NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have all reprinted the controversial Mohammed cartoons that appeared in a Danish newpaper and caused so much controversy in the muslim world.

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have all reprinted the controversial Mohammed cartoons that appeared in a Danish newpaper and caused so much controversy in the muslim world.

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.
Yes that will show those filthy MUslims!!!
How dare they take pride in their own religion and culture in the face of Eurocentric ridicule.
Do they not understand that they are backwards?

Are they blind to the fact that it is the enlightened open minded Western European way to piss all over a culture and then dilute it until it becomes a shallow and pale husk of its former self
DAMN IT you dogged towel head bastards!!
COnform Conform Conform......


Why dont you go goose step your Eurocentric self rightgeous ass off a cliff.

This is what the fuss is about? I hadn't seen the cartoon yet. Bit of a crappy cartoon. Not really funny at all. And thus I condemn the printing of this cartoon.
http://www.welt.de/media/pic/000/315/31509v1.jpg

Why dont you go goose step your Eurocentric self rightgeous ass off a cliff.

There is no such thing as the right not to be offended

They should make it a regular sunday newspaper comic strip. Kinda like Peanuts or Beetle Bailey.

Use there is, it is called incitment to racial hatred.

You vapid slackjawwed yank, go back to Kansas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have all reprinted the controversial Mohammed cartoons that appeared in a Danish newpaper and caused so much controversy in the muslim world.

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.


I see NO reason for any non-Muslim to comply with any facet of Islamic law.

Most secular people in the West have been ridiculing various forms of Christianity for a long, long time, and I don't see anyone saying we should hold cartoonists to account for making fun of Christianity.

I believe that our women should dress as they please.
I believe that homosexuals should be free to be homosexuals.
I believe that people who want to drink alcohol should do so.
I believe that if you don't believe in God, that's just fine.
I believe that if you're not a Muslim, drawing and publishing a picture of Mohammed is not an offense at all.

And screw people who believe that we should cater to other people's religious beliefs out of fear of insulting them.

Yes that will show those filthy MUslims!!!
How dare they take pride in their own religion and culture in the face of Eurocentric ridicule.
Do they not understand that they are backwards?

Are they blind to the fact that it is the enlightened open minded Western European way to piss all over a culture and then dilute it until it becomes a shallow and pale husk of its former self
DAMN IT you dogged towel head bastards!!
COnform Conform Conform......


Why dont you go goose step your Eurocentric self rightgeous ass off a cliff.

Europe and democracy in general respect the right to say what you want. You don't like it? Tough. A few years ago an artist thought it would be really cool if he smeared a portrait of the Virgin Mary, one of the most holy figures in Catholicism, with elephant shit. Reprehensible? Sure it was, but he can say whatever the hell he wants; that's how a free society works.

I'd say it wasn't a wise move on the part of the Danish paper. Sure, they have the right to do it. But, it has essentially pissed off an entire religion and I'm sure some extremists will make them pay for it.

I see NO reason for any non-Muslim to comply with any facet of Islamic law.

Most secular people in the West have been ridiculing various forms of Christianity for a long, long time, and I don't see anyone saying we should hold cartoonists to account for making fun of Christianity.

I believe that our women should dress as they please.
I believe that homosexuals should be free to be homosexuals.
I believe that people who want to drink alcohol should do so.
I believe that if you don't believe in God, that's just fine.
I believe that if you're not a Muslim, drawing and publishing a picture of Mohammed is not an offense at all.

And screw people who believe that we should cater to other people's religious beliefs out of fear of insulting them.
Right on.

I'd say it wasn't a wise move on the part of the Danish paper. Sure, they have the right to do it. But, it has essentially pissed off an entire religion and I'm sure some extremists will make them pay for it.

On the contrary, I say it was brilliant. All these delicious "We believe in free speech but not if it offends people" quotes floating around perfectly illustrate the peril European free speech is in.

It isnt about offending anyone else.

It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

The have the audacity to get indignant when called to task on it.

Europe is in no way superior to the middle east.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

The cartoon is pointless, if not just a little funny looking.

There is nothing impressive about "high fiving" over having a large section of the planet.

Wow, you pissed people off by insulting their religion, how very open minded pluralistic and cosmopolitian of you.

I see why the world should desire to be like that, apathetic and self absorbed.

Dare we dream of a day when the whole world doesnt give a damn at all about the feelings of anyone else.

Then you wonder why these nuts blow themselves up----because they dont matter, and eveyone one of you proves that.

It isnt about offending anyone else.

It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

The have the audacity to get indignant when called to task on it.

Europe is in no way superior to the middle east.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

The cartoon is pointless, if not just a little funny looking.

There is nothing impressive about "high fiving" over having a large section of the planet.

Wow, you pissed people off by insulting their religion, how very open minded pluralistic and cosmopolitian of you.

I see why the world should desire to be like that, apathetic and self absorbed.

Dare we dream of a day when the whole world doesnt give a damn at all about the feelings of anyone else.

Then you wonder why these nuts blow themselves up----because they dont matter, and eveyone one of you proves that.

If every Christian blew themselves up when someone lampooned, wrote or printed blasphemous material, there would be no one left in Europe or the United States.

Photographing a crucifix in a jar of piss is protected speech in the United States. Does that offend me? Yes. Does it give me a right to demand that it be removed? No. Does it give me a right to kill someone because I don't like it? No.

If people want tolerance from us, they should be tolerant of us.

It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

Please point out where superiority is claimed.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.
That is debateable. At least - that is debateable here.

It isnt about offending anyone else.

It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

The have the audacity to get indignant when called to task on it.

Europe is in no way superior to the middle east.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

The cartoon is pointless, if not just a little funny looking.

There is nothing impressive about "high fiving" over having a large section of the planet.

Wow, you pissed people off by insulting their religion, how very open minded pluralistic and cosmopolitian of you.

I see why the world should desire to be like that, apathetic and self absorbed.

Dare we dream of a day when the whole world doesnt give a damn at all about the feelings of anyone else.

Then you wonder why these nuts blow themselves up----because they dont matter, and eveyone one of you proves that.
Europe is actually superior in many ways to the middle east.

Europe is economically superior. European nations allow more freedom of speech, political freedom, and freedom of consicence, and European governments are less corrupt.

One of the reasons Europe maintains greater political, and social freedoms and a stronger economy with less corruption is that it allows anyone to criticize anything without fear. The government's fucking up, tell the world about it. In Europe nothing bad happens to you.

I see NO reason for any non-Muslim to comply with any facet of Islamic law.

Most secular people in the West have been ridiculing various forms of Christianity for a long, long time, and I don't see anyone saying we should hold cartoonists to account for making fun of Christianity.

I believe that our women should dress as they please.
I believe that homosexuals should be free to be homosexuals.
I believe that people who want to drink alcohol should do so.
I believe that if you don't believe in God, that's just fine.
I believe that if you're not a Muslim, drawing and publishing a picture of Mohammed is not an offense at all.

And screw people who believe that we should cater to other people's religious beliefs out of fear of insulting them.

Damn straight.

If every Christian blew themselves up when someone lampooned, wrote or printed blasphemous material, there would be no one left in Europe or the United States.

Photographing a crucifix in a jar of piss is protected speech in the United States. Does that offend me? Yes. Does it give me a right to demand that it be removed? No. Does it give me a right to kill someone because I don't like it? No.

If people want tolerance from us, they should be tolerant of us.
actually, I think you have the right to demand it's removal, but you cannot force it's removal unless it's breaking the law.

and you can also protest in other ways as well... like personally boycotting the place/publication that displayed that.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the results of said expression

The cartoonists aren't Muslims. Why should they be forced to follow Islamic rules (the prohibition on the drawing of Muhammed)? Why shouldn't they be able to draw a caricature of a historical figure, if they so desire? How is that "incitement of racial hatred"?

The cartoons weren't even that bad. Christians get their religion mocked much worse, way more frequently.

Europe is actually superior in many ways to the middle east.

Europe is economically superior. European nations allow more freedom of speech, political freedom, and freedom of consicence, and European governments are less corrupt.

One of the reasons Europe maintains greater political, and social freedoms and a stronger economy with less corruption is that it allows anyone to criticize anything without fear. The government's fucking up, tell the world about it. In Europe nothing bad happens to you.

Ha, that's funny. Because Islamic culture was the thing that kept Europe from completely imploding into pieces in the Dark Ages, and it also kept Christianity from killing themselves off.

In Dark Age Europe, you do get killed when you go against the Government, in the Islamic World you didn't. It was much, much better there.

Every country, every religion will get their comeuppance, and Islam's having theirs now. And the people here have the audacity to complain and not expect at reply? Yes, it's free spech, but on the other end of it too, and some people will take things into their own hands.

actually, I think you have the right to demand it's removal, but you cannot force it's removal unless it's breaking the law.

and you can also protest in other ways as well... like personally boycotting the place/publication that displayed that.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the results of said expression

Thank you.

Offend all you want, but dont cry when you reap the consequences of your own actions.

Ha, that's funny. Because Islamic culture was the thing that kept Europe from completely imploding into pieces in the Dark Ages, and it also kept Christianity from killing themselves off.

In Dark Age Europe, you do get killed when you go against the Government, in the Islamic World you didn't. It was much, much better there.

Every country, every religion will get their comeuppance, and Islam's having theirs now. And the people here have the audacity to complain and not expect at reply? Yes, it's free spech, but on the other end of it too, and some people will take things into their own hands.

Yeah, well, the rest of the world has meanwhile moved on from the Dark Ages and the Islamic world is still partying like it's 1299. Those countries need to get their shit together.

Offend all you want, but dont cry when you reap the consequences of your own actions.

And what moral right would people have to enforce those consequences ?

For those who believe that we shouldn't offend Muslims, the only real way to ensure that you aren't offending them is to become one. Even then, you're going to offend some major portion (If you're Sunni, the Shias will be offended about something and vice versa).

I want to see everyone who thinks that doing something that offends Muslims is a bad thing to do begin the following:

1. Start working on those Five Pillars of Islam.
2. Learn to read Arabic.
3. Get your own copy of the Koran, and stop being an atheist, agnostic, or other religion - you're a Muslim now.
4. Stop drinking alcohol.
5. If you're a woman, get with the veil and hood.
6. Stop listening to music that is not made for Islamic worship (in many cases, just stop listening to music).
7. Make the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Otherwise, they'll be offended.

While you're at it, you'll be offending people from other religions, so think carefully about who else you might offend.

Ha, that's funny. Because Islamic culture was the thing that kept Europe from completely imploding into pieces in the Dark Ages, and it also kept Christianity from killing themselves off.

In Dark Age Europe, you do get killed when you go against the Government, in the Islamic World you didn't. It was much, much better there.

Every country, every religion will get their comeuppance, and Islam's having theirs now. And the people here have the audacity to complain and not expect at reply? Yes, it's free spech, but on the other end of it too, and some people will take things into their own hands.
Yeah, and chipped stone tools kept humans from going extinct, but I'll take plastic and metal now thank you.

The middle east needs to stop looking at it's glorious past and pay more attention to where it wants to be in the future.

Thank you.

Offend all you want, but dont cry when you reap the consequences of your own actions.

And what "consequences" would those be?

It isnt about offending anyone else.

It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

The have the audacity to get indignant when called to task on it.

Europe is in no way superior to the middle east.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

The cartoon is pointless, if not just a little funny looking.

There is nothing impressive about "high fiving" over having a large section of the planet.

Wow, you pissed people off by insulting their religion, how very open minded pluralistic and cosmopolitian of you.

I see why the world should desire to be like that, apathetic and self absorbed.

Dare we dream of a day when the whole world doesnt give a damn at all about the feelings of anyone else.

Then you wonder why these nuts blow themselves up----because they dont matter, and eveyone one of you proves that.
First off, Europe is superior to the middle east. The fact that we've created modern medicine, the best education systems on the planet, technology, ect shows that we are superior. All of this while most of the middle east has stayed in the seventh century and has only started developing with the use of technology developed in the west. We've created better systems of government. The middle east is still ruled by kings and autocrats who rule absolute, while the west has developed systems ov government which have largely prevented power from being concentrated in the hands of a ruling family or the clergy.

Let's face it, the west is superior. And we wouldn't have tp put up with muslims bombing us if they were never in our countries in the first place.

Ha, that's funny. Because Islamic culture was the thing that kept Europe from completely imploding into pieces in the Dark Ages, and it also kept Christianity from killing themselves off.

In Dark Age Europe, you do get killed when you go against the Government, in the Islamic World you didn't. It was much, much better there.
Most of the islamic culture of the middle ages was simply aping that of Rome. They came up with a few good things like Algebra but after a while their society stagnated and they didn't really come up with anything of note. They'd still have been living in deserts if it wasn't for the remnants of the civilisations that they conquered, such as the Eastern Roman Empire.

Thank you.

Offend all you want, but dont cry when you reap the consequences of your own actions.

Cool!
So let the imams beware.. we just MIGHT consider nuking any mosque that contains an imam calling for... oh, I dunno... any form of resistance to a jewish state on both side of the jordan just another instance of reaping the consequences of your own actions.

And what moral right would people have to enforce those consequences ?

Last timeI checked it was legal to protest and boycott, it's called freedom of speech.

Thank you.

Offend all you want, but dont cry when you reap the consequences of your own actions.

Exactly.

I could understand it if the cartoonist was actually making some kind of point but all he's doing is saying "ZOMG teh Muslims and their Pr0phet r all terroristxors!!1!".

He was trying to provoke a reaction and he got one, hands up anyone who's surprised.

Europe is actually superior in many ways to the middle east.

Europe is economically superior. European nations allow more freedom of speech, political freedom, and freedom of consicence, and European governments are less corrupt.

