NationStates Jolt Archive

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.


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.

What are you talking about? Both countries are almost entirely immigrant. Or are you only talking about first-generations, because in that case they don't outnumber in Europe either, at all, in any way.

In the US, latin immigrants, first-generation, represent nearly 7% of the entire population of the US (this only counts legal immigrants). About half have arrived in the last decade. Looks like we have a pretty serious immigration level here in the US. Wonder what you would find when you consider all other first-generation immigrants.

Because a norwegian paper reprinted them last week and it caught the eyes of influential people this time.
They reprinted them on the 10th of January.

I don't really get why, if this is so outragreous, it took the Saudis (who were the first to withdraw an ambassador...on the 26th) so long to care...

Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It was unclear. I'm glad you asked and gave me the opportunity to clarify.

Yet 1/3 of USians are Hispanic in origin.
As far as I know, a lot of those of Hispanic origin are of Spanish or Portugese origin, who came from Europe and integrated along with rest of the European settlers.

They reprinted them on the 10th of January.

I don't really get why, if this is so outragreous, it took the Saudis (who were the first to withdraw an ambassador...on the 26th) so long to care...
IIRC, the various Muslim government demanded sanctions, excuses and other gestures from the European governments. When the governments didn't do anything (which I agree with), then the diplomats got yanked and the controversy ensued.

As far as I know, a lot of those of Hispanic origin are of Spanish or Portugese origin, who came from Europe and integrated along with rest of the European settlers.
I live in Trenton, NJ. Whites comprise somewhere around 20% of the population IIRC. The rest are mainly black folks and hispanics. Most of our hispanics are of Carribian, Mexican, or Central American origin. Not Spaniards or Portugese. I'm not sure what the numbers are elsewhere in the US, but I'd wager that Spaniards and Portugese are a small minority of the total hispanic poplation.

As far as I know, a lot of those of Hispanic origin are of Spanish or Portugese origin, who came from Europe and integrated along with rest of the European settlers.

Ridiculous. So your claim is that only 'certain kinds' of immigrants are the problem. Evidence please?

In the US 20% of the population is foreign-born. 7% were born in Mexico and latin-american countries. This is not including illegal immigrants. This is also not including second- and third-generation immigrants. Your claims are specious and unsupported.

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2002_census.asp

Yet 1/3 of USians are Hispanic in origin.

Well it's rather simplistic to label them Hispanic-Americans as that term is more for Mexicans. It's also mainly used in Texas and Florida. In California Latino/a is used more.

Well it's rather simplistic to label them Hispanic-Americans as that term is more for Mexicans. It's also mainly used in Texas and Florida. In California Latino/a is used more.

I believe all of the people who have given their tuppence (save DCD) in this Hispanic question are Europeans, where I have never heard Latino being used. So it is largely a laguage thing rather than anything else.

I believe all of the people who have given their tuppence (save DCD) in this Hispanic question are Europeans, where I have never heard Latino being used. So it is largely a laguage thing rather than anything else.
Don't go by me. I use Hispanic and Latino interchangably. In conversation my friends and I either use the actual country the person we're talking about came from, for example "That Guatemalan dude" or sometimes even call them "Spanish". In fact, a friend of a friend of mine's nickname is "Spanish Eddie" and he's Puerto Rican.

By comparison, Norway's immigrant population is around 8%. In France, it's around 4%. I'm unimpressed with your claims that immigrants cannot live peacably among a population when the immigrant population is successful in the US and a greater percentage of the population.

Don't go by me. I use Hispanic and Latino interchangably. In conversation my friends and I either use the actual country the person we're talking about came from, for example "That Guatemalan dude" or sometimes even call them "Spanish". In fact, a friend of a friend of mine's nickname is "Spanish Eddie" and he's Puerto Rican.

Well I was excluding you from my rather blunt observation, since you are from New Jersey, no?

Did anyone else notice that -Somewhere-'s response to the 1/3 are hispanic post was to say if they were white, they don't count. Those stripes just keep getting clearer.

Well I was excluding you from my rather blunt observation, since you are from New Jersey, no?
Yeah, I was just making sure that you weren't taking my use of "hispanic" in the post to indicate that it's the proper term.

Perhaps I misunderstood again. I'm getting really good at that.

Did anyone else notice that -Somewhere-'s response to the 1/3 are hispanic post was to say if they were white, they don't count. Those stripes just keep getting clearer.
Race is irrelevent to me, it's culture. Which is why it's muslims that I dislike. I see a white muslim as exactly the same as an Arab one, and I also have no problem with secular or christian arabs. Same goes with mexicans, if I were american I would have problem with mexicans who integrated.

And regarding my estimations on the hispanic population of the US, it seems I was mistaken. I know this may be a surprise to you all but not all non-americans know the ins and outs of America.

Race is irrelevent to me, it's culture. Which is why it's muslims that I dislike. I see a white muslim as exactly the same as an Arab one, and I also have no problem with secular or christian arabs. Same goes with mexicans, if I were american I would have problem with mexicans who integrated.

And regarding my estimations on the hispanic population of the US, it seems I was mistaken. I know this may be a surprise to you all but not all non-americans know the ins and outs of America.
I suggest you think again your view.

