! Why should the US?
He has more power than the Danish community all together, so perhaps we should begin to look within our own country before libel others.

Sean - 2/4/2006

The US State Dept is a wholly owned subsidiary of the loony left. While President Bush can assign a few people at it's the head, the vast majority of jerks there are career diplomats, who generally trend to the left of Ralph Nader.

The rest of the US supports Denmark in this endeavor, as does the US President.

Jeffersonian - 2/4/2006

Where's Tailgunner Joe when you need him?

Jeffersonian - 2/4/2006

I'll agree that the media characteristically amplified the jelly-spined portion of State's take on this. It's what the MSM does. Then again, it was not time to equivocate or hedge, but to issue a strong, unambiguous message that the reaction of the Muslim world has been utterly barbaric and unacceptable.

America - the real America, not the self-regarding bureaucrats at State - are completely with you, Denmark. I'm two days into my anti-boycott, with the fridge stocked with Carlsberg and Havarti (two types, I might add).

Michael Pate - 2/4/2006

I had intended to say exactly the same thing, so I will just add "ditto."

Pomerol - 2/4/2006

"That some Danes are treating these entirely separate issues as some sort of "quid pro quo" is both ridiculous and disappointing."

I for the most part agree with you. But one of the main issues is why U.S. is keeping a low profile. I think they are doing some image repair in the ME. Also religion is still a big issue in U.S. (the dispute about abortion for instance - that dispute ended in Denmark 40 years ago).
In Europe it's just different - our new religion is in fact democracy. And therefore we will have to be the ones to protect it (and believe me - all of Europe will protect it in the end - we simply have too much scary European history to take a bow). After all we invented this concept and we can't expect our younger brother The States the stand up for us. We will have to protect - like bigbrothers do.

dan dragna - 2/4/2006

I'm not sure whether I'm more disappointed by the U.S. State Department's (calculated) condemnation of those harmless Danish cartoons, or by comments from some angry Danes on this site suggesting that their country participated in toppling Saddam's monstrous regime merely as a gesture of "friendship" toward the United States. A favor which the United States has failed to reflexively return in kind.

Either Saddam's regime should have been toppled, or it shouldn't have been. "Friendship" or lack thereof between Denmark and the U.S. ought to have nothing to do with it.

Whether it was legitimate for a Danish newspaper to depict and/or satirize Mohammed (and I for one think Mohammed isn't satirized nearly enough in these timid times) also has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq.

That some Danes are treating these entirely separate issues as some sort of "quid pro quo" is both ridiculous and disappointing.

bucket - 2/4/2006

I asked a Danish friend of mine to respond to these comments.
This is what he said:
thoughts from a Dane

viking - 2/4/2006

The US goverment is afraid of two things, firstly their troops in the midde East, second, that the Golden Apes in the Middel East will shut off the oil, as they did in '73.

Now US redrew to a sidepostion leaving their allies with no support, the same allies who supported the US the past many years.

Now - we will redraw our troops from Iraq, (very likely) and leave it to the americans and the britts to fight for their oil...

I'm sorry not a plesent statement, but most likely, if we do not get some US support on this.

Today 4 embasies in Syriah was torched, the Danish, The Swedish, The Norvegian, The Chilian.

The true face of the peaceloving religion Islam surfaced once again.

In my country (Denmark) Islam, the Imams and Muslims, are very close to have lost all support and all credebility what so ever....

Just because we are (by muslim law) not allowed to talk about Islam and show some cartoon in the process...

Respect for Islam is called for - why should we respect Islam, and for what should we respect Islam, for the kidnappings, for the slayings, for the cry for Jihad.

Whats left to respect?


State's statement - 2/4/2006

Actually, the quote from lfg is from Justin Higgins, the one I coppied above was from a press conference and the spokesman was Sean McCormack. I'm not sure where the Higgins comments are at.

CapnDick - 2/4/2006

Sorry, but State bureacracy has not changed from its own agenda in several administrations.

State's statement - 2/4/2006
About 2/3 of the way down in the press briefing:

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just --

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any -- first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I've seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy -- democracies around the world -- and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may -- like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example -- and on the particular cartoon that was published -- I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see -- that's what you're asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would -- we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you're just hoping that it doesn't -- I'm sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they're doing and you just hope it doesn't get worse?


QUESTION: You just hope it doesn't escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so --

QUESTION: You did. I'm trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews -- or it was the Egyptians -- this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was --

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.


QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that's the use of the word "unacceptable" and "not acceptable," exactly what that implies. I mean, it's not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say "unacceptable," it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is -- our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It's just the one word "unacceptable," I'm just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn't you say?




QUESTION: Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's for you and your editors to decide, and that's not for the government. We don't own the printing presses.

QUESTION: Sean, these cartoons first surfaced in late September and it's following this recent election with the Palestinian Authority. The EU mission was attacked or held, in effect, by Hamas yesterday near Gaza City. And the tact of some of these European newspapers, again, are to re-publish -- these cartoons. Is the election mood -- is this what is possibly fueling this and what is our media response to this, a la, what Katherine Hughes may or may not do versus international State Department and government media to the Muslim world, including Indonesia, Asia, and the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think your colleagues really want me to repeat the long answer that I gave to Teri, so I'd refer you to that answer.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, George.

QUESTION: Getting back to your next question, nobody doubts the right of newspapers, et cetera, to print such drawings as appeared in Europe, but is it the responsible thing to do -- or is it -- or would it be irresponsible to do what the European newspapers did because of the sensitivities involved?