One of the reasons Europe maintains greater political, and social freedoms and a stronger economy with less corruption is that it allows anyone to criticize anything without fear. The government's fucking up, tell the world about it. In Europe nothing bad happens to you.

Working backwards....

"IN Europe nothing bad happens to you"
Really?

I imagine there are some Serbs who beg to differ.

Tell that to the young men in Spain who were working to get men together to resist Coalition forces in Iraq--plotting no crime Spain.

GO to Germany and claim the Holocaust didnt happen and watch what happens to you.

You ever heard of the Basque Seperatists? No, they are free as birds.

Yeah Europe is wonderland of tolerance, from the BNP, to Draconian German laws AGAINST free speech, and press.

Europes superior economy, is based soley on location---the Mid East is a desert, there is nothing there(comparatively).

It is typical of some piece of trash to try and actually argue the superiority of his people over another.

I have an idea why dont we just round all those dirty little feckers up and dispose of them, maybe put them in work camps, or perhaps re-education.
I mean since they are inferior as you suppose, they arent really as entitled to the land and its resources any way.
They are not entitled to basic human dignity, nah, just round um up for now.
We'll think of a final solution later.

Last timeI checked it was legal to protest and boycott, it's called freedom of speech.

For some reason I have the impression that that is not what he is talking about.

It is typical of some piece of trash to try and actually argue the superiority of his people over another.

The way you are implicitly doing right now you mean ?

Yeah, well, the rest of the world has meanwhile moved on from the Dark Ages and the Islamic world is still partying like it's 1299. Those countries need to get their shit together.

And eventually they will if you give them time. But frankly, with Iraq, pressure against Saudi Arabia, and the wide stereo-typical view from many people that Muslims are terrorists, they eventually will get their 'shit together'.

Most of the islamic culture of the middle ages was simply aping that of Rome. They came up with a few good things like Algebra but after a while their society stagnated and they didn't really come up with anything of note. They'd still have been living in deserts if it wasn't for the remnants of the civilisations that they conquered, such as the Eastern Roman Empire.

Correction - Burning of Baghdad.

And eventually they will if you give them time. But frankly, with Iraq, pressure against Saudi Arabia, and the wide stereo-typical view from many people that Muslims are terrorists, they eventually will get their 'shit together'.


Either that, or there will be a Wannsee Conference II, and we'll solve the problem for them once and for all.

And what "consequences" would those be?
Sinead O'connor once ripped up the picture of the Pope on SNL. While she did have the right to express her views, the world took exception to that and her singing career dropped so fast and so low, that President Bush was more popular.

She was boo'ed off of stages, record companies closed the doors in her face. All consiquences of her excercising her freedom of Expression/speech.


The same thing almost happened to the Dixie Chicks, but they wised up and did a formal and public apology

the Beetles too, when one of them said "We're more popular than God" the firestorm that unleashed almost ended their careers... and they too apologized.

the Consiquences can be anything, from fame to notoriety.

For some reason I have the impression that that is not what he is talking about.

Well so far that's all that's happened.

Cool!
So let the imams beware.. we just MIGHT consider nuking any mosque that contains an imam calling for... oh, I dunno... any form of resistance to a jewish state on both side of the jordan just another instance of reaping the consequences of your own actions.
And in turn, since muslims are not all arab, the chinese guy in the grocery store in Manhattan who blows himself to hell to kill three little jewish kids should also come as no surprise.

Its a two way street, you can play the wag your dick game all you want.

You and people like you have already demonstrated these people have no value--so what difference does it make if your threaten them.

At least, in the end they have the strength of their convictions.

And in turn, since muslims are not all arab, the chinese guy in the grocery store in Manhattan who blows himself to hell to kill three little jewish kids should also come as no surprise.

Its a two way street, you can play the wag your dick game all you want.

You and people like you have already demonstrated these people have no value--so what difference does it make if your threaten them.

At least, in the end they have the strength of their convictions.

The difference comes when we act on our promise to retaliate.

If it comes down to nuclear retaliation against some foreign nations, and a program of Endlosung in our own country, our problems will be solved. Permanently.

The difference comes when we act on our promise to retaliate.

If it comes down to nuclear retaliation against some foreign nations, and a program of Endlosung in our own country, our problems will be solved. Permanently.

Nuclear strike? Have you gone stark raving mad? And what the hell is Endlosung?

Working backwards....

"IN Europe nothing bad happens to you"
Really?

I imagine there are some Serbs who beg to differ.

Tell that to the young men in Spain who were working to get men together to resist Coalition forces in Iraq--plotting no crime Spain.

GO to Germany and claim the Holocaust didnt happen and watch what happens to you.

You ever heard of the Basque Seperatists? No, they are free as birds.

Yeah Europe is wonderland of tolerance, from the BNP, to Draconian German laws AGAINST free speech, and press.

Europes superior economy, is based soley on location---the Mid East is a desert, there is nothing there(comparatively).

It is typical of some piece of trash to try and actually argue the superiority of his people over another.

I have an idea why dont we just round all those dirty little feckers up and dispose of them, maybe put them in work camps, or perhaps re-education.
I mean since they are inferior as you suppose, they arent really as entitled to the land and its resources any way.
They are not entitled to basic human dignity, nah, just round um up for now.
We'll think of a final solution later.
There is no doubt in my mind that people in virtually every European country are far more free to speak their minds than people living under the Saudi family, President for life Mubarak, or the crazy mr. Ahmedinejad.

Oh, and I never said that middle easterners were inferior. They're capable of achieving anything other people have achieved if they modernize and westernize. I'm saying that their culture is far inferior. It holds them back.

Here's an idea for you, if you want to learn about what went wrong with Islamic culture, why don't you go out and buy the book What Went Wrong? by Bernard Lewis. clicky (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195144201/102-6615446-5341718?v=glance&n=283155)

The way you are implicitly doing right now you mean ?

How so, I am defending people of a different faith and given the subject is of the middle East a different ethnic background.

I am Baptist, hell fire and brimstone born again, saved by the blood of the Lamb.
I perceive islam as a false faith.

Doesnt mean I am better then them, doesnt mean you are either.

Second, I am not Arabic, Semite, or even from the Med area.
I am Anglo.

So Iam in no way raising my people above another, so like I said---typical for a piece trash to claim his people are superior to another.

Either that, or there will be a Wannsee Conference II, and we'll solve the problem for them once and for all.

I don't know what that is. Please iterate.

Nuclear strike? Have you gone stark raving mad? And what the hell is Endlosung?
Final Solution to the Islamic Question.

It will come, believe me. Not because I want it to, but because events will force it.

Well so far that's all that's happened.
Actually no. There have been threats made towards the paper, and I think there was a bomb scare. As well as other muslim countries attempting to influence the affairs of a sovereign country.

Oh, and I never said that middle easterners were inferior.
Yes you did, the opposite of Superior is inferior, in order for something to be Superior an inferior is required.




Europe is actually superior in many ways to the middle east.

Europe is economically superior. European nations allow more freedom of speech, political freedom, and freedom of consicence, and European governments are less corrupt.

One of the reasons Europe maintains greater political, and social freedoms and a stronger economy with less corruption is that it allows anyone to criticize anything without fear. The government's fucking up, tell the world about it. In Europe nothing bad happens to you.
So yes, you did in every way say the Middle east inferior, dont back peddle now. Just admit like Kichi you are a xenophobic racist.

Final Solution to the Islamic Question.

It will come, believe me. Not because I want it to, but because events will force it.

Wonderful, a new Hitler.:rolleyes:

And has it ever occured to you that not all Muslims live in the Middle East? Don't you think they might be a little pissed off if you nuke their brothers? And not all Arabs support terrorism?

If you nuke Muslim countries then Muslims around the world will rebel and I for one will stand with them.

nvm

Yes you did, the opposite of Superior is inferior, in order for something to be Superior an inferior is required.





So yes, you did in every way say the Middle east inferior, dont back peddle now. Just admit like Kichi you are a xenophobic racist.
I said the middle east is inferior to Europe. I also made the statement that their people are not inferior, their culture is. If you are going to interpret my words any way you want in order to make yourself feel superior, go ahead, but admit you're not interested in serious discussion.

You're intellectually dishonest. You've decided to call me racist even though I have made it clear that I don't consider middle eastern people inferior. Basically you're just a libelous, dishonest (edited for content).

Wonderful, a new Hitler.:rolleyes:

And has it ever occured to you that not all Muslims live in the Middle East? Don't you think they might be a little pissed off if you nuke their brothers? And not all Arabs support terrorism?

If you nuke Muslim countries then Muslims around the world will rebel and I for one will stand with them.

It's only going to take something like Muslim terrorists unleashing smallpox on the world and killing a billion people to get most of the West ready to annihilate them.

They would start by exterminating them within their own borders, and I don't believe you'll have any sympathizers if they have done something like smallpox to the West.

I said the middle east is inferior to Europe. I also made the statement that their people are not inferior, their culture is. If you are going to interpret my words any way you want in order to make yourself feel superior, go ahead, but admit you're not interested in serious discussion.

You're intellectually dishonest. You've decided to call me racist even though I have made it clear that I don't consider middle eastern people inferior. Basically you're just a libelous, dishonest prick.

Culture: all the knowledge and values shared by a society

The values, traditions, norms, customs, arts, history, folklore, and institutions that a group of people, who are unified by race, ethnicity, language, nationality, or religion, share.

You are a Xenophobic racist.

Culture: all the knowledge and values shared by a society

Xenophobic racist.rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Dishonest, libelous (edited for contend)

Dishonest, libelous a-hole
I am just going by exactly what YOU said.

What would have me do? Give you the benefit of the doubt? why, you dont do that for anyone else, at least not of your Superior Culture(your words).

So asshole I may be, but only because I force honesty from your thinly veiled proclamations of hatred for the ENTIRE Cluture of another people, butthen they are by your own words inferior.

I am just going by exactly what YOU said.

What would have me do? Give you the benefit of the doubt? why, you dont do that for anyone else, at least not of your Superior Culture(your words).

So asshole I may be, but only because I force honesty from your thinly veiled proclamations of hatred for the ENTIRE Cluture of another people, butthen they are by your own words inferior.
Honesty? You try to equate my denunciation of a culture, a group of ideas (many of them deeply flawed), with irrational hatred of people of a certain ethnicity. There is clearly a difference, but in order to make yourself feel superior to me you ignore the difference and make false claims against me. Don't talk to me about honesty pal.

Yes that will show those filthy MUslims!!!
If they can't develop a thick enough skin for their culture to survive in the modern world, and feel the need to offer up an "us or them" ultimatum. Fine, I chose my freedom over their lives, and the future of their children. I've got no problem with creating high paying jobs scooping up radioactive sand and cremated remains of a people a millenium behind. If they wish to commit themselves to the dust bin of history, so be it; they'll be missed as much as the Cartheginians. Perhaps their everlasting shadows will succeed where their "culture" has so spectacularly failed.

I am just going by exactly what YOU said.

What would have me do? Give you the benefit of the doubt? why, you dont do that for anyone else, at least not of your Superior Culture(your words).

So asshole I may be, but only because I force honesty from your thinly veiled proclamations of hatred for the ENTIRE Cluture of another people, butthen they are by your own words inferior.

So you're saying a culture that forces women to wear blue beekeeper outfits, have their clitoris cut out with a rusty blade, and get shot in the head at a soccer stadium for listening to music is superior to Western culture?

HA! HA HA HA! HA! HA HA HA! HA HA!

The ENTIRE intellectual output of Islamic nations today in terms of books, patents, etc., is less than that of Greece. The entire GDP of Islamic nations, if you discount the oil in the Gulf, is less than that of Norway (if you discount Norway's oil money).

They aren't productive, they aren't discovering anything, they aren't dreaming of anything - either they are sitting around in a madrassa learning to hate the West or they're scratching out a 10th century existence.

You really need to read some Naipaul and find out what a catastrophe Islam has been to the people who live it.

Honesty? You try to equate my denunciation of a culture, a group of ideas (many of them deeply flawed), with irrational hatred of people of a certain ethnicity. There is clearly a difference, but in order to make yourself feel superior to me you ignore the difference and make false claims against me. Don't talk to me about honesty pal.

Culture: all the knowledge and values shared by a society

The values, traditions, norms, customs, arts, history, folklore, and institutions that a group of people, who are unified by race, ethnicity, language, nationality, or religion, share.

As you said Inferior Culture.

Xenophobic Racist. Honestly.

Culture: all the knowledge and values shared by a society

The values, traditions, norms, customs, arts, history, folklore, and institutions that a group of people, who are unified by race, ethnicity, language, nationality, or religion, share.

As you said Inferior Culture.

Xenophobic Racist. Honestly.
Dishonest, libelous and stubborn to boot. Your parents must be proud.

How so, I am defending people of a different faith and given the subject is of the middle East a different ethnic background.

I am Baptist, hell fire and brimstone born again, saved by the blood of the Lamb.
I perceive islam as a false faith.

Ah - apologies then. You were in that case not arguing the superiority of your own people - but your statements did imply that muslems would be justified to act against non-muslems if those non-muslems did something that offended the muslem faith. This means you allow muslems to consider themselves superior, while you seem to snub at others for doing the same.

So you're saying a culture that forces women to wear blue beekeeper outfits, have their clitoris cut out with a rusty blade, and get shot in the head at a soccer stadium for listening to music is superior to Western culture?

HA! HA HA HA! HA! HA HA HA! HA HA!

The ENTIRE intellectual output of Islamic nations today in terms of books, patents, etc., is less than that of Greece. The entire GDP of Islamic nations, if you discount the oil in the Gulf, is less than that of Norway (if you discount Norway's oil money).