It's not muslim the problems. It's those muslim who take an extreme view of their religion and who are encourage by socio-economic factors (education, government) to resort to violence to get their point across.

The Muslim who migrate to the US and Europe are more likely than not to want to escape this violent mentality. The problem is not Muslim. The problem is extremist muslim who live in poor country with a religious extremist form of government AND who don't think for themselves and follow the party line.

Race is irrelevent to me, it's culture. Which is why it's muslims that I dislike. I see a white muslim as exactly the same as an Arab one, and I also have no problem with secular or christian arabs. Same goes with mexicans, if I were american I would have problem with mexicans who integrated.

What is it that is inherent in Islam that makes it incompatible with Europe?

And regarding my estimations on the hispanic population of the US, it seems I was mistaken. I know this may be a surprise to you all but not all non-americans know the ins and outs of America.

Considering the US is very close to other Hispanic countries, isn't is more sensible and obvious to assume they come from there rather then the "Old World." Even to someone (myself included) who don't know the "ins and outs of America."

Oh yeah.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/shifting_goalposts.jpg

The Muslim who migrate to the US and Europe are more likely than not to want to escape this violent mentality. The problem is not Muslim. The problem is extremist muslim who live in poor country with a religious extremist form of government AND who don't think for themselves and follow the party line.
Not true. Look at the London bombers, all of them were 'British'. And besides the bombers, it's muslims that bit by bit are taking this country over. And it's the muslims who are disproportionately responsible for crime such as muggings, beatings, sex offences against minors, ect. Even if they're not extremeists they're still a stain on society.

Not true. Look at the London bombers, all of them were 'British'. And besides the bombers, it's muslims that bit by bit are taking this country over. And it's the muslims who are disproportionately responsible for crime such as muggings, beatings, sex offences against minors, ect. Even if they're not extremeists they're still a stain on society.
Some of them are undoubtedly guilty of those crimes. Many more are undoubtedly innocent. Why should all be condemned for the crimes of a few?

All Klansmen are white, does that mean all white men are in the Ku Klux Klan?

Not true. Look at the London bombers, all of them were 'British'.

And they spoke with English accents, no? These weren't the people that East Canuck was talking about, but youths that had been radicalised.

And besides the bombers, it's muslims that bit by bit are taking this country over.

Indeed. IIRC a recording of an Imam's sermon in the 60s included the command. In fact I think the exact words were "First the corner shops, then the world."

Seriously though, how are they taking over this country?

And it's the muslims who are disproportionately responsible for crime such as muggings, beatings, sex offences against minors, ect.

Proof?

Firstly proof this is true, and secondly, proof that it is because of Islam they do this.

Even if they're not extremeists they're still a stain on society.

See this is why I know you won't give proof.

Considering the US is very close to other Hispanic countries, isn't is more sensible and obvious to assume they come from there rather then the "Old World." Even to someone (myself included) who don't know the "ins and outs of America."

Oh yeah.
I was under the impression that there were quite a lot of immigrants of European hispanic origin, but like I said I was mistaken so there's no need to be a smart arse about it. Besides, it's no stupider than the guy who said that 1/3 'USians' are of hispanic origin, which is a load of crap. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Ethnicity_and_race)

Not true. Look at the London bombers, all of them were 'British'.
So a handfull of criminals ruins the rights for every law-abiding muslim? Then I suggest you deport, among other people, white man as they do the majority of the crimes. And you might want to toss out the Protestant and Catholics while you're at it for a few good bombs in Ireland.

And besides the bombers, it's muslims that bit by bit are taking this country over. And it's the muslims who are disproportionately responsible for crime such as muggings, beatings, sex offences against minors, ect. Even if they're not extremeists they're still a stain on society.
My, are we xenophobic today!

Might I inquire as to the source of your claims on crime. Not being British, I would like to know the score before denying these allegations.

Might I inquire as to the source of your claims on crime. Not being British, I would like to know the score before denying these allegations.

I'm guessing it's from the British National Party website. In reality Muslims are actually disproportionately targetted with violence because of ignorant, xenophobic morons like -Somewhere-.

Race is irrelevent to me, it's culture. Which is why it's muslims that I dislike. I see a white muslim as exactly the same as an Arab one, and I also have no problem with secular or christian arabs. Same goes with mexicans, if I were american I would have problem with mexicans who integrated.

And regarding my estimations on the hispanic population of the US, it seems I was mistaken. I know this may be a surprise to you all but not all non-americans know the ins and outs of America.

Yes, that's much better. You simply believe that a particular religion does not deserve freedom of religion. Perhaps the problem isn't with the religion itself but the plight of the people it is composed of. Your arguments greatly resemble the arguments about blacks in the eighties. However, the cause of their plight wasn't some physical or cultural flaw but the conditions in which we forced them to live. You wish to make those conditions worse for Muslims and what effect do you think that might have? I'll give you a hint - it won't make them more likely to want to be nice to other Europeans.

So a handfull of criminals ruins the rights for every law-abiding muslim? Then I suggest you deport, among other people, white man as they do the majority of the crimes. And you might want to toss out the Protestant and Catholics while you're at it for a few good bombs in Ireland.


My, are we xenophobic today!

Might I inquire as to the source of your claims on crime. Not being British, I would like to know the score before denying these allegations.