MR. MCCORMACK: George, we, as a Government, have made our views known on the question of these images. We find them offensive. We understand why others may find them offensive. We have urged tolerance and understanding. That -- all of that said, the media organizations are going to have to make their own decisions concerning what is printed, George. This is -- it's not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed.

QUESTION: You're not dictating -- everybody knows you can't order people not to --


QUESTION: -- print this or that, but you might have on your hands the same kind of problem that the Europeans find --

MR. MCCORMACK: You're right, you're right.

QUESTION: -- now. So, I just thought that there might be a word or two saying -- you know, that -- you know, you should do your best not to incite people because this -- you're dealing with deeply-held beliefs.

MR. MCCORMACK: You're right. You're right. You are dealing with deeply-held beliefs and certainly, we have talked about the importance of urging tolerance and appreciating differences and to respect the fact that many of -- millions and millions of people around the world would find these images -- these particular images offensive. But whether or not American media chooses to reproduce those images is a question for them, for them alone to answer, not for us.

CapnDick - 2/4/2006

To all my Danish friends, do not take the stupid US State department as speaking for the USA. Sean MacCormack's statement reflects idiocy in the State department which is nothing new. Know that the bureaucrats in State posted offensive cartoons about President Bush during Powell's reign and nothing was done about it. I don't know if it continues under Rice. Sorry we have a rogue state department who does not reflect the opinion of the USA in general. and NO the State department will not condemn the attacks on the embassy with the same vigor. It will probably be condemmed but by the White House, not state.

Rob - 2/4/2006

Hi from the UK,

I'd like to say to your Danish friend that most people here in Britain share your sadness and anger at the response of the British press. Our media - the BBC, the press and the politicians (most notably the despicable Labour MP Jack Straw) have all done their best to appease the Muslim extremists with mealy mouthed words and hypocritical arguments. I want you to know that there's a burning resentment in the hearts of tens of millions of British citizens at this disgraceful behaviour. Our politicians and our media may not say it but the overwhelming majority of the 60m people in the UK totally support Denmark and every Danish person caught up in this outrageous assault on our values. You are not alone. Don't ever forget that.

rezzrovv - 2/4/2006

Yes. I feel betrayed and I am an American. The US State Department should have just kept their damn mouth shut versus taking a cheap shot. Of course, the State Department is full of weasels anyway. I can say this without hesitation that the vast majority of Americans are with the Danes and other Europeans on this one. Though it is hard to understand how or why it is OK to leave a mass murdering, sadistic psycopath in power but not OK to impugn the freedoms of the press? But hey, to each his own.

Frederik Treue - 2/4/2006

Could someone link to the statement from the US department of state (rather than the media coverage of the statement)?

I can't find it.. :-(

AR - 2/4/2006

I work for a US contractor. We occasionally deal with State. They're kinda a bunch of limp wristed pansies. They love nuance and crap.

Sorry 'bout that.

Fred Newtz - 2/4/2006

It's too bad that your Danish friend didn't read what the official state department stance was. Rather, as in most cases, all those that hate the Bush administration sound off before they find out the real facts. I hope your "friend" has the decency to be as quick to apologize as they were to make them.

Greg R - 2/4/2006

I think the media thoroughly misrepresented what the State Department said. Check the actual transcript at Little Green Footballs vs. what was published.

Lisbeth - 2/4/2006

I completely agree with this post. The Danish embassy along with the other scandinavian embassys where attacked today and burned down. Let's see if the official US condemns that.

J-Deal - 2/4/2006

I think the American people stand by the Danish, it's the government that is out of touch. I don't know a single American who wasn't appauled by the State Department.

Bush needs to turn this around quick. It's sick that the home of Liberty is now siding against our Danish friends.

Dane - 2/4/2006

The states are strong supporters og Turkey as an EU member... well, the latest announcement from the US, and the fact that muslims just torched a danish embassy, is the reason why Turkey never becomes a member! Its too late for that now - and its almost to late for the US to make a new public stand - its outrageous that they play the political game in this most importent matter, and that will be remembered always by the danes and the europeans!
Too fucking bad!

Dane - 2/4/2006

They torched our embassy - what now?

I think the US and England better rethink their strategy or face an EU and a NATO without further significance!
They better back up their european brothers before this turns really ugly!

Peter from Denmark - 2/4/2006

Forgot something... it's not so much the media but more the UK and US governments who are exploiting this crisis.

Peter from Denmark - 2/4/2006

You don't have to re-publish the cartoons, nobody is asking for that. The media in the UK and US could just say that freedom of speech is vital, but it should also be used responsibly... but they're condemning the cartoons! Sure you can disagree with publishing the cartoons, like me, but condemning them?! This is clearly a PR stunt from the US and UK to gain more support in the Middle East, since they're not particularly like down there (like we danes right now). It's pretty shameful to exploit this crisis for their own good!

Adam UK - 2/4/2006

Well i for one have all ready started the anti boycot of danish goods and many of my friends have also (mainly beer). It is not the fault of the British people that the BBC and Labour are so P.C they hate freedom of speach. I say publish the catoons every where and any arab who complains can bring it on! The UK supports it brothers in denmark and as the classic saying goes "the British are lions led by cowards"

Henrik (DK) - 2/4/2006

latest news: Danish embassy in syria bourned to the ground. Source Ritzau... wheres all this going.. :S and who will back us.