They aren't productive, they aren't discovering anything, they aren't dreaming of anything - either they are sitting around in a madrassa learning to hate the West or they're scratching out a 10th century existence.

You really need to read some Naipaul and find out what a catastrophe Islam has been to the people who live it.

Given that i engage several burka wearing women a day--who do not skitter away in fear.

Yes, I would call it EQUAL.

The fact you buy into StormFront style stereotypes only proves you are an idiot as well.

Thanks it saves me an arguement.

Which branch of Islam decrees genital mutilation? Better yet, tell where in the Qu'Ran it is commanded? I have a copy right next to my Bible I will be happy to look it up.

Oh you mean that a regional practice in Africa that comes from pre-islamic era and was transferred over. Sorry--try again.

The Burka is not required by Islam--it is required by the Goverment.

Of course since you dont even know the names of things your talking about we should take you as being informed? Hardly.

Yes, I would call it EQUAL.

The facts about patents, inventions, book publishing, etc., are facts, not stereotypes.

As are the facts about GDP.

As is the fact that infibulation is mandated by many governments precisely because Islamic religious leaders insist that it is a religious practice to be followed.

As is the burkha - wear it or get shot in some places.

Shall I link you to the video of the Afghan woman who was shot in the head during a soccer match because she had a tape cassette of music? It's hardly a stereotype. It was the law there - based on the idea that listening to music is un-Islamic.

Nice try with your ad hominem about StormFront, but it's kind of hard for an Asian to belong.

Ah - apologies then. You were in that case not arguing the superiority of your own people - but your statements did imply that muslems would be justified to act against non-muslems if those non-muslems did something that offended the muslem faith. This means you allow muslems to consider themselves superior, while you seem to snub at others for doing the same.
If you don't try to treat other peoples as your equals, then you are inferior. If you believe that you are superior to another person, then you are, in fact, that person's inferior. If you think that your language and/or culture is superior, than you are inferior. I don't know what your culture is, but mine doesn't require that you offend someone. If you draw a picture of their Mohhamad, then they have the right to be offended. Their religion considers it almost as big an insult as peeing on their holy book and using its pages as toilet paper right in front of them.

Ah - apologies then. You were in that case not arguing the superiority of your own people - but your statements did imply that muslems would be justified to act against non-muslems if those non-muslems did something that offended the muslem faith. This means you allow muslems to consider themselves superior, while you seem to snub at others for doing the same.
No I dont allow them to consider themselves Superior--I understand the reaction and see exactly where it comes from.
I know hundreds of Muslims none of them fit the pathetic stereotypes vomitted by the ignorant dullards who seem to not only fill this board but breed on it.

Muslims would simple like to be treated with respect---to make it more clear.

On a different issue, I do not approve of abortion---BUT if i see one of those prayer group pack of wild dogs---I will stop and confront them so they can not confront people...who are their equals... and attempt some self rightgeous assault on them--be it by words, pictures, or physical contact.

I am an idealist, and believe regaurdless we shoud go OUT OF OUR WAY to be kinder and more respectful to people--especially people who expect us not to be.

I would defend anyone here equally if the situation changed.
Even Drunken Commies Deleted.
If i would defend myself, I am obligated to defend others--unless I believe I am somehow better then them.
Even the people I think are wrong---are no less better then me.


EDITED: I used the word "Allow"--that implies far more control then I have.

w00t, signed

If you draw a picture of their Mohhamad, then they have the right to be offended. Their religion considers it almost as big an insult as peeing on their holy book and using its pages as toilet paper right in front of them.

So? It's a grave offense to them if women aren't veiled. Does that mean that all non-Muslim women should now wear veils to avoid offending?

Drinking alcohol is considered offensive by most conservative Muslims. Does that mean that all alcohol production should stop to avoid offending?

Not living according to sharia law is considered offensive by many Muslims. Does that mean we should all now live under sharia law?

Yes, they can be offended. But they have no right to tell non-Muslims that we MUST change to accomodate them.

Culture: all the knowledge and values shared by a society

The values, traditions, norms, customs, arts, history, folklore, and institutions that a group of people, who are unified by race, ethnicity, language, nationality, or religion, share.


Read your own definition.. there are two clauses, not one. "Culture" is defined as "values, traditions, norms, customs, arts, history, folklore, and institutions." The possibility that those elements of culture may apply to a group unified by race or ethnicity or language or nationality or religion doesn't mean criticizing an aspect of the culture entails a criticism of the race, ethnicity, language, nationality or religion.

But keep up the mudslinging anyway, by all means.. it's entertaining. :p

I would defend anyone here equally if the situation changed.
Even Drunken Commies Deleted.
.
Please don't. I'd rather not be associated with anyone who cares so little for honesty and who bears false witness against others so easily.

I personally believe everyone has a right to be offended here. I don't believe that armed retribution is called for on anyone's part, and the first strike to fall will be against the side I ally with, regardless of whose side that actually is.

On a little side note, though,
Which branch of Islam decrees genital mutilation? Better yet, tell where in the Qu'Ran it is commanded? I have a copy right next to my Bible I will be happy to look it up.

Oh you mean that a regional practice in Africa that comes from pre-islamic era and was transferred over. Sorry--try again.
Whether or not something is in a religious doctrine is not governed by the texts but by the people who govern the texts. To say that something isn't in Islamic ideology because it isn't explicitly given in scripture is like saying that eternal damnation for unforgiven sins can't be in Christian ideology because it isn't explicitly said by Jesus. It is the people behind the book that ensure the Fire and Brimstone interpretation thrives.

(And don't go quoting Romans on me. You know as well as I do that Paul was a similar political force with his own human interpretation and agenda.)

It's only going to take something like Muslim terrorists unleashing smallpox on the world and killing a billion people to get most of the West ready to annihilate them.

They would start by exterminating them within their own borders, and I don't believe you'll have any sympathizers if they have done something like smallpox to the West.

I would always oppose genocide, whatever extremists do and I know I'm not the only one who's not prepared to let another Holocaust happen.

I would always oppose genocide, whatever extremists do and I know I'm not the only one who's not prepared to let another Holocaust happen.
Really?

Did you go to Rwanda? Kosovo?

Ah - apologies then. You were in that case not arguing the superiority of your own people - but your statements did imply that muslems would be justified to act against non-muslems if those non-muslems did something that offended the muslem faith. This means you allow muslems to consider themselves superior, while you seem to snub at others for doing the same.

You, my friend, just neatly described dhimmihood.

So? It's a grave offense to them if women aren't
veiled.
No it isnt.


Does that mean that all non-Muslim women should now wear veils to avoid offending? Non-issue.


Drinking alcohol is considered offensive by most conservative Muslims.
no it isnt, it is forbidden for a Muslim to drink--they are not offended by other drinking. You are just embellishing to make your self seem justified.

Does that mean that all alcohol production should stop to avoid offending?non-issue


Not living according to sharia law is considered offensive by many Muslims.
no it isnt. It is considered living without guidance which leads to potential reprecussions from Allah. You can not move forward on your path as a Muslim without first following the prescribed way---Sharia is not that way, it merely contains parts of it.


Does that mean we should all now live under sharia law?
Non-issue due to more embellishment.


Yes, they can be offended. But they have no right to tell non-Muslims that we MUST change to accomodate them.
Yes, they can be offended and yes they can tell you whatever they like. How much you listen versus how much you promote hate depends entirely upon you.

Have you even met an Arab Muslim? Or is the Local National Alliance chapter your go to source for all things arabic?

I would always oppose genocide, whatever extremists do and I know I'm not the only one who's not prepared to let another Holocaust happen.

Where were you when the Bangladesh genocide happened?

Or is it a genocide if only westerners or western looking people get killed?

You, my friend, just neatly described dhimmihood.

Maybe the people who sympathize with Muslims don't understand that Muslims view the world through the lens of dhimmitude, and that in their eyes, non-Muslims are less than human.

Really?

Did you go to Rwanda? Kosovo?

Well as I was 11 at the time there wasn't much for me to do was there?

Where were you when the Bangladesh genocide happened?

Or is it a genocide if only westerners or western looking people get killed?

And when did that happen?

You, my friend, just neatly described dhimmihood.
You mean like what the French do to Muslims...yes, indeed.

Have you even met an Arab Muslim? Or is the Local National Alliance chapter your go to source for all things arabic?

Yes, quite a few. In fact, some are lifelong close friends.

My go to source for things Arabic is a former Egyptian Army officer who now works as a biostatistician. He taught me Arabic.

He was the one who explained that all Muslims view the world in the context of dhimmitude - and that all non-Muslims are in effect, less human because of it. He also said it explains why Muslims are outraged when we don't live the way they want us to, and why they are equally outraged when we criticize the way they live - technically, under dhimmitude, we're not allowed to criticize them.

Oh, and the alcohol, women's dress, etc., is a fact in most Muslim nations. So you can't dismiss it.

His wife, even though she is an American, and lives in Boston, wears the veil not because she wants to (she doesn't), but because her husband says she must wear it to be Islamic, or he'll divorce her.

So? It's a grave offense to them if women aren't veiled. Does that mean that all non-Muslim women should now wear veils to avoid offending?

Drinking alcohol is considered offensive by most conservative Muslims. Does that mean that all alcohol production should stop to avoid offending?

Not living according to sharia law is considered offensive by many Muslims. Does that mean we should all now live under sharia law?

Yes, they can be offended. But they have no right to tell non-Muslims that we MUST change to accomodate them.
I'm not saying that we should change our cultures to accomadate them, but offending people is just something you should at least consider not doing. If your guests are Jewish, don't serve them hem. Of course, you can eat it, but at least show some respect. If your guests are Christian, it's not very generous of you to brag about how many abortians you/your partner had. If your guests are black, please don't talk about joining the kkk. All the muslims really wanted was to at least be respected and they consider a cartoon depicting their Mohamad as a terrorist is like depicting atheists as retards or depicting Christ as Hitler. It's very disrespectful.

You give only as much respect as you deserve. No more. No less.

Edited For a missed answer

I'm not saying that we should change our cultures to accomadate them, but offending people is just something you should at least consider not doing. If your guests are Jewish, don't serve them hem. Of course, you can eat it, but at least show some respect. If your guests are Christian, it's not very generous of you to brag about how many abortians you/your partner had. If your guests are black, please don't talk about joining the kkk. All the muslims really wanted was to at least be respected and they consider a cartoon depicting their Mohamad as a terrorist is like depicting atheists as retards or depicting Christ as Hitler. It's very disrespectful.

You give only as much respect as you deserve. No more. No less.


Sorry. I'm not living under dhimmitude, which is the way they want it.

I'm not saying that we should change our cultures to accomadate them, but offending people is just something you should at least consider not doing.

It depends. Some streams of muslim thought make it clear that you are offending them by just being a non-muslim.

You are either a muslim or a dhimmi. Choose or die. This is how it was until the muslim armies could not longer conquer. The terrorism you see now is a pent up frustration that they could no longer have their way as they could until the 1500s.

I, for one, think the cartoons are tasteless and not funny at all. I'm for free speech, sure, but this is going too far, in my opinion. Yes, they have the legal right to do so, and if they want to be morons, they can be my guest. However, if they did not make these cartoons to incite anger, why else did they do it? Because they could? Oh swell, that's a great reason! Like Germany invaded Poland because it could, or those two kids at Columbine shot all those kids because they could.

How could ANYONE find them funny? They're crudly drawn pictures, for one, and I don't see anything funny in them. It's not like actual sunday cartoons, like Calvin and Hobbes for one thing. Also, there are thousands of political cartoons way more funny than these. Hells, Doonesbury is funnier than them!

Thirdly, I don't think this is a good time for nations like France and Germany, who have large muslim populations and much unrest among them, to be publishing these cartoons. Can you say riots? I've seen enough bigotry throughout my short life, having traveled to many corners of the world, and I have to say; insulting someones religion never leads to good things.

Yes, quite a few. In fact, some are lifelong close friends.

My go to source for things Arabic is a former Egyptian Army officer who now works as a biostatistician. He taught me Arabic.

He was the one who explained that all Muslims view the world in the context of dhimmitude - and that all non-Muslims are in effect, less human because of it. He also said it explains why Muslims are outraged when we don't live the way they want us to, and why they are equally outraged when we criticize the way they live - technically, under dhimmitude, we're not allowed to criticize them.

Oh, and the alcohol, women's dress, etc., is a fact in most Muslim nations. So you can't dismiss it.

His wife, even though she is an American, and lives in Boston, wears the veil not because she wants to (she doesn't), but because her husband says she must wear it to be Islamic, or he'll divorce her.
Wow, a whole guy.

I live in the largest Arab Muslim community outside of the Middle East.
I know by name hundreds--thousands over the course of my life.

I have had the pleasure of Debating the resurection of Chirst with an Imam.

I have had expressly explained that a Muslim according to the Koran(Islam) Jews and Christians are to be treated as Muslims.

Christian falling farther from the teachings then Jews as Christian have abandoned Mosaic law.

But none the less---no, Muslim veiw the People of the Book as equals.

You mean like what the French do to Muslims...yes, indeed.

Yeah..the French govt gave a choice to convert to christianity or pay jiziya [/sarcasm]. I suspect you do not know what dhimmi is.

Sorry. I'm not living under dhimmitude, which is the way they want it.
So you would be being subserviant by being respectful? Youre an ass.

It depends. Some streams of muslim thought make it clear that you are offending them by just being a non-muslim.

You are either a muslim or a dhimmi. Choose or die. This is how it was until the muslim armies could not longer conquer. The terrorism you see now is a pent up frustration that they could no longer have their way as they could until the 1500s.

Hence Osama's reference to the Sack of Baghdad in 1254, and the reference by most Islamic terrorists of recent history to Saladin and Baybars in their writing.