Well, I notice when s/he turns out to be right we see a link. What might one conclude when the same 'conclusions' are repeated over and over using statistics and no link?

Well, I notice when s/he turns out to be right we see a link. What might one conclude when the same 'conclusions' are repeated over and over using statistics and no link?
What I noticed is that he was here responding to post as soon as they were posted but when asked for a source, s/he up and disapeared.

What I noticed is that he was here responding to post as soon as they were posted but when asked for a source, s/he up and disapeared.

You know what I love about this site - how circular it all is. There is a group of prolific posters and in each discussion we shake out on all different sides, allies in one conversation and oponents in another. How many times have you and I been absolutely diametrically opposed on an issue? Then whenever someone comes out just spouting nonsense you'll see all the regulars popping in to clean up the mess. I love that about this site. *raises a beer* Cheers.

You know what I love about this site - how circular it all is. There is a group of prolific posters and in each discussion we shake out on all different sides, allies in one conversation and oponents in another. How many times have you and I been absolutely diametrically opposed on an issue? Then whenever someone comes out just spouting nonsense you'll see all the regulars popping in to clean up the mess. I love that about this site. *raises a beer* Cheers.
Cheers mate. *raises beer*

But I seem to recall that our differences are usually minute. Not so much ideological differences but rather how far we are willing to go on some values.
We are like the Republican and Democrats: they are both right wing with a few paper tigers to fight over. We are similar.

Cheers mate. *raises beer*

But I seem to recall that our differences are usually minute. Not so much ideological differences but rather how far we are willing to go on some values.
We are like the Republican and Democrats: they are both right wing with a few paper tigers to fight over. We are similar.

I think most of the 'reasonable' people here are fairly similar in a lot of ways. And, we spend a LOT of time discussing the minutia, don't we? *smiles* That's the best part, methinks.

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.

Oh and many already infer it, as leaders of Hezbolah stated, “Had a Muslim carried out Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against the apostate Salman Rushdie [ author of: “The Satanic Verses.”], then those low-lifers would not have dared discredit the Prophet, not in Denmark, Norway or France”.. This ironically makes the very point the artist was trying to convey (all be it tackless). That these ideas, though not the majority, are quite prevalent in todays muslim world, were muslims condon (or fail to condem) the use of violence as a means to express their relgious belifs.

Of course such ideas exist in other religions.. but none so extensive then in the islamic faith.

Oh and many already infer it, as leaders of Hezbolah stated, “Had a Muslim carried out Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against the apostate Salman Rushdie [ author of: “The Satanic Verses.”], then those low-lifers would not have dared discredit the Prophet, not in Denmark, Norway or France”.. This ironically makes the very point the artist was trying to convey (all be it tackless). That these ideas, though not the majority, are quite prevalent in todays muslim world, were muslims condon (or fail to condem) the use of violence as a means to express their relgious belifs.

Of course such ideas exist in other religions.. but none so extensive then in the islamic faith.

I don't think it's more extensive. It's just that we don't have openly and actively Christian fundamentalist governments, thus the violent minority in most faiths has no power, but does in Islam. This, in my mind, is the only difference.

I don't think it's more extensive. It's just that we don't have openly and actively Christian fundamentalist governments, thus the violent minority in most faiths has no power, but does in Islam. This, in my mind, is the only difference.

Abstractly speaking, true.
But on a somewhat more mundane level, reason enough to regard islam with a lot of scrutiny.

Suppose I were scared of persons licking their own balls.
Suppose I know person D ( Canis Canine Dog is his name ) that can.
Suppose I know a person S ( Stiff Unbending Squarehead ) who can't.
{ For both of them, the rule is: they would if they could. )
Which one of the 2 would I be more interested in keeping under control ?

I don't think it's more extensive. It's just that we don't have openly and actively Christian fundamentalist governments, thus the violent minority in most faiths has no power, but does in Islam. This, in my mind, is the only difference.

that very reality makes it more extensive, as these fudamentalist governments push their fundamentalist (radical) ideologies on the public (and more importantly the youth). Power in these conditions makes all the difference. Power = a louder voice, and at times a claim at justification

Abstractly speaking, true.
But on a somewhat more mundane level, reason enough to regard islam with a lot of scrutiny.

Suppose I were scared of persons licking their own balls.
Suppose I know person D ( Canis Canine Dog is his name ) that can.
Suppose I know a person S ( Stiff Unbending Squarehead ) who can't.
{ For both of them, the rule is: they would if they could. )
Which one of the 2 would I be more interested in keeping under control ?

Which supports an argument to worry about the governments, but not the individuals. I have no argument against that.

that very reality makes it more extensive, as these fudamentalist governments push their fundamentalist (radical) ideologies on the public (and more importantly the youth). Power in these conditions makes all the difference. Power = a louder voice, and at times a claim at justification

You sure about that? Who spends more time on television - Pat Robertson or Osama? Check my signature if you think Pat Robertson isn't dangerous. And he's on television like every day spewing his sickness.

Which supports an argument to worry about the governments, but not the individuals. I have no argument against that.

And again on a very mundane level: quite true.

I'm much more worried about the self-styled muslim community than I am of muslim individuals.