They are wanting to restore the world to their Golden Age, where the world is Dar al-Islam in its entirety.

It depends. Some streams of muslim thought make it clear that you are offending them by just being a non-muslim.

You are either a muslim or a dhimmi. Choose or die. This is how it was until the muslim armies could not longer conquer. The terrorism you see now is a pent up frustration that they could no longer have their way as they could until the 1500s.

Or it could be pent up anger at western intervention and interference in the Middle-East. Did you know that one of Bin Laden's demands was a fair price for oil?

Or it could be pent up anger at western intervention and interference in the Middle-East. Did you know that one of Bin Laden's demands was a fair price for oil?
Did you know that his primary goal for al-Ansar (al Qaeda) is to turn the entire world into Dar al-Islam, and the world governed only by the Caliphate?

Guess you didn't know that.

Yeah..the French govt gave a choice to convert to christianity or pay jiziya [/sarcasm]. I suspect you do not know what dhimmi is.
In a manner of speaking--you dullard---that is the choice, or more so lack of choice that was given.

Second class citizens, condemned by their failure to abandon their culture for French Culture, denied work, and forced into Ghettos.

So yes you idiot---a French version of Dhimmihood--worse actually--the Muslims in question could never meet the requirements by the French.

Did you know that his primary goal for al-Ansar (al Qaeda) is to turn the entire world into Dar al-Islam, and the world governed only by the Caliphate?

Guess you didn't know that.
EDITED: Response Understood.

Did you know that his primary goal for al-Ansar (al Qaeda) is to turn the entire world into Dar al-Islam, and the world governed only by the Caliphate?

Guess you didn't know that.

That is one of his goals. The reasons I just gave you are the reason that so many otherwise reasonable people support him.

Or it could be pent up anger at western intervention and interference in the Middle-East. Did you know that one of Bin Laden's demands was a fair price for oil?
Yeah, and Hitler was against smoking--didnt make him a good guy.

But none the less---no, Muslim veiw the People of the Book as equals.

Hah. So what about the Zorostrians and Hindus and Buddhists etc?

Do you know about the blood money system that KSA has? This is the hierarchy of the blood money that a muslim has to pay.

* 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
* 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
* 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
* 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
* 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
* 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

Some equality there. :rolleyes:

Even the Ahle Kitab is not really equal. Muslim men are allowed to marry ahle kitab women without the woman converting but muslim women are not allowed to marry ahle kitab men without the man converting to islam.

Wow, a whole guy.

I live in the largest Arab Muslim community outside of the Middle East.
I know by name hundreds--thousands over the course of my life.

I have had the pleasure of Debating the resurection of Chirst with an Imam.

I have had expressly explained that a Muslim according to the Koran(Islam) Jews and Christians are to be treated as Muslims.

Christian falling farther from the teachings then Jews as Christian have abandoned Mosaic law.

But none the less---no, Muslim veiw the People of the Book as equals.

I have gone through a similar circumstance; save I have lived in two of the worlds most populated Muslim countries in the world; Pakistan and Bangladesh. I can say that Islam does not deserve the bad rap it gets; Muslims are normal people, just like you and me. I have known Muslims who are friends with Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists. So why try to aggrivate them? Is it for fun? To try and see their breaking point? Theres over a billion of them, people! The vast majority are level headed, yes, but when you get the level-headed people upset, imagine how the radicals feel!

Hah. So what about the Zorostrians and Hindus and Buddhists etc?

Do you know about the blood money system that KSA has? This is the hierarchy of the blood money that a muslim has to pay.

* 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
* 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
* 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
* 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
* 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
* 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

Some equality there. :rolleyes:

Even the Ahle Kitab is not really equal. Muslim men are allowed to marry ahle kitab women without the woman converting but muslim women are not allowed to marry ahle kitab men without the man converting to islam.

Saudi's are Wahabi's; a radical sect of Islam. Judging all of Islam by their standards would be insane. That would be like if I judged all Hindu's because of what those idiots who incite inter-religious conflict in India, that leaves thousands dead, just because an old mosque has an outside chance of being on top of an old temple.

In a manner of speaking--you dullard---that is the choice, or more so lack of choice that was given.

Second class citizens, condemned by their failure to abandon their culture for French Culture, denied work, and forced into Ghettos.

So yes you idiot---a French version of Dhimmihood--worse actually--the Muslims in question could never meet the requirements by the French.

lol...as though the French govt wantonly repressed muslims and forced them into ghettos...

I can argue with dhimmis, but not with a foul mouthed dhimmi. Suit yourself.

Yeah, and Hitler was against smoking--didnt make him a good guy.

I never claimed that it made him a 'good guy', he is scum. I was simply trying to explain that the reasons for terrorism are far deeper than Deep Kimchi's claim that all muslims want to forcibly convert the rest of the world.

I never claimed that it made him a 'good guy', he is scum. I was simply trying to explain that the reasons for terrorism are far deeper than Deep Kimchi's claim that all muslims want to forcibly convert the rest of the world.
The initial reasons may have been deep, but they are irrelevant now. They've moved on to making the world their own, and screw us to the wall.

Anyone who doesn't understand that Islamic terrorists basically want the overthrow of the West, and the establishment of worldwide Islamic government and religion are fools.

Because they've reached this ideological point, the war will not end until we surrender, or they all die.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have all reprinted the controversial Mohammed cartoons that appeared in a Danish newpaper and caused so much controversy in the muslim world

Great news :)
They can oppress whoever they want in their countries, as long as they keep those religious fanatic tentacles off nations and citizens who aren't interested in fascism. If you want respect, show respect.

Saudi's are Wahabi's; a radical sect of Islam. Judging all of Islam by their standards would be insane.

Saudis are keepers of the faith, by virtue of having Mecca and Medina in their custody.

If muslims feel that saudis are not representing islam, then they should denounce saudis and stop doing haj. Everytime they go for haj, they endorse saudi policies.


That would be like if I judged all Hindu's because of what those idiots who incite inter-religious conflict in India, that leaves thousands dead, just because an old mosque has an outside chance of being on top of an old temple.

Judge all you want. But destroying a building is not the same as killing people and the blame of inciting inter-religious conflict goes to idiots in both parties.

I, for one, think the cartoons are tasteless and not funny at all. I'm for free speech, sure, but this is going too far, in my opinion. Yes, they have the legal right to do so, and if they want to be morons, they can be my guest. However, if they did not make these cartoons to incite anger, why else did they do it? Because they could? Oh swell, that's a great reason! Like Germany invaded Poland because it could, or those two kids at Columbine shot all those kids because they could.

Are you kidding? Publishing some cartoons, even deliberately offensive ones, is COMPLETELY different from Germany violently invading Poland or some kids murdering their classmates. I don't see how you can even make such a comparison. Stop and take a moment to visualize it: some Columbine kids shooting their classmates in the head with a pistol at point blank range, compared with a poorly drawn cartoon that any Muslim can easily avoid looking at. Your analogies are absurd.

How could ANYONE find them funny? They're crudly drawn pictures, for one, and I don't see anything funny in them. It's not like actual sunday cartoons, like Calvin and Hobbes for one thing. Also, there are thousands of political cartoons way more funny than these. Hells, Doonesbury is funnier than them!
That's not the point. The point is, the Muslims, especialy in the Gulf, have overreacted and have confirmed that they are an unusually fanatic society that is at odds with the values of any other civilized society on earth - whether Western, Eastern, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, pagan, secular, whatever. Instead of taking the moral high ground and peacefully protesting the ignorance of the cartoonist, the Muslim mainstream in the middle east - including Muslim governments, businesses, and ordinary people - have far outdone the West by causing random violence against Danes and bizarre boycots of everything from Legos to Danish-made insulin.

Thirdly, I don't think this is a good time for nations like France and Germany, who have large muslim populations and much unrest among them, to be publishing these cartoons. Can you say riots? I've seen enough bigotry throughout my short life, having traveled to many corners of the world, and I have to say; insulting someones religion never leads to good things.
If the Muslims keep rioting over this incident, they just keep on proving the point that they can be a lot more unhinged than any group out there. Jews and Christians in France and Germany have not rioted in the past few century over a lousy cartoon tucked away in a second rate newspaper published several thousand miles in some random direction. By condoning riots, all you have made clear in your post is that Muslims are more extremist, basically you are perpetuating the stereotype.

The initial reasons may have been deep, but they are irrelevant now. They've moved on to making the world their own, and screw us to the wall.

Anyone who doesn't understand that Islamic terrorists basically want the overthrow of the West, and the establishment of worldwide Islamic government and religion are fools.

Because they've reached this ideological point, the war will not end until we surrender, or they all die.

*sigh* Yes but if we gave the Middle East a fair deal and stopped interferring then we would cut the support base from under the terrorists and leave them as little more than a small, noisy minority.

I have gone through a similar circumstance; save I have lived in two of the worlds most populated Muslim countries in the world; Pakistan and Bangladesh. I can say that Islam does not deserve the bad rap it gets; Muslims are normal people, just like you and me. I have known Muslims who are friends with Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists. So why try to aggrivate them? Is it for fun? To try and see their breaking point? Theres over a billion of them, people! The vast majority are level headed, yes, but when you get the level-headed people upset, imagine how the radicals feel!
Obviously the vast majority wouldn't be so level-headed, if they are overreacting like this.

Free speech means the right to say anything you want, without some crazy people intimidating you with violence and threats. If some idiot wants to see the breaking point of a billion Muslims, he has all the right to, and the Western governments and media have all the obligation in the world to protect said idiot.

I, for one, think the cartoons are tasteless and not funny at all. I'm for free speech, sure, but this is going too far, in my opinion.
The cartoons express the dichotomy appearent in all the violence that flows from a so called religion of peace. They succeed in their aims. Either the free exchange of ideas is a good thing or its not. You seem to wish to equate it with murder. But looking over the countries that have a rich history in defending the free exchange of ideas, I see that they are the richest and by far most powerful. This is not a coincidence. Ideas that displease you do you no harm through their exisistence whether you're ignorant of them or not.

Those that wish to deny me, and my powerful western brethren our freedom will likely meet the fates of our past foes. Extermination. Maybe, the few survivors, a century after the fact, will be allowed to open Casinos.

Holocaust jokes. Catholic priest jokes. So offensive yet so common they're invisible. Because we're not powerless, thin skined, pussies like the islamists having already fouled their farmland with salt. They live only through our excess of compassion. If they manage to kill that, most of them will not be long for this world. I won't miss a single one of them. Even the good among them. They did nothing to temper their neighbors, nothing to act in their preservation of what might be worth saving in their culture.

Less than happy about it? Just put the blame on Whitey. Unlike Osama, he can take it. And that's why the West is better. That you're so uncommitted to freedom is a reminder to us all about how it is so easily lost. Sheep are always happy to have a benevolent shepard to make all their decisions for them.

Working backwards....

"IN Europe nothing bad happens to you"
Really?

I imagine there are some Serbs who beg to differ.

Tell that to the young men in Spain who were working to get men together to resist Coalition forces in Iraq--plotting no crime Spain.

Are you KIDDING me? I don't know how things work wherever you come from, but here in the civilized world plotting to blow people up, no matter where, is severely frowned upon.

GO to Germany and claim the Holocaust didnt happen and watch what happens to you.


No rebuttal needed.

*sigh* Yes but if we gave the Middle East a fair deal and stopped interferring then we would cut the support base from under the terrorists and leave them as little more than a small, noisy minority.

yes yes..leave the islamists alone like how the international community left Afghanistan alone and the taliban came to power. That turned out to be great for the Afghanistan people.

yes yes..leave the islamists alone like how the international community left Afghanistan alone and the taliban came to power. That turned out to be great for the Afghanistan people.
We should also remember how the US turned a blind eye to the whole region, and how India got saddled with the crap in Kashmir as a result.

I never claimed that it made him a 'good guy', he is scum. I was simply trying to explain that the reasons for terrorism are far deeper than Deep Kimchi's claim that all muslims want to forcibly convert the rest of the world.
I agree--the reasons are deeper. BUT, just as I would not use Hitler to say all germans were not Nazis I would not use Bin Laden to express the complexity of the down trodden--because he is hardly that.

The initial reasons may have been deep, but they are irrelevant now. They've moved on to making the world their own, and screw us to the wall.

Anyone who doesn't understand that Islamic terrorists basically want the overthrow of the West, and the establishment of worldwide Islamic government and religion are fools.

Because they've reached this ideological point, the war will not end until we surrender, or they all die.


I agree 100%.

Terrorists.

Ali Beydoun, the guy who owns the grocery store I go to, isnt a terrorist. He isnttrying to enslave the world under some great Islamic empire.

That, is my point to you.

Muslim Terrorists and Muslims are not synonyms.

I agree 100%.

Terrorists.

Ali Beydoun, the guy who owns the grocery store I go to, isnt a terrorist. He isnttrying to enslave the world under some great Islamic empire.

That, is my point to you.

Muslim Terrorists and Muslims are not synonyms.
Wow, did you come up with that astounding discovery all by yourself?

yes yes..leave the islamists alone like how the international community left Afghanistan alone and the taliban came to power. That turned out to be great for the Afghanistan people.

You need to look at your history a little closer. The Taliban itself was a direct result of the US getting involved. The country was run in small groups by different warlords, but after they pissed off the Soviet Union, the US decided to go in, give them lots of guns and military training, and try to unite them into one group. The result? The Taliban.

You need to look at your history a little closer. The Taliban itself was a direct result of the US getting involved. The country was run in small groups by different warlords, but after they pissed off the Soviet Union, the US decided to go in, give them lots of guns and military training, and try to unite them into one group. The result? The Taliban.

No, that resulted in the Mujahideen and atleast some factions were nationalistic more than islamist.

Abandoning the region to islamist interests in the area led to the taliban. Taliban was formed after Gulbuddin Hekmatyar failed to take Kabul.

Please, I know the history of the region very well.

Wow, did you come up with that astounding discovery all by yourself?
People often find this confusing, you know.

Meh!

The best way to get something offensive noticed by everybody is to get pissed and make a great deal of noise.

Those cartoons would have never made it over here if people haven't of gotten pissy.

Hmmm?

Wow, did you come up with that astounding discovery all by yourself?
Back again Xenophobe?

Back again Xenophobe?
I don't know about anyone else, but now you've convinced me!

I agree 100%.

Terrorists.

Ali Beydoun, the guy who owns the grocery store I go to, isnt a terrorist. He isnttrying to enslave the world under some great Islamic empire.

That, is my point to you.

Muslim Terrorists and Muslims are not synonyms.


Just a nitpick.

How would you know if he was a terrorist? They don't exactly whip out union cards to show they are.

They don't exactly spew hatred when they are in a sleeper cell.

How would you know?

Just a nitpick.

How would you know if he was a terrorist? They don't exactly whip out union cards to show they are.

They don't exactly spew hatred when they are in a sleeper cell.

How would you know?
OK, so we dont know your not a pedophile either---should you be treated like one?

If we start punishing people for what we DONT KNOW...never mind. The fact you even suggested it makes you an idiot.

Just a nitpick.

How would you know if he was a terrorist? They don't exactly whip out union cards to show they are.

They don't exactly spew hatred when they are in a sleeper cell.

How would you know?

If you're in the US, just wait and see if he blows up.

If he blows himself up, you not only know that he was a terrorist, you'll be 99 percent sure he was a radical Islamist militant.

I don't know about anyone else, but now you've convinced me!
Need more proof?

http://exotica.fix.no/gallery/games/images/x/Xenophobe.jpg

OK, so we dont know your not a pedophile either---should you be treated like one?


Hey, better safe than sorry...:)

Those who think he should not be treated like one, are obvious supporters of pedophilism.

OK, so we dont know your not a pedophile either---should you be treated like one?

If we start punishing people for what we DONT KNOW...never mind. The fact you even suggested it makes you an idiot.

Ahhh. Looking for meaning that is not there.

If you're in the US, just wait and see if he blows up.

If he blows himself up, you not only know that he was a terrorist, you'll be 99 percent sure he was a radical Islamist militant.

;)

Hey, better safe than sorry...:)

Those who think he should not be treated like one, are obvious supporters of pedophilism.

You never know. I have pictures of my daughter, niece and nephew as well as children of other relatives.

Isn't that damning evidence? :p

You never know. I have pictures of my daughter, niece and nephew as well as children of other relatives.

Isn't that damning evidence? :p
What about thost naked baby pictures of you that your parents took?

What about thost naked baby pictures of you that your parents took?

pssst....it seems you have killed the thread with that lewd remark...whose side are you on anyway? With or against?

If you don't try to treat other peoples as your equals, then you are inferior. If you believe that you are superior to another person, then you are, in fact, that person's inferior. If you think that your language and/or culture is superior, than you are inferior. I don't know what your culture is, but mine doesn't require that you offend someone. If you draw a picture of their Mohhamad, then they have the right to be offended. Their religion considers it almost as big an insult as peeing on their holy book and using its pages as toilet paper right in front of them.

Hey, I like that! Except, through your explanation of what makes a person inferior, you have (by your own logic) deemed yourself inferior by telling us which people are inferior. And now that I've said that, I guess I am inferior TOO!!! *cue yakkity sax*

On a different issue, I do not approve of abortion---BUT if i see one of those prayer group pack of wild dogs---I will stop and confront them so they can not confront people...who are their equals... and attempt some self rightgeous assault on them--be it by words, pictures, or physical contact.

I am an idealist, and believe regaurdless we shoud go OUT OF OUR WAY to be kinder and more respectful to people--especially people who expect us not to be.

I would defend anyone here equally if the situation changed.
Even Drunken Commies Deleted.
If i would defend myself, I am obligated to defend others--unless I believe I am somehow better then them.
Even the people I think are wrong---are no less better then me.

Good Lord, no! Persuading people is mean!

What's the point of believing something if you aren't going to try to spread the word about it? In the example you provided, the prayer groups REALLY believe that abortion is murder. What the Hell else are they supposed to do? They aren't physically beating on anybody. If what they have to say strikes a chord with the person who hears it, maybe that person should stop a listen.
Perhaps it's unfair for a number of people who believe one thing to try to sway one person who believes another? Tough tarts! It's the way ideas are spread and the world progresses. If you really believe one idea is the truth, why would you worry about contradicting ideas lacking support?

You would defend anyone here equally if the situation changed? Then you are a waste of space. You stand for nothing.

It's interesting and funny to know how many of you who call yourself "mature and adult-like" find it humerous when certain newspapers make fun of a Religion.

Many of you condemn the discrimination of homosexuals/women, yet not religion.

How very, very riveting.

It isnt about offending anyone else.

It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

The have the audacity to get indignant when called to task on it.

Europe is in no way superior to the middle east.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

The cartoon is pointless, if not just a little funny looking.

There is nothing impressive about "high fiving" over having a large section of the planet.

Wow, you pissed people off by insulting their religion, how very open minded pluralistic and cosmopolitian of you.

I see why the world should desire to be like that, apathetic and self absorbed.

Dare we dream of a day when the whole world doesnt give a damn at all about the feelings of anyone else.

Then you wonder why these nuts blow themselves up----because they dont matter, and eveyone one of you proves that.

I agree more than 100%.

It's interesting and funny to know how many of you who call yourself "mature and adult-like" find it humerous when certain newspapers make fun of a Religion.

Many of you condemn the discrimination of homosexuals/women, yet not religion.

How very, very riveting.

I thought just about everybody who commented on the quality of the cartoons said they sucked. I thought they sucked, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be published if someone is willing to publish them. If you don't like them, raise hell about them. Tell others to raise hell about them, but that isn't going to get them outlawed. They'll only go away if nobody reads them.

Yes, I agree. Soon, the protests in those countries and around the World will most likely stop the cartooning.

However, drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is just like, similar to what someone else said, having someone urinate on your face.

So why do it?

The offices of Jyllands-Posten had to be evacuated on Tuesday because of a bomb threat.

Isn't that typical...

Yes, I agree. Soon, the protests in those countries and around the World will most likely stop the cartooning.

However, drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is just like, similar to what someone else said, having someone urinate on your face.

So why do it?
Because it's not anything like being urinated on. Being urinated on is a direct assault on your person. Somebody drawing a picture doesn't compare. If you don't like it, ask them to stop, boycott them, whatever, but you can't force them not to put pen to paper.

I have to side with the right-wingers on this one. I've spent a lot of time with Muslims (although it seems that for some reason I've missed all those religious nutcases they all are ;)), and I know to observe some basic rules.

But this is not like that. I can make the effort not to walk in on a group of unveiled women by knocking first. I can make the effort not to cook pork if they come around. Things like that. I might not be obliged to, but it's the right thing to do.

But this is a newspaper. I might not like the cartoon personally, and don't really see how Mohammed could be used to make any sort of meaningful statement - but religious rules are just that: rules for those that live by a religion. Not for everybody else.

What about thost naked baby pictures of you that your parents took?

:eek:

You just made me recover repressed memories!

My parents are pedophiles!!!!!!!

The trend continues! Because they took them of me. I have some of my daughter!!!!!!

How do we stop the cycle....

Question:

What was the size of the readership for where the cartoon was originally published?

French Editor Fired Over Muhammad Drawings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_eu/prophet_drawings;_ylt=AgkSULXMSYvXPW8vxjQAyJFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Interesting

French Editor Fired Over Muhammad Drawings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_eu/prophet_drawings;_ylt=AgkSULXMSYvXPW8vxjQAyJFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Interesting


Alright - yet ANOTHER reason why muslims should be banned from having stakes in European media - UNLESS the individual acquiring that stake swears never to let their religion play a role.

Question:

What was the size of the readership for where the cartoon was originally published?

I guess a fraction of 5.5 million*


(approx size of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark))

Alright - yet ANOTHER reason why muslims should be banned from having stakes in European media - UNLESS the individual acquiring that stake swears never to let their religion play a role.

Why just Muslims?

Why just Muslims?

Because members of other groups trying to pull this little stunt against the Freedom of Press in Europe tend to be somewhat scarce.

Closest similar thing I can recall is Robert Maxwell threathening to disciplinize sports-journalists who didn't plug his own soccerteam in his own paper.

Because members of other groups trying to pull this little stunt against the Freedom of Press in Europe tend to be somewhat scarce.


Freedom of Press is limited to those who own one - HL Mencken

(Sorry, had to get that out the way)

Do Muslim newspaper owners frequently fire being over what they consider blasphemy?

I have to admit, this is the first case I have heard of in Europe.

Freedom of Press is limited to those who own one - HL Mencken

(Sorry, had to get that out the way)

Do Muslim newspaper owners frequently fire being over what they consider blasphemy?

I have to admit, this is the first case I have heard of in Europe.

In some Muslim countries, the locals will haul you out in the street and put a bullet through your head if you've been accused of blasphemy - much less actually committed it.

Can we name any other religions who in this modern day and time get people so worked up about blasphemy that crowds form and people are lynched?

Many people seem to believe that the European countries are publishing these pictures to spite Islam. It is, in fact, to make a statement that over here we have something called "free speech". I for one really admire the solidarity shown by these countries, making it clear that they are behind Denmark on this issue.

Oh, and Nanic, you might want to cut down the flaming before you get yourself forumbanned. Just a friendly warning.

Freedom of Press is limited to those who own one - HL Mencken

(Sorry, had to get that out the way)

Do Muslim newspaper owners frequently fire being over what they consider blasphemy?

I have to admit, this is the first case I have heard of in Europe.

Nope. It's just that muslims as a community have this little tendency to go ape, pull tantrums, and otherwise rebel against the laws, customs and compacts of nations they seek to live in.

That does warrant the utmost scrutiny.
Occasionally, they don't actually fire anyone - they just go for the kill.

I guess it's basically the reason why the Kingdom of Belgium is preparing a loyalty oath for immigrants, and the Dutch are instituting a full proper-citizen-test, to be applied and passed BEFORE entry.

It's interesting and funny to know how many of you who call yourself "mature and adult-like" find it humerous when certain newspapers make fun of a Religion.

Many of you condemn the discrimination of homosexuals/women, yet not religion.

How very, very riveting.


I don't think many people find the cartoons amusing; at least I'm not one of them.

What people are appalled about is the attack on press freedom.

I don't think many people find the cartoons amusing; at least I'm not one of them.

What people are appalled about is the attack on press freedom.

I never even SAW them previous to the tantrums.
In fact, I just saw them for the first time this morning, in Le Soir, as shown on the telly.
Then again, I'm not such an avid and compulsive reader of danish newspapers as the inhabitants of the Gaza-strip, who, I'm sure, spend every day and night scrutinising every Danish newspaper they can lay hands on...

In some Muslim countries, the locals will haul you out in the street and put a bullet through your head if you've been accused of blasphemy - much less actually committed it.

And in Britain locals will haul you out into the street and kick you to death (guns are illegal here) if you have been accused of pedophillia, or mistaken for someone who has been accused of pedophilia.

What's your point?

I thought I was talking about newspaper owners in Britain.

Can we name any other religions who in this modern day and time get people so worked up about blasphemy that crowds form and people are lynched?

Christianity?

Especially in regards to abortion, abortion clinics and doctors.

And in Britain locals will haul you out into the street and kick you to death (guns are illegal here) if you have been accused of pedophillia, or mistaken for someone who has been accused of pedophilia.

What's your point?

Pedophilia seems to be a universal bad thing, but can you point to a single incident where this actually happened? Additionally, your example isn't a matter of religion - people get upset about pedophilia without any religion at all.

Someone asked if Muslim newspapers fire people for blasphemy, so I answered.

Christianity?

Especially in regards to abortion, abortion clinics and doctors.
In modern times? Can you show me an incident where Christians formed a mob and lynched an abortion clinic doctor during the riot?

A bit off-topic, but I'm reminded of the time some artist created the Ecce Homo exhibit in Sweden, where Jesus Christ is portrayed as a homosexual. A lot of feelings were stirred up by it, but we mostly just had debates around it, not violence.

Nope.

Then why should individual Muslims have to agree to your compact and not Christians (say)? Especially the fundy types, with whom I would not be surprised if they fired someone over arguing for abortion.

It's just that muslims as a community have this little tendency to go ape, pull tantrums, and otherwise rebel against the laws, customs and compacts of nations they seek to live in.

Well to look at it from their perspective. They are a minority with a strong faith, and when they see something they consider blasphemous or idolatrous it is understandable that they will get a bit upset.

As praise worthy as other papers reprinting the images may be in solidarity, to do so does kinda smack of bullying.

Also, I seriously doubt that Muslims will just randomly rebel with no provocation. Not that provocation excuses what they might do of course.

That does warrant the utmost scrutiny.
Occasionally, they don't actually fire anyone - they just go for the kill.

Evidently Islam is some kind of hive-mind I have hithero been unaware of.

Pedophilia seems to be a universal bad thing, but can you point to a single incident where this actually happened?

Yes, it happened in Britain recently. The Sun (the most odious of odious newspapers over here), ran a 'warning' to parent that a pedophille was arriving in Britain and told people to be vigilant. Due to a case of mistaken identity someone with the same name (I believe, or maybe held a physical resemblence) was beaten to death.

The editor, Rebekah Wade, also caused similar events when she edited The News of The World and published a "Who's who" of pedophiles.