I suppose it's doing a Captain Obvious to point out to a Libertarian the perils of increasing the power of legal-persons-other-than-individuals.

You sure about that? Who spends more time on television - Pat Robertson or Osama? Check my signature if you think Pat Robertson isn't dangerous. And he's on television like every day spewing his sickness.

whose media outlet are you refering to? perhaps in the west Pat Robertson is known (and his ideas surely dangerous).. but in the streets of Cairo its Osma in the news everyday.. in Iran, the Ayatolah who speaks every hour of every day. Fundamentalist islam has a far louder voice then the Christian / jewish counterpart factions.

And again on a very mundane level: quite true.

I'm much more worried about the self-styled muslim community than I am of muslim individuals.

I suppose it's doing a Captain Obvious to point out to a Libertarian the perils of increasing the power of legal-persons-other-than-individuals.

Yes. I'd also add though that like individuals I treat groups seperately, so I don't hold groups responsible for apologizing for actions that are not of their group. For example, I don't think the Baptists for Peace Organization (I made them up) should have to apologize for Pat Robertson Ministries. Many would have these groups apologize for actions for which they bear no responsibility.

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.


Oh get off of it. Europe, and especially France, has been making fun of the US for years. The hypocracy in your posts is amazing. Do you get this offended when France publishes a book about Americans? Specifically, one saying our own government caused it? Or did you buy it and read it?

whose media outlet are you refering to? perhaps in the west Pat Robertson is known (and his ideas surely dangerous).. but in the streets of Cairo its Osma in the news everyday.. in Iran, the Ayatolah who speaks every hour of every day. Fundamentalist islam has a far louder voice then the Christian / jewish counterpart factions.
In the US, Pat Roberson is on live every day. Osama is not on live every day in any country, anywhere. And I still disagree. I agree that having a widespread voice is dangerous and having a country behind that voice is more dangerous, but I don't agree that Osama is any more heard than Pat Roberson.

Yes. I'd also add though that like individuals I treat groups seperately, so I don't hold groups responsible for apologizing for actions that are not of their group. For example, I don't think the Baptists for Peace Organization (I made them up) should have to apologize for Pat Robertson Ministries. Many would have these groups apologize for actions for which they bear no responsibility.

*nods* quite agree.

But I must make one categoric exception.

What about groups who claim merit for any meritorious deed of anyone who, by micromanagement, might be considered one of theirs,
but the moment a person who they first included in a blankety way commits a booboo, disavows that person?

In the US, Pat Roberson is on live every day. Osama is not on live every day in any country, anywhere. And I still disagree. I agree that having a widespread voice is dangerous and having a country behind that voice is more dangerous, but I don't agree that Osama is any more heard than Pat Roberson.

Are you comparing Pat Robertsons "influence" with that of Osma Bin Ladens ? When Robertson calls for attacks on foregin leaders, he is taken with a grain of salt.. When Osama Bin Laden does so, security alerts are issued, and ordinary muslims throughout the muslim world get their dancing shoes ready for celebration (as is depicted after every major terrorist attack on western nations). You are comparing apples and oranges

Im not talking about who is "heard more" but who exercises more influence.. and in the islamic world.. osama wins hands down (compared to robertson in the west)

*nods* quite agree.

But I must make one categoric exception.

What about groups who claim merit for any meritorious deed of anyone who, by micromanagement, might be considered one of theirs,
but the moment a person who they first included in a blankety way commits a booboo, disavows that person?

If the individual acts under endorsement of the group then they should take responsibility for the individuals actions in good OR bad cases. And if not, not. The decision of whether a group deserves credit/blame has nothing to do with whether the action was admirable or not.

Are you comparing Pat Robertsons "influence" with that of Osma Bin Ladens ? When Robertson calls for attacks on foregin leaders, he is taken with a grain of salt.. When Osama Bin Laden does so, security alerts are issued, and ordinary muslims throughout the muslim world get their dancing shoes ready for celebration (as is depicted after every major terrorist attack on western nations). You are comparing apples and oranges

Im not talking about who is "heard more" but who exercises more influence.. and in the islamic world.. osama wins hands down (compared to robertson in the west)

Osama's influence has only recently been truly effective. Ten years ago, I would have been much more afraid of a Christian fundamentalist. It ebbs and flows. Osama has had effective power against other nations for not such a long time. The bombings in Ireland did much more damage during than 90's than Osama did.

And limiting it to the Islamic world is nonsensical. Or I could say, in the Christian world, Pat Roberson wins hands down, because I know of no Christians fundamentalists that follow Osama.

If the individual acts under endorsement of the group then they should take responsibility for the individuals actions in good OR bad cases. And if not, not. The decision of whether a group deserves credit/blame has nothing to do with whether the action was admirable or not.

True. Yet the issue arrises not from the merits of their actions, but the rather 'positional' use made of the idea of merit. They claim involvement when so interested - and disavowal when so interested.
Added to the penchant of certain individuals to claim the 'we' status when the customs of the host-countries does not permit so.
( European countries, and the European Court having a somewhat stark and negative view of the concept of group-identity in the first place).

Osama's influence has only recently been truly effective. Ten years ago, I would have been much more afraid of a Christian fundamentalist. It ebbs and flows. Osama has had effective power against other nations for not such a long time. The bombings in Ireland did much more damage during than 90's than Osama did.