I'm sorry I cannot remember the particulars. I'm looking for the link, I read the case in Private Eye, who unfortunately don't have an online archive.

Additionally, your example isn't a matter of religion - people get upset about pedophilia without any religion at all.

So? I described an aspect of culture. When the local people feel strongly about something they may do bestial things, regardless of the colour of their skin or which god they pray to.


In modern times? Can you show me an incident where Christians formed a mob and lynched an abortion clinic doctor during the riot?

Hold on a mo...

Then why should individual Muslims have to agree to your compact and not Christians (say)? Especially the fundy types, with whom I would not be surprised if they fired someone over arguing for abortion.



Well to look at it from their perspective. They are a minority with a strong faith, and when they see something they consider blasphemous or idolatrous it is understandable that they will get a bit upset.

As praise worthy as other papers reprinting the images may be in solidarity, to do so does kinda smack of bullying.

Also, I seriously doubt that Muslims will just randomly rebel with no provocation. Not that provocation excuses what they might do of course.



Evidently Islam is some kind of hive-mind I have hithero been unaware of.

Let's keep it short and simple.

It is their refusal to be simply good little boys and just follow the rules that makes that community worthy of careful scrutiny.
No offense to those who simply choose to be Europeans first, Muslims second, who define themselves as part of the European community.

Which rules? European rules. Those, and those alone.

Muslims living within the European Union have no entitlement to another perspective.

This is what the fuss is about? I hadn't seen the cartoon yet. Bit of a crappy cartoon. Not really funny at all. And thus I condemn the printing of this cartoon.
http://www.welt.de/media/pic/000/315/31509v1.jpg
Are you telling me people are offended by this picture? What is offensive are claims/implications that some Muslims will get angry and bomb the publishers.

All the muslims really wanted was to at least be respected and they consider a cartoon depicting their Mohamad as a terrorist is like depicting atheists as retards or depicting Christ as Hitler.
Like this? http://omgsecretnazijesus.ytmnd.com/

And in Britain locals will haul you out into the street and kick you to death (guns are illegal here) if you have been accused of pedophillia, or mistaken for someone who has been accused of pedophilia.
Do you truly have such a low opinion of your fellow man?

I don't understand why the Danish government didn't just offer to chop the cartoonists' hands off.

More to the point, in reaction to perceived slurs by NBC against Christians, did any Christians subsequently make terrorist attacks on NBC or the US? Or did they just whine in the press?

A conservative advocacy group accuses NBC of "hitting back" at the Christian community in an upcoming episode of "Will and Grace."

The April 13 episode will mock the crucifixion of Christ, the American Family Association said.

AFA pointed to wire reports saying that Britney Spears will make a guest appearance on the April 13 "Will and Grace," playing a conservative Christian sidekick to Sean Hayes' homosexual character, Jack.

When Jack's fictional TV network, Out TV, is bought by a Christian TV network, Spears hosts a cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's."

"To further denigrate Christianity, NBC chose to air [the episode] the night before Good Friday," AFA Founder and Chairman Donald E. Wildmon complained.

"NBC does not treat Jews, Muslims or other religions with such disrespect. Yet the network demonstrates a deep of hostility toward followers of Christ."

NBC recently cancelled a series called "The Book of Daniel," amid loud complaints from conservative Christians who saw the series as a slur on Christianity.

So, did NBC cancel because of bad publicity, or because they thought that Christian terrorists would send suicide bombers to their offices?

A side point -

If anyone ever has the chance - take a look at any Arab newspaper. Almost without exception it will contain a number of deeply offensive anti-semitic cartoons (e.g. 'Die Sturmer'-type stereotypes, blood-drinking, evil Jew characters causing Arab misery, controlling the world, etc)

I know it's not the same thing (i.e. blasphemy vs racial hatred) but I know which one I think is worse and more harmful.

Because members of other groups trying to pull this little stunt against the Freedom of Press in Europe tend to be somewhat scarce.

Closest similar thing I can recall is Robert Maxwell threathening to disciplinize sports-journalists who didn't plug his own soccerteam in his own paper.

This is so ridiculous, I don't know where to start. You do know that freedom of the press does not and is not meant to protect journalists from their bosses. I can create a newspaper that has a decidedly and completely conservative slant and NO ONE has any say in that, not even my journalists. I can own a newspaper that has a decidedly Jewish slant and NO ONE has any say in that. I have to do so within the law, but I have no obligation to let reporters, editors, etc. do anything in my newspaper that I don't like.

And take your bigotry elsewhere. I would be much more afraid of giving power to Christian fundamentalists than to Muslim fundamentalists, but mostly the problem is fundamentalists in general who cannot seperate their rights from an attempt to subjugate the rights of others.

Yes, it happened in Britain recently. The Sun (the most odious of odious newspapers over here), ran a 'warning' to parent that a pedophille was arriving in Britain and told people to be vigilant. Due to a case of mistaken identity someone with the same name (I believe, or maybe held a physical resemblence) was beaten to death.

The editor, Rebekah Wade, also caused similar events when she edited The News of The World and published a "Who's who" of pedophiles.

I'm sorry I cannot remember the particulars. I'm looking for the link, I read the case in Private Eye, who unfortunately don't have an online archive.

Do you truly have such a low opinion of your fellow man?

Unfortunately, my opinion is irrelevent in the light of fact.

Also searching for the link turned up another amusing (not for the person involved obviously) story about a paeditrician who had to flee her home from an illiterate mob.

Unfortunately I couldn't find it online, I'll have a look roun my room for the relevent edition.

In modern times? Can you show me an incident where Christians formed a mob and lynched an abortion clinic doctor during the riot?Hold on a mo...


http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011206waagner1206p6.asp
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

And take your racism elsewhere. I would be much more afraid of giving power to Christian fundamentalists than to Muslim fundamentalists.
After all, when was the last time that Christian Fundamentalists shot a woman in the head in a soccer stadium for the "crime" of listening to music?:rolleyes:

Unfortunately I couldn't find it online, I'll have a look roun my room for the relevent edition.

Just when I was about to give up hope.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/murdered-australian-resembled-paedophile/2005/08/20/1124435174507.html

2. This is so ridiculous, I don't know where to start. You do know that freedom of the press does not and is not meant to protect journalists from their bosses. I can create a newspaper that has a decidedly and completely conservative slant and NO ONE has any say in that, not even my journalists. I can own a newspaper that has a decidedly Jewish slant and NO ONE has any say in that. I have to do so within the law, but I have no obligation to let reporters, editors, etc. do anything in my newspaper that I don't like.

1. And take your bigotry elsewhere. I would be much more afraid of giving power to Christian fundamentalists than to Muslim fundamentalists, but mostly the problem is fundamentalists in general who cannot seperate their rights from an attempt to subjugate the rights of others.


1. How many Christians Fundamentalists are there in... Europe?

2. A nice sophistry. Unfortunately, quite apart from such things as labour laws in Europe, there is also a little thing called a Directive by the EU-Commission that outlaws firing over political or religious differences.
You may neither HIRE nor FIRE based on that.

Europe is not the Gaza Strip, and it is not the US Bible Belt either.

Just when I was about to give up hope.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/murdered-australian-resembled-paedophile/2005/08/20/1124435174507.html
Even atheists can hate pedophiles.

I'd like to confine this to religious reaction to perceived blasphemy.

It's interesting and funny to know how many of you who call yourself "mature and adult-like" find it humerous when certain newspapers make fun of a Religion.

Many of you condemn the discrimination of homosexuals/women, yet not religion.

How very, very riveting.


Greetings TGM

To your info I might add that the drawings not were made to make fun af anybody, allthough that seems too be what you think.

They were made as a part of a freespeech discussion following the murder of Theo Van Something, in Holland, and related to the release of a book (in Denmark, about Islam) that nobody dared too illustrate in fear of their lives.

We in Denmark are not used too been threatened for debating ANY topic.
Therefore it was, for the newspaper, a relevant debate.

Please remember that in Denmark the goverment can´t in any way intervene nor decide what the papers write nor print. Thats simply the law!

We have blasphemy laws and anti racism laws and any case can be tried before a jugde, but nobody did that!!!

The tenet of free speech is funded deep in our society and protected by law, therefore evrything is up for discussion by everybody

I can see why some feel offended but tell me: What do you think the Danish people think when they see Muslims burning their flag and portraits of their primeminister, while yelling out that Islam will be the death of Denmark?

Wouldn´t that offend them too and if yes? is that OK

It seems like a thin red line here that some can cross and some can´t, thats not acceptable from my point of wiev

Greetings

No offense to those who simply choose to be Europeans first, Muslims second, who define themselves as part of the European community.


However, I really don't think it is sensible to alienate those Muslims who are European first, by printing pictures you know they will find offensive.

To be honest, really this whole story should have finished on the day the Danish paper printed the cartoons. That can simply be chalked up to cultural insensitivity. But a Europe-wide reprinting could understandably make Muslims feel victimised and make European muslims become muslims without the prefix.

Even atheists can hate pedophiles.

I'd like to confine this to religious reaction to perceived blasphemy.

Next time you ask me to back up something I claimed, could you tell me in advance you will simply dismiss it to save me the trouble of bothering to mess about on google?

Next time you ask me to back up something I claimed, could you tell me in advance you will simply dismiss it to save me the trouble of bothering to mess about on google?
Well, find the Christians rioting and lynching someone at an abortion clinic, in modern times then.

They were made as a part of a freespeech discussion following the murder of Theo Van Something,

Van Gogh.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the name somewhere else ¬_¬.

Well, find the Christians rioting and lynching someone at an abortion clinic, in modern times then.

I have.

After all, when was the last time that Christian Fundamentalists shot a woman in the head in a soccer stadium for the "crime" of listening to music?:rolleyes:

Yes, because that is the only problem there is, yes? When was the last time Christian fundamentalists denied rights to a portion of their population? When was the last time Christian fundamentalists blew up an abortion clinic or attack an abortion doctor? How about the rape of little boys by priests? Does that ever happen? How about forcing unmarried mothers to give up their children? Ever heard of a couple of Christian fundamentalists doing that to their daughter? I think the real question is when will they stop?

How about other types of fundamentalists? Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, etc.

2. A nice sophistry. Unfortunately, quite apart from such things as labour laws in Europe, there is also a little thing called a Directive by the EU-Commission that outlaws firing over political or religious differences.
You may neither HIRE nor FIRE based on that.

Europe is not the Gaza Strip, and it is not the US Bible Belt either.
And the french journalist that was fired was not fired for bieng of a particular religion nor political affiliation. He was fired for publishing something the owner / editor didn't want in his newspaper.

Freedom of the press was respected, the cartoon was published. Now the journalist faces the consequences: the backlash in public opinion made him loose his job.

Van Gogh.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the name somewhere else ¬_¬.


Sorry, just to make tensions fall a bitt:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have all reprinted the controversial Mohammed cartoons that appeared in a Danish newpaper and caused so much controversy in the muslim world.

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.

_________________________

My country (Norway) are (as almost every other European countries) giving alot of money to build schools, hospitals etc around in the middel east. But they suddently ''forget'' all our support and begins to burn flag/banners and threaten us with terror, all this beacouse of some pictures in a very small news paper.
Well, if they dont wanna have anything with us to do, I gues that they does not want any money from us either?
I dont want my tax money to buy the weapon that eventually kill me.

Sorry, just to make tensions fall a bitt:)

I'm glad you took it the way I intended it, as a bit of joke :)

Yes, because that is the only problem there is, yes? When was the last time Christian fundamentalists denied rights to a portion of their population? When was the last time Christian fundamentalists blew up an abortion clinic or attack an abortion doctor? How about the rape of little boys by priests? Does that ever happen? How about forcing unmarried mothers to give up their children? Ever heard of a couple of Christian fundamentalists doing that to their daughter? I think the real question is when will they stop?

How about other types of fundamentalists? Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, etc.


Tell me, of the proportion of terrorist attacks around the world, who gets the majority share? There's a common adage that is quite true - if you're in a place where a bomb goes off, and you're not in the United States, Colombia, or Sri Lanka, odds are that a Muslim set it off.

Do animal rights fundamentalists get the lion's share of terrorist attacks in the US? The new trend in the US is away from Christian Fundamentalist wackos doing violence (their supporters get sued to pieces - witness what happened to the Christian Identity movement - it's bankrupt and scattered to the wind now). Now the animal rights fundies are at it - burning, wrecking, and in some cases, killing.

I'm glad you took it the way I intended it, as a bit of joke :)


Course I did, nice to have a debate in a friendly tone

Greetings

1. However, I really don't think it is sensible to alienate those Muslims who are European first, by printing pictures you know they will find offensive.

2. To be honest, really this whole story should have finished on the day the Danish paper printed the cartoons.3. That can simply be chalked up to cultural insensitivity. 4. But a Europe-wide reprinting could understandably make Muslims feel victimised and make European muslims become muslims without the prefix.

1. No one ordered them to look. I did not look either. It was shown on TV this morning, or I would never ever have seen them at all.
2. True. But THEY did choose not to let the matter finish.
3. There is neither a right nor an obligation to cultural sensitivity. If there were such a right, I'd appeal to it to demand the ban on ALL stereotyping that demands me to be part of any ethnic community. I have 4 grandparents of 4 different ethnic origins, and I find the damned real life questioning as to what is my ethnicity quite appaling. My personal opinion? Sod all the hyphenation and all its proponents!
4. see 3! I completely concur with Teddy Roosevelt:
There is no place for the hyphen in our citizenship... We are a nation, not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities. We are a people, and not a polyglot boarding house.

You, and everyone else! has no business hyphenating anyone!

It isnt about offending anyone else.

Yes it is. The Islamic world does not have the right not to be offended


It is about the amazing way all of you self rightgeous twits presume some superiority in insulting another's culture.