And limiting it to the Islamic world is nonsensical. Or I could say, in the Christian world, Pat Roberson wins hands down, because I know of no Christians fundamentalists that follow Osama.

:rolleyes: clearly im not comparing robertson influence over muslims to osmas over muslims... I was in fact comparing Robertsons influence over christians to Osmas over muslims.. and while 10 years ago 0sama might not have been something for you to worry about (only cause u didn't hear of him)in the islmaic world he was even then VERY well known. When push comes to shove, Robertson is seen as an essentric here (who speaks for ratings in my opinion) vs Osma who speaks for faith, and belives his own words (where robertson recants his insanity the next day). You simply cannot compare the two.

:rolleyes: clearly im not comparing robertson influence over muslims to osmas over muslims... I was in fact comparing Robertsons influence over christians to Osmas over muslims.. and while 10 years ago 0sama might not have been something for you to worry about (only cause u didn't hear of him)in the islmaic world he was even then VERY well known. When push comes to shove, Robertson is seen as an essentric here (who speaks for ratings in my opinion) vs Osma who speaks for faith, and belives his own words (where robertson recants his insanity the next day). You simply cannot compare the two.

I was actually being sarcastic. I knew what you meant, but I thought it would be funny to put that. I hope you at least smiled at the argument.

In the US, Pat Roberson is on live every day. Osama is not on live every day in any country, anywhere. And I still disagree. I agree that having a widespread voice is dangerous and having a country behind that voice is more dangerous, but I don't agree that Osama is any more heard than Pat Roberson.
The difference is that Robertson is held accountable for his actions by the society tolerates him. Osama is venerated and embraced *for* the unacceptable things he does. The secularists, good christians, and others of America protect everyone from the overt acts Robertson might wish to take on, even if we don't deny him a pulpit from which to distribute his illconcieved ideas. The muslims don't protect us from those in their midst who would do us harm. They do not see their responsibility in this two way covenant, and in fact deny it. And that they are accountable for. If it leads us to abandoning that unwritten bargain, we're the ones with the power to enforce our will on them. To the grave if need be. If reason fails, we have other options.

The difference is that Robertson is held accountable for his actions by the society tolerates him. Osama is venerated and embraced *for* the unacceptable things he does. The secularists, good christians, and others of America protect everyone from the overt acts Robertson might wish to take on, even if we don't deny him a pulpit from which to distribute his illconcieved ideas. The muslims don't protect us from those in their midst who would do us harm. They do not see their responsibility in this two way covenant, and in fact deny it. And that they are accountable for. If it leads us to abandoning that unwritten bargain, we're the ones with the power to enforce our will on them. To the grave if need be. If reason fails, we have other options.

However, we do hold the Muslims in our midst equally accountable and should. The question is whether they should be more accountable. We don't hold Albert Einstein responsible for Israel and we shouldn't. As a Muslim, one is responsible for their own actions and, at most, the actions of people they support. Unless you can prove that an individual supported Osama, then we have no right to abridge their rights because of Osama.

Show me how Muslims are not protecting us in a way they are required to do? If one is shown to have had knowledge of an attack prior to it occurring then they are held as responsible as a Christian in that situation. All you have are unsupported assertions. Now, how many Catholics are aware of the priests that molested children? Should all of Catholicism be held responsible because some within that group break the law and others covered it up? More importantly Catholicism is a single organization headed by the Pope. There is no such organization of Muslims in the US.

*watches this with interest*

You know what, I’m actually proud of Europe. Way to go guys.:)

How come no one is protesting against the cartoons Al Jazeera posts on their website? I find those to be very offensive to my values and beliefs, so should I threaten to kidnap muslims and blow up mosques? I don't because Al Jazeera has a right to post them, just as European newspapers have a right to print the Mohammed cartoons.

I hope that Canadian & American newspapers reprint the Mohammed cartoons to show support for Europe.

You know what, I’m actually proud of Europe. Way to go guys.:)


Yea good job they gave into terrorists. Oh also you know they gave into Saudi Arabian and Sharia (totalitarian like law), yea good job Europe. They also again proved that its ok to do what a religion says as long as its not christian, the double bladed sword, maybe Christianity should start blowin people up they might get some respect that way.

The Jordanian paper Al Shidan has also published the blasphemous cartoons.
Under the headline: Muslims of the world, be reasonable.
Editor-in-chief Jihad Momani ( no joke ) asks in an editorial:
What provokes more prejudice against Islam, these cartoons, or pictures of a suicide-bomber blowing himself up during a wedding in Amman?
In response to questions, he stated: now people can see what they object to. People are attacking pictures they haven't even seen.

Yea good job they gave into terrorists. Oh also you know they gave into Saudi Arabian and Sharia (totalitarian like law), yea good job Europe. They also again proved that its ok to do what a religion says as long as its not christian, the double bladed sword, maybe Christianity should start blowin people up they might get some respect that way.

By the mass printing of cartoons that Muslims find objectionable, Europe has given into terrorists.


I'm really beginning to believe that some Americans aren't from this universe and were transported via a portal from another one without any of us noticing.

The Jordanian paper Al Shidan has also published the blasphemous cartoons.
Under the headline: Muslims of the world, be reasonable.
Editor-in-chief Jihad Momani ( no joke ) asks in an editorial:
What provokes more prejudice against Islam, these cartoons, or pictures of a suicide-bomber blowing himself up during a wedding in Amman?
In response to questions, he stated: now people can see what they object to. People are attacking pictures they haven't even seen.

I said as much earlier, I just hope that someone takes note this time around.

To requote part of the editorial.

""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?""

I said as much earlier, I just hope that someone takes note this time around.

To requote part of the editorial.

""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?""

Yay for reasonability.
Do you have a link in english?
I don't - and my arabic is less than perfect...

Yay for reasonability.
Do you have a link in english?
I don't - and my arabic is less than perfect...

It was on the BBC. Just give me a minute to search.

EDIT: Here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm

Somehow his first name completely slipped past me the first time I read. :confused:

By the mass printing of cartoons that Muslims find objectionable, Europe has given into terrorists.


I'm really beginning to believe that some Americans aren't from this universe and were transported via a portal from another one without any of us noticing.


No, firing the editor which allowed the printing of the cartoon, thats giving into the terrorists. (And europe has a long history of giving into bullies, Barbary Pirates, Adolf Hitler, Uncle Joe (Stalin), the recent elections in spain, ect.)

No, firing the editor which allowed the printing of the cartoon, thats giving into the terrorists. (And europe has a long history of giving into bullies, Barbary Pirates, Adolf Hitler, Uncle Joe (Stalin), the recent elections in spain, ect.)

X2

It was on the BBC. Just give me a minute to search.

EDIT: Here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm

Somehow his first name completely slipped past me the first time I read. :confused:


Thanks, dude!

That his dad was as loopy as a fruitbat doesn't mean that the guy himself is loopy.

No, firing the editor which allowed the printing of the cartoon, thats giving into the terrorists.

Please, please, please explain to me your reasoning why a boss firing an employee makes the whole of Europe culpable for "giving into terrorism." And how is being fired giving into terrorism?

(And europe has a long history of giving into bullies, Barbary Pirates, Adolf Hitler, Uncle Joe (Stalin), the recent elections in spain, ect.)

Did you actually study history, or just make it up as you go along?

Especially when the firing was done by... a muslim owner of said newspaper?

Victories for freedom of expression are great anywhere they happen. Great job, Europe, for not giving in to intimidation and threats. I swear, if everyone learned to laugh about their religion once in a while we wouldn't have these problems...

(And europe has a long history of giving into bullies, Barbary Pirates, Adolf Hitler, Uncle Joe (Stalin), the recent elections in spain, ect.)

Ugh...

Ugh...
Barbary Pirates were forcing bribes from Europeans, Europeans payed the bribes, did nothing about it, the US then has to go kick the Mamalukes asses in Tripoli. Adolf Hitler.... what the hell? They let him take the Czechs (excuse my spelling if its off) the Slovaks, Austria, ect. Poland and eastern europe let Uncle Joe steam roll em (Though FDR also let uncle joe have alot so can't put it all on europe). Elections in spain terrorists tell the spanish to vote for this candidate and to withdraw their troops, the spainards do it thats giving into terrorism.

As for the newspaper, when Muslims in the Gaza strip for are rioting going into the streets shooting their weapons, threatening to kill people over it thats fascist. Then when you give in by firing the guy that let it happen and printing an apology (THE RIOTS WEREN'T EVEN IN DENMARK) thats giving into the terrorism. And yes the paper may have been muslim owned but muslims can be just as scared for their lives as the rest of us can't they? Its not like the terrorists won't kill a fellow muslim for blasphemy a crime punishable by DEATH!

Barbary Pirates were forcing bribes from Europeans, Europeans payed the bribes, did nothing about it, the US then has to go kick the Mamalukes asses in Tripoli. Adolf Hitler.... what the hell? They let him take the Czechs (excuse my spelling if its off) the Slovaks, Austria, ect. Poland and eastern europe let Uncle Joe steam roll em (Though FDR also let uncle joe have alot so can't put it all on europe). Elections in spain terrorists tell the spanish to vote for this candidate and to withdraw their troops, the spainards do it thats giving into terrorism.

As for the newspaper, when Muslims in the Gaza strip for are rioting going into the streets shooting their weapons, threatening to kill people over it thats fascist. Then when you give in by firing the guy that let it happen and printing an apology (THE RIOTS WEREN'T EVEN IN DENMARK) thats giving into the terrorism. And yes the paper may have been muslim owned but muslims can be just as scared for their lives as the rest of us can't they? Its not like the terrorists won't kill a fellow muslim for blasphemy a crime punishable by DEATH!

I reiterate: Ugh...

Now I'll sit back and wait for the other posters to tear your rambling idiotic and blatently flimsy post to pieces, like piranhas.

Barbary Pirates were forcing bribes from Europeans, Europeans payed the bribes, did nothing about it, the US then has to go kick the Mamalukes asses in Tripoli. Adolf Hitler.... what the hell? They let him take the Czechs (excuse my spelling if its off) the Slovaks, Austria, ect. Poland and eastern europe let Uncle Joe steam roll em (Though FDR also let uncle joe have alot so can't put it all on europe). Elections in spain terrorists tell the spanish to vote for this candidate and to withdraw their troops, the spainards do it thats giving into terrorism.