Please, the vast majority of European satire is self directed.


The have the audacity to get indignant when called to task on it.

So freedom of speech should be restricted to prevent peoples feelings from being hurt


Europe is in no way superior to the middle east

Thats exceptionally debateable. I dont mean that Islamic cultrue is better or worse than European, but in Europe we have developed and applied human rights. We can worship whatever God we want and can vote etc. Many of the Arab nations refuse to accept these principles.


Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

No one said they were


The cartoon is pointless, if not just a little funny looking.

The cartoon is an exercise in freedom of the press


There is nothing impressive about "high fiving" over having a large section of the planet

Wow, you pissed people off by insulting their religion, how very open minded pluralistic and cosmopolitian of you.

Volitare - fight against what they say, fight for freedom to say it (paraphrase)


I see why the world should desire to be like that, apathetic and self absorbed.

Dare we dream of a day when the whole world doesnt give a damn at all about the feelings of anyone else.

Freedom of speech should not be limited to that which doesnt upset people


Then you wonder why these nuts blow themselves up----because they dont matter, and eveyone one of you proves that.

Frankly if anyone blows themself up because they got upset by a cartoon, they really are sad and stupid and need to develop a thicker skin.

1. How many Christians Fundamentalists are there in... Europe?

2. A nice sophistry. Unfortunately, quite apart from such things as labour laws in Europe, there is also a little thing called a Directive by the EU-Commission that outlaws firing over political or religious differences.
You may neither HIRE nor FIRE based on that.

Unless it's part of your directive. You're not actually claiming that I can't fire a conservative from a liberal advocacy group? You're not actually claiming that I can't fire a Muslim from a Catholic church? You're not actually claiming that I can't fire a Catholic from a paper designed to spread Atheist principles?

More importantly, this paper didn't fire him for political or religious differences. The paper fired him because he wasn't performing in the way the owner desired. He is permitted to have his own views on his own time, but he simply isn't permitted to write whatever he likes. She me a law that says that I can't fire someone for not doing their job as defined by the owner of the company.

Europe is not the Gaza Strip, and it is not the US Bible Belt either.
Yes, Europe has no fundamentalists. Uh-huh. I'm trying to think, are there any countries in Europe where people kill each other over religious differences. Any at all?

Someone hasn't been to Ireland.

Yes, Europe has no fundamentalists. Uh-huh. I'm trying to think, are there any countries in Europe where people kill each other over religious differences. Any at all?

Someone hasn't been to Ireland.

Ireland is about political diferences. It has been exasopated by religion but its primarly politcal. Also there hasnt been any major incidents involving the IRA for some time now. I hear Americans talk about the war in Ireland and I really dont think they know what they are talking about.

Tell me, of the proportion of terrorist attacks around the world, who gets the majority share? There's a common adage that is quite true - if you're in a place where a bomb goes off, and you're not in the United States, Colombia, or Sri Lanka, odds are that a Muslim set it off.

Um, depends on what you count as terrorist attacks. If you look at the past twenty years, England and Spain have bigger fish to fry than Muslims in terms of the percentage of attacks. How about Bosnians? KKK?

Do animal rights fundamentalists get the lion's share of terrorist attacks in the US? The new trend in the US is away from Christian Fundamentalist wackos doing violence (their supporters get sued to pieces - witness what happened to the Christian Identity movement - it's bankrupt and scattered to the wind now). Now the animal rights fundies are at it - burning, wrecking, and in some cases, killing.

Uh-huh. Someone is only looking at what evidence they want to see.

What is more likely is that we have a very fundamentalist government that WANTS to find someone else responsible for attacks than Christian fundamentalists. Quick question - why was SOOOOOO much of the information hidden in relation to Timothy McVeigh? Any answers to that little enigma?

1. No one ordered them to look. I did not look either. It was shown on TV this morning, or I would never ever have seen them at all.

True.

But it is a bit far fetched to claim that those doing the reprinting didn't anticipate a Muslim backlash. Same with the editor who lost his job. Even though I don't think he should be fired, he must have at least been prepared for the eventuality given that he, had a Muslim boss and everything.

2. True. But THEY did choose not to let the matter finish.

They secretely inserted the cartoons into European papers the next day so that they could get annoyed?

Ye Gods!

3. There is neither a right nor an obligation to cultural sensitivity. If there were such a right,

I never said otherwise, which is why I simply stated it and moved on.

4. see 3! I completely concur with Teddy Roosevelt:
There is no place for the hyphen in our citizenship... We are a nation, not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities. We are a people, and not a polyglot boarding house.


I never realised I used any hyphens.

Nevermind the fact that we are a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities.

Ireland is about political diferences. It has been exasopated by religion but its primarly politcal. Also there hasnt been any major incidents involving the IRA for some time now. I hear Americans talk about the war in Ireland and I really dont think they know what they are talking about.

Really? So when that war was going full tilt, would I have been in danger if I walked into Ireland wearing a I love Protestantism t-shirt? Almost all fundamentalist wars are ACTUALLY about politics. They simply get the masses whipped up by tying in religion. The Isreali-Palestine conflict is really about politics, but that doesn't change why people are involved in it.

Yes it is. The Islamic world does not have the right not to be offended

Likewise, the publishers of the cartoon do not have the right to be free from responsibility of publishing those rather tame cartoons.

Frankly if anyone blows themself up because they got upset by a cartoon, they really are sad and stupid and need to develop a thicker skin.

Wars have started over less

Though the issue is far bigger than just a cartoon.

Ireland is about political diferences. It has been exasopated by religion but its primarly politcal. Also there hasnt been any major incidents involving the IRA for some time now. I hear Americans talk about the war in Ireland and I really dont think they know what they are talking about.

Religion

Protestants Vs. Catholics

Why do they think a Reverand is in charge of the DUP?

Religion

Protestants Vs. Catholics

Why do they think a Reverand is in charge of the DUP?

I believe you are right. As I understand it the troubles began because the DUP refused to accept transubstantiation.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Patrick Henry

Learn more about Patrick Henry by visiting these links:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/henry.htm
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Patrick Henry


Shume mishtake shurley?

Religion

Protestants Vs. Catholics

Why do they think a Reverand is in charge of the DUP?

Like I said, religion is an element of it but not the whole story

Its is Unionists (People who want to unite Ireland) and the Loyalists (People who are loyal to the united kingdom). Those who are loyal to the UK generally are Protestant and the Unionists generally are Catholic but that distinction is not universal and is only enforced upon by those members of the extreme wings of the groups.

I believe you are right. As I understand it the troubles began because the DUP refused to accept transubstantiation.

No. Its about politics. About whether NI is under British rule, or ruled as part of a united Ireland. Religion comes into it but it is one element of a much larger problem.

Like I said, religion is an element of it but not the whole story

Its is Unionists (People who want to unite Ireland) and the Loyalists (People who are loyal to the united kingdom). Those who are loyal to the UK generally are Protestant and the Unionists generally are Catholic but that distinction is not universal and is only enforced upon by those members of the extreme wings of the groups.

Not to mention the cultural and 'historical' baggage each side brings to the conflict.

No. Its about politics. About whether NI is under British rule, or ruled as part of a united Ireland. Religion comes into it but it is one element of a much larger problem.

Sarcasm, I'd like you to meet Adriatica.

Adriatica, say hello to Sarcasm.

Likewise, the publishers of the cartoon do not have the right to be free from responsibility of publishing those rather tame cartoons.

Yes they do. Its called freedom of the press. The only case that can be called into question is if the press are actually lieing. Since this is clearly an opinion it cannot be seen as lying


Wars have started over less

Though the issue is far bigger than just a cartoon.

The issue is that there is a group of people in the world who cannot/do not have the following

- Accept ridicule
- Accept that there is a group of people who do not agree with them
- Have a sense of humour about themselves

Sarcasm, I'd like you to meet Adriatica.

Adriatica, say hello to Sarcasm.

Sarcasm does not come across well on the internet. Since it requires a voice tone.

Yes they do. Its called freedom of the press.

So the press are not responsible for events caused by what they have printed?


The issue is that there is a group of people in the world who cannot/do not have the following

- Accept ridicule
- Accept that there is a group of people who do not agree with them
- Have a sense of humour about themselves

True. And since piss taking is such an intrinsic part of out societies I think it would be better if we started smaller than commiting one of the worst blasphemies (in their book).

Though I have to admit I also cried from laughing when I say the cartoons, thinking "What? All this fuss over that?" If your going to blaspheme, do it properly.

Sarcasm does not come across well on the internet. Since it requires a voice tone.

No, it doesn't. I read the sarcasm in his statement and I find sarcasm to be quite entertaining on the forums by people whose voices I've NEVER heard.

Sarcasm does not come across well on the internet. Since it requires a voice tone.

Absurdity just doesn't cut it then?

I honestly have no idea how you thought I was being serious with whole transubstantiation thing.

Ideal solution to this:

In response to the cartoons, a middle eastern newspaper should print similar cartoons charicaturing Jesus in a similarly offensive way which attacks the followers.

Hopefully the same papers across Europe reprint these cartoons to prove that they aren't they aren't targetting Islam, and that they will respect free speech regardless of who is being satired. Christians of course get into a huff about it, but don't boycott, burn flags or attack embassys just because of a silly little unfunny cartoon.

It's nothing to do with Islam in itself which makes the followers so thin skinned, it's just that muslims aren't used to criticism of their prophet so much. People were just as angry when papers first started to satire Christianity - nowadays all but the fundamentalists have gotten used to it and are more chilled out.

Yes that will show those filthy MUslims!!!
How dare they take pride in their own religion and culture in the face of Eurocentric ridicule.
Do they not understand that they are backwards?

Are they blind to the fact that it is the enlightened open minded Western European way to piss all over a culture and then dilute it until it becomes a shallow and pale husk of its former self
DAMN IT you dogged towel head bastards!!
COnform Conform Conform......


Why dont you go goose step your Eurocentric self rightgeous ass off a cliff.

let's just hope this doesn't turn terrorism up a notch

It's nothing to do with Islam in itself which makes the followers so thin skinned, it's just that muslims aren't used to criticism of their prophet so much. People were just as angry when papers first started to satire Christianity - nowadays all but the fundamentalists have gotten used to it and are more chilled out.

Well there are signs of change. According to the BBC a Jordinian paper did reprint the cartoons along with an editorial saying "Muslims of the world be reasonable. What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

Like any change in a culture, it'll take time though.

Another interesting thing I didn't know before, when France Soir reprinted the cartoons they also pictured Buddhist, Christian and Jewish holy figures saying "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."

I fail to see any problem,we do so with jesus, whyever not Mohammed?

Question:

What was the size of the readership for where the cartoon was originally published?

According to here (http://www1.jp.dk/info/about_jyllands-posten.htm)

Jyllands-Posten is read by more than 670,000 people on weekdays and 790,000 on Sundays,

I fail to see any problem,we do so with jesus, whyever not Mohammed?

All things in moderation.

We should piss on there culture before shitting on it.

All things in moderation.

We should piss on there culture before shitting on it.


I agree on the moderation stuff, but the pissing seems unnessecarily.

I would like too hear your comment to my first post.

I agree on the moderation stuff, but the pissing seems unnessecarily.

Sorry, being rather opaque. Trying to say we shouldn't go straight to blasphemy (no matter how easy or tempting it may be.)

I would like too hear your comment to my first post.

I would say I broadly agree with what you say

Sorry, being rather opaque. Trying to say we shouldn't go straight to blasphemy (no matter how easy or tempting it may be.)



I would say I broadly agree with what you say


Broadly meaning?

I agree with one of the previous posters that muslims should not be allowed a stake in European media. The sacking of the Soir editor shows that it's far too dangerous to allow them to dictate what newpapers say when it's inevitable that they'll abuse their position for the sake of their religion.

I agree with one of the previous posters that muslims should not be allowed a stake in European media. The sacking of the Soir editor shows that it's far too dangerous to allow them to dictate what newpapers say when it's inevitable that they'll abuse their position for the sake of their religion.


Well, the quest is not letting anybody dictate the free press - whatever their believ nor origin.

In that way everybodys free to make up their own mind

I agree with one of the previous posters that muslims should not be allowed a stake in European media. The sacking of the Soir editor shows that it's far too dangerous to allow them to dictate what newpapers say when it's inevitable that they'll abuse their position for the sake of their religion.

It's not an abuse of position. People who own a paper are permitted to decide what message that paper sends and where that paper draws lines.

I agree with one of the previous posters that muslims should not be allowed a stake in European media. The sacking of the Soir editor shows that it's far too dangerous to allow them to dictate what newpapers say when it's inevitable that they'll abuse their position for the sake of their religion.

Quite.

Broadly meaning?

The main thrust of what you say.

I agree with one of the previous posters that muslims should not be allowed a stake in European media. The sacking of the Soir editor shows that it's far too dangerous to allow them to dictate what newpapers say when it's inevitable that they'll abuse their position for the sake of their religion.

Dangerous? The editor must have known that his boss was a Muslim and that he risked his job. It was hardly out of the blue or arbitrary, and doesn't really constitute abuse. Almost all press owners would do the same if they were gravely insulted probably.

(Though I don't think he should have been fired)

Dammit, where are all those libertarians that usually scream "Take responsibility for your actions" in cases like this?

It's not an abuse of position. People who own a paper are permitted to decide what message that paper sends and where that paper draws lines.
I realise that, but the fact that the owner can decide what message the paper puts across is exactly the reason why muslims should not be allowed a stake. They'll only use the paper to further islam, so it's in the interests of the people of Europe to ban them from owning the media.

They'll only use the paper to further islam,

Oh noes!

Next you'll be telling me conservatives will use papers to futher conservatism, and liberals will just futher liberalism.