Ahh, so you do just make it up as you go along.

Ahh, so you do just make it up as you go along.


Instead of simply claiming that why don't you give some "facts" to back it up.... oh it is that you have none.

Instead of simply claiming that why don't you give some "facts" to back it up.... oh it is that you have none.

That burden is on you.
Required: for just one example.

How does spanish voters voting for reasons of their own for a candidate of their own constitute giving in to terrorism?


What you are doing is asserting that, a hapless toad, that, for reasons of it's own spends its entirely life in a lake in California is somehow engaged in interstate commerce...

Instead of simply claiming that why don't you give some "facts" to back it up.... oh it is that you have none.
No, because your 'facts' are so laughably filled with holes, misconceptions, half-truths and idiotic generalisations that your answer doesn't dignify a proper response.

That burden is on you.
Required: for just one example.

How does spanish voters voting for reasons of their own for a candidate of their own constitute giving in to terrorism?


What you are doing is asserting that, a hapless toad, that, for reasons of it's own spends its entirely life in a lake in California is somehow engaged in interstate commerce...


Are you aware that Al-Queyda produced video's/tapes claiming that if the spanish re-elected the president that sent troops to war that more attacks (like the train bombing) would occur in spain. Up until that point the president had been ahead in the polls then after the production and release of those tapes he lost by a landslide. (Please do some research)

No, because your 'facts' are so laughably filled with holes, misconceptions, half-truths and idiotic generalisations that your answer doesn't dignify a proper response.


Excuses, excuses, I've met alot like you and you always fail to impress.

Are you aware that Al-Queyda produced video's/tapes claiming that if the spanish re-elected the president that sent troops to war that more attacks (like the train bombing) would occur in spain. Up until that point the president had been ahead in the polls then after the production and release of those tapes he lost by a landslide. (Please do some research)

I throw a brick.
I say a lamp will go out if I throw a brick.
The lamp goes out.


Required: proof that the lamp went out because I threw a brick, and not because it was 12:57 forum time.

What you are still doing is asserting that, a hapless toad, that, for reasons of it's own spends its entirely life in a lake in California is somehow engaged in interstate commerce...

Are you aware that Al-Queyda produced video's/tapes claiming that if the spanish re-elected the president that sent troops to war that more attacks (like the train bombing) would occur in spain. Up until that point the president had been ahead in the polls then after the production and release of those tapes he lost by a landslide. (Please do some research)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!

Brilliant. Case in point.

Aznar lost because he LIED about WHO CAUSED the bombings. He and his party tried to pin it on ETA at first- before the truth came out only a day or two before the elections. People were SO pissed off they voted for the opposition.

On top of that, the public NEVER supported their troops in Iraq, and NEVER wanted them there- only Aznar's party did.

Do some reading.

Haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this was mentioned.

Paul told Christians to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. If giving up something won't hurt you, but by doing the action you will hurt other people, then a Christian is to submit to the beliefs of others.

Westerners have the right of free press. But if using free press to the point where it harms the beliefs of others, then a Christian should submit to the beliefs of others.

OK, some of you are going to rant "Where Does It Say That!" Well Paul (as Jesus) used examples and we were to take the principle of that example. In this case, Paul used the example of eating meat that was offered to idols. If eating meat is going to hurt others because of their beliefs, then---even if it's ok for you---Don't Do It. I know some of you will say, "we aren't talking of meat so it doesn't apply". So then what is tthe basic teaching of Paul on the subject?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!

Brilliant. Case in point.

Aznar lost because he LIED about WHO CAUSED the bombings. He and his party tried to pin it on ETA at first- before the truth came out only a day or two before the elections. People were SO pissed off they voted for the opposition.

On top of that, the public NEVER supported their troops in Iraq, and NEVER wanted them there- only Aznar's party did.

Do some reading.

And how did Aznar's party win the previous election? Magic fairy's?

And the people were so pissed off they voted the way people, that had attacked them and therefore declared war on them (whether they wanted it or not), wanted them to vote? Uhhhh huuu

I throw a brick.
I say a lamp will go out if I throw a brick.
The lamp goes out.


Required: proof that the lamp went out because I threw a brick, and not because it was 12:57 forum time.

What you are still doing is asserting that, a hapless toad, that, for reasons of it's own spends its entirely life in a lake in California is somehow engaged in interstate commerce...

Read the whole article....

Barbary Pirates were forcing bribes from Europeans, Europeans payed the bribes,

The US also paid "tribute" by the way. One of the reasons for a construction of a US navy was because the Barbary Pirates continued to prey of US merchant ships.

did nothing about it,

This is so absurd, I don't know wether to laugh or cry. Portugal and Spain led many campaigns against them across the north African coast.

The Royal Navy, along with Dutch aid stopped raids by the pirates in Western Europe.

Michiel de Ruyter also tried unsuccessfully to rid the Mediteranean of them, albeit unsuccessfully.

The claim Europe "did nothing about it" is completely absurd and has no basis in reality in this universe.

the US then has to go kick the Mamalukes asses in Tripoli.