If you don't try to treat other peoples as your equals, then you are inferior. If you believe that you are superior to another person, then you are, in fact, that person's inferior. If you think that your language and/or culture is superior, than you are inferior.

And that is exactly how a radical Muslim is taught to see me.

Oh noes!

Next you'll be telling me conservatives will use papers to futher conservatism, and liberals will just futher liberalism.
Liberalism and conservatism aren't dangers to society. Islam is dangerous, as we have seen in the last few years.

Avika
All the muslims really wanted was to at least be respected and they consider a cartoon depicting their Mohamad as a terrorist is like depicting atheists as retards or depicting Christ as Hitler.

Like this? http://omgsecretnazijesus.ytmnd.com/


The YTMND pic seems to miss out the original caption, which is (IIRC), "Your cross isn't heavy enough" and was anti-Nazi propaganda, not anti-Jesus.

Liberalism and conservatism aren't dangers to society. Islam is dangerous, as we have seen in the last few years.

If it is indeed so dangerous to society it really is amazing that if has been a very successful culture with successful societies for over a millennia.

Or of course you could actually show how it is inherently dangerous to society.

It really is sad to see you dislike freedom of speech so much.

I realise that, but the fact that the owner can decide what message the paper puts across is exactly the reason why muslims should not be allowed a stake. They'll only use the paper to further islam, so it's in the interests of the people of Europe to ban them from owning the media.

It's in the interest of Europe to practice bigotry to subjugate the freedom of the press and freedom of speech? What an interesting perspective. And by interesting, I mean ridiculous and embarassing.

Liberalism and conservatism aren't dangers to society. Islam is dangerous, as we have seen in the last few years.

Radical ANYTHING is dangerous. ALF, KKK, Al Queda, Hammas, PLA, etc. However, you wish to secure freedoms by denying freedoms to certain peoples. It's a ridiculous principle. People aren't a buffet where each freedom can pick and choose to whom they apply. Either freedom is applied equally or it's not freedom. It's slavery, albeit a form restricted to certain freedoms and peoples, but slavery nonetheless.

It's in the interest of Europe to practice bigotry to subjugate the freedom of the press and freedom of speech? What an interesting perspective. And by interesting, I mean ridiculous and embarassing.

Because we all know that legally discriminating against them and systematically labelling their culture as "dangerous" will make them love us and live peacefully.

Liberalism and conservatism aren't dangers to society. Islam is dangerous, as we have seen in the last few years.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to not find large groups of people who disagree with one or all parts of that statement.

Because we all know that legally discriminating against them and systematically labelling their culture as "dangerous" will make them love us and live peacefully.

When Europeans did that to the Jews, the Jews left.

So, one might say that the Europeans were rewarded for their behavior - they got what they wanted, even if it did mean that other nations bombed the crap out of Europe for a while.

Hard to argue that it didn't work.

When Europeans did that to the Jews, the Jews left.

So, one might say that the Europeans were rewarded for their behavior - they got what they wanted, even if it did mean that other nations bombed the crap out of Europe for a while.

Hard to argue that it didn't work.

We know not of this 'Europe' that you speak of

Because we all know that legally discriminating against them and systematically labelling their culture as "dangerous" will make them love us and live peacefully.

Shhh... if we stand up and say something about ridiculous the concept is, we will be labelled dangerous and next thing you know we won't be allowed to own newspapers or hold jobs or such things. Where can I find an example of that in history? Oh, wait, that's what McCarthyism was. Boy, oh, boy, that was a proud time. Europe should return to the exact mentality that resulted in the Taliban in the first place. What a brilliant maneuver that would be.

Because we all know that legally discriminating against them and systematically labelling their culture as "dangerous" will make them love us and live peacefully.
They're going to hate us anyway so the way I figure we might as well give them something to hate us for. At least this way if they hate us so much that they can't stand to live around us then there's a good chance they may end up leaving of their own accord. They're only a threat because we bothered letting them in in the first place.

It's bad enough having to put up with the conformism of one's own country without being made to adhere to middle eastern traditions as well.

At least this way if they hate us so much that they can't stand to live around us then there's a good chance they may end up leaving of their own accord.

Because they wouldn't dare try anything else to - umm - 'stop us living near them' (nudge nudge wink wink).

They're only a threat because we bothered letting them in in the first place.

Because Muslims and Christians cannot live side by side without one or the other (or both blowing up)?

It's bad enough having to put up with the conformism of one's own country without being made to adhere to middle eastern traditions as well.

Well I don't know about anyone else. But I can't draw for shit anyway, so the "No pictures of the prophet" rule will be easy to keep.

They're going to hate us anyway so the way I figure we might as well give them something to hate us for. At least this way if they hate us so much that they can't stand to live around us then there's a good chance they may end up leaving of their own accord. They're only a threat because we bothered letting them in in the first place.

Wow. Just wow. "They are not like me. They must be evil." Not all Muslim, not even most Muslims are violent or dangerous. They are not mostly fundamentalists and most Muslims believe in freedom and peace. It's amusing that everyone here is against the radical Muslim practice of denying rights to groups of people, but are so eager to practice the denial of rights against all Muslims (not just the ones who are guilty of such practices). Nice little "if you can't beat them join them" strategy you got there. Perhaps next you'll be strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up grocery stores.

The entire mentality of "some of them are dangerous so I should be permitted to deny all of them rights" is inherently dangerous and sadly bigotted. It's precisely the mentality that leads to the idea of eradicating the infidels and the precisely the mentality used to inspire support of corrup regimes during the cold war. I'd like to think that in fifty years we've advanced. Apparently it is your hope that Europe hasn't.

How dare they?!? They tried to get us to subjugate the freedoms of our citizens simply because of their particular religious/political leanings. How dare they?!? I know. I know. The way we can teach them a lesson is to ... subjugatte the freedoms of our citizens simply because of their particular religious/political leanings... but in a different way than they said. That'll teach them.

Because they wouldn't dare try anything else to - umm - 'stop us living near them' (nudge nudge wink wink).
If you're referring to the extremeists who would end up fighting us, that's not much of a problem. They make up only a tiny percentage of the muslim population, at least in Britain. If the more moderate muslims ended up leaving then the remaining extremeists would be easily eliminated by the police and army. Particularly as people in this country aren't armed anyway.

Because Muslims and Christians cannot live side by side without one or the other (or both blowing up)?
History has shown that different groups of people can only exist peacefully among each other when one side is brutally oppressing the other successfully. When those two groups of people try and live side by side on equal terms it nearly always ends in conflict. I don't know about you, but I don't want my homeland to end up like the Balkans.

Well I don't know about anyone else. But I can't draw for shit anyway, so the "No pictures of the prophet" rule will be easy to keep.

You could draw a random squiggle and say it was Mohammed.

If you're referring to the extremeists who would end up fighting us, that's not much of a problem. They make up only a tiny percentage of the muslim population, at least in Britain. If the more moderate muslims ended up leaving then the remaining extremeists would be easily eliminated by the police and army. Particularly as people in this country aren't armed anyway.

Yep, not as if legal and social discrimination breeds extremism and hate or anything.

However, your almost psychopathic concern to removed Muslims from society, even if it entail the death and suffering of innocents hardly helps your case.

History has shown that different groups of people can only exist peacefully among each other when one side is brutally oppressing the other successfully.

Bollocks it does.

You could draw a random squiggle and say it was Mohammed.

Do you really think the Middle East is ready for modern art?

If you're referring to the extremeists who would end up fighting us, that's not much of a problem. They make up only a tiny percentage of the muslim population, at least in Britain. If the more moderate muslims ended up leaving then the remaining extremeists would be easily eliminated by the police and army. Particularly as people in this country aren't armed anyway.

Ok, so now you won't just settle with encouraging them to leave. You're willing to 'eliminate' the dissentors. Glad to see you showing those stripes.

History has shown that different groups of people can only exist peacefully among each other when one side is brutally oppressing the other successfully. When those two groups of people try and live side by side on equal terms it nearly always ends in conflict. I don't know about you, but I don't want my homeland to end up like the Balkans.

No, you'd rather your homeland just throw out the idea of freedom and equality and kill anyone who doesn't think like them. How pleasant.

History has shown that different groups of people can only exist peacefully among each other when one side is brutally oppressing the other successfully. When those two groups of people try and live side by side on equal terms it nearly always ends in conflict. I don't know about you, but I don't want my homeland to end up like the Balkans.
Well, the EU would kinda put pay to that theory.

You could draw a random squiggle and say it was Mohammed.
You're forgetting the magic of stick figures. BTW, this is not Muhammad. It's a totally controversy-free arab dude taking a little ride.

http://i1.tinypic.com/n2juoh.jpg

Marvel at the wonder that is my art!

Ok, so now you won't just settle with encouraging them to leave. You're willing to 'eliminate' the dissentors. Glad to see you showing those stripes.
When I was referring to the people who fight, I didn't mean dissenters. I meant people with guns, terrorists. Those who use violence.

Well, the EU would kinda put pay to that theory.
The cultural differences in Europe are far less pronounced as those between the west and the islamic world. And the peoples of the EU aren't intending to conquer us.

You're forgetting the magic of stick figures. BTW, this is not Muhammad. It's a totally controversy-free arab dude taking a little ride.

http://i1.tinypic.com/n2juoh.jpg

Marvel at the wonder that is my art!

I believe you ride on top of the hump :p

I believe you ride on top of the hump :p
It's stretching the screen all out of shape, so I'm gonna delete it. Maybe you could do the same.

When I was referring to the people who fight, I didn't mean dissenters. I meant people with guns, terrorists. Those who use violence.

I think you mean those that defend themselves.

After all, the side you are positioning yourself on is using violence in a far more dramatic way.

The cultural differences in Europe are far less pronounced as those between the west and the islamic world. And the peoples of the EU aren't intending to conquer us.

So when you say "different groups of people" you actually mean "differently coloured groups of people?"

The cultural differences in Europe are far less pronounced as those between the west and the islamic world. And the peoples of the EU aren't intending to conquer us.

Thats not what you said though was it:

History has shown that different groups of people can only exist peacefully among each other when one side is brutally oppressing the other successfully.

Also, the US or Canada as it is today would counter that argument.

In other words; stop talking out of your arse.

Hang on...the original cartoons were published on the 30th of September.

I thought this was some recent thing. How come it's only become an issue now?

And apparently the BBC are to broadcast them (source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=375956&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490)). Good

Here's the crazy part... Europeans (not as a group but individual European countries) have had a stake in genocide and imperialism in the past century or less. The history of violence in Europe and by Europeans easily rivals that of the Middle East and by Middle Easterners. The influence Europe and Europeans have had on violence easily outdoes the Middle East and Middle Easterners. Does this make Europe or Europeans bad people? Not in my opinion. Because those incidents are being corrected and Europe and Europeans are moving away from such actions and the thought processes that led to such actions. -Somewhere- would have Europeans return to such behaviors and not just step off the path but completely destroy it and go back to the mentality of if they're not like us then we don't have to respect their rights. Disgusting.

Thats not what you said though was it:
You misinterpreted me. What I meant was that it's better if they're not in this country in the first place. Then brutally oppressing them wouldn't be necessary as they wouldn't be here.

Also, the US or Canada as it is today would counter that argument.

In other words; stop talking out of your arse.
The only reason thye haven't had too much trouble yet is because, despite the high intake of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds, neither countries are yet at the point where the immigrant populations are starting to outnumber everybody else. It's got to that point in some US cities, but not the country as a whole. It's when they start outnumbering us that the problems start, and I'd rather prevent that from happening.

Hang on...the original cartoons were published on the 30th of September.

I thought this was some recent thing. How come it's only become an issue now?

And apparently the BBC are to broadcast them (source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=375956&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490)). Good
Because a norwegian paper reprinted them last week and it caught the eyes of influential people this time.

Here's the crazy part... Europeans (not as a group but individual European countries) have had a stake in genocide and imperialism in the past century or less. The history of violence in Europe and by Europeans easily rivals that of the Middle East and by Middle Easterners. The influence Europe and Europeans have had on violence easily outdoes the Middle East and Middle Easterners. Does this make Europe or Europeans bad people? Not in my opinion. Because those incidents are being corrected and Europe and Europeans are moving away from such actions and the thought processes that led to such actions. -Somewhere- would have Europeans return to such behaviors and not just step off the path but completely destroy it and go back to the mentality of if they're not like us then we don't have to respect their rights. Disgusting.
What do you mean "we don't have to respect their rights"? What right was violated? Is there a right not to be offended? I've never heard of such a thing.

Hang on...the original cartoons were published on the 30th of September.

I know. Which is why I said that the reprinting of them was the main mistake, not the original printinh

I thought this was some recent thing. How come it's only become an issue now?

Slow newsweek? The editor of the Soir wanted a change of career?

What do you mean "we don't have to respect their rights"? What right was violated? Is there a right not to be offended? I've never heard of such a thing.

-Somewhere- wants to not allow them to have any stake in European media (no ownership) and wants to force them out Europe. I was referring to that.

-Somewhere- wants to not allow them to have any stake in European media (no ownership) and wants to force them out Europe. I was referring to that.
Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You misinterpreted me. What I meant was that it's better if they're not in this country in the first place. Then brutally oppressing them wouldn't be necessary as they wouldn't be here.


Oh like some 'cleansing' needs to be done then. Some 'purifying' perhaps?


The only reason thye haven't had too much trouble yet is because, despite the high intake of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds, neither countries are yet at the point where the immigrant populations are starting to outnumber everybody else. It's got to that point in some US cities, but not the country as a whole. It's when they start outnumbering us that the problems start, and I'd rather prevent that from happening.

Yet 1/3 of USians are Hispanic in origin.