After they had taken 80,000 dollars in tribute from the American government.

Adolf Hitler.... what the hell? They let him take the Czechs (excuse my spelling if its off) the Slovaks, Austria, ect. Poland and eastern europe

To act like the Czechs and the Slovaks are different at this point in history is wrong, it was still one state. Austria was joined to Germany by referendum, it wasn' "taken" by Germany. Also, the European powers didn't let Hitler take Poland (or half of Poland) since it was that which triggered war.

The early consessions to Hitler were not "giving into bullying" but a (failed) attempt to prevent another devestating war on the continent.

Eastern Europe was taken during the war.

let Uncle Joe steam roll em (Though FDR also let uncle joe have alot so can't put it all on europe).

The Red Army occupied those areas and after 6 years of a war theat had devestated the countries, non of the European powers were capable of forcing them to leave.

What would have done? Gone in the offensive? Which would have possibly just resulted in the domination of all of Europe.

Elections in spain terrorists tell the spanish to vote for this candidate and to withdraw their troops, the spainards do it thats giving into terrorism.

Yep, that was the reason the Spanish voted the way they did. I'm sick of spoon feeding you. Go and look for some Spanish opinions on the election and their voting habits.

As for the newspaper, when Muslims in the Gaza strip for are rioting going into the streets shooting their weapons, threatening to kill people over it thats fascist.

Not only that, it is irrelevent.

Then when you give in by firing the guy that let it happen and printing an apology (THE RIOTS WEREN'T EVEN IN DENMARK) thats giving into the terrorism. And yes the paper may have been muslim owned but muslims can be just as scared for their lives as the rest of us can't they?

Of course it couldn't be that the owner was also offended by them as well, could it?

Even so, the action of one newspaper owner hardly makes the whole continent guilty of "giving in to terrorism/bullies."

Also there is the patently absurd assumption that the whole of Europe is, and has always been a single entity that acts as one.

Read the whole article....

why should I?
I'm eagerly awaiting your evidence of Causality.

*goes of gabbing with anarchic while droskianishk tries to figure out what Causality means*

The US also paid "tribute" by the way. One of the reasons for a construction of a US navy was because the Barbary Pirates continued to prey of US merchant ships.



This is so absurd, I don't know wether to laugh or cry. Portugal and Spain led many campaigns against them across the north African coast.

The Royal Navy, along with Dutch aid stopped raids by the pirates in Western Europe.

Michiel de Ruyter also tried unsuccessfully to rid the Mediteranean of them, albeit unsuccessfully.

The claim Europe "did nothing about it" is completely absurd and has no basis in reality in this universe.



After they had taken 80,000 dollars in tribute from the American government.



To act like the Czechs and the Slovaks are different at this point in history is wrong, it was still one state. Austria was joined to Germany by referendum, it wasn' "taken" by Germany. Also, the European powers didn't let Hitler take Poland (or half of Poland) since it was that which triggered war.

The early consessions to Hitler were not "giving into bullying" but a (failed) attempt to prevent another devestating war on the continent.

Eastern Europe was taken during the war.



The Red Army occupied those areas and after 6 years of a war theat had devestated the countries, non of the European powers were capable of forcing them to leave.

What would have done? Gone in the offensive? Which would have possibly just resulted in the domination of all of Europe.



Yep, that was the reason the Spanish voted the way they did. I'm sick of spoon feeding you. Go and look for some Spanish opinions on the election and their voting habits.



Not only that, it is irrelevent.



Of course it couldn't be that the owner was also offended by them as well, could it?

Even so, the action of one newspaper owner hardly makes the whole continent guilty of "giving in to terrorism/bullies."

Also there is the patently absurd assumption that the whole of Europe is, and has always been a single entity that acts as one.

Over generalization I can accept and do apologize if you are in the minority w/those that do stand up. Czechoslovakia however was not taken by referendum, and the Bribes taken from the US were taken by force and it was the US that ended the Barbary Pirates reign of the mediteranean.

And how did Aznar's party win the previous election? Magic fairy's?

No, you idiot- by campaigning to the broadest possible electorate. The Partido Popular is the party in Spain which has the longest history of being in political power becuase they are a 'catch all' party.

And the people were so pissed off they voted the way people, that had attacked them and therefore declared war on them (whether they wanted it or not), wanted them to vote? Uhhhh huuu

Well, when your government to be, fucking lies to your collective face- DESPITE EVIDENCE FROM THE POLICE AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES about who carried out the worst attack on your country in its history... do you, in your right mind, honestly think they would be re-elected?

People vote for leaders not based on foreign policy- but based on DOMESTIC ISSUES. Wake up!

No, you idiot- by campaigning to the broadest possible electorate. The Partido Popular is the party in Spain which has the longest history of being in political power becuase they are a 'catch all' party.



Well, when your government to be, fucking lies to your collective face- DESPITE EVIDENCE FROM THE POLICE AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES about who cared out the worst attack on your country... do you in your right mind think they would be re-elected?

People vote for leaders not based on foreign policy- but based on DOMESTIC ISSUES. Wake up!

Not in a state of war they don't. They usually vote for someone who is going to protect them and not give in to the demands of their enemy's.

Not in a state of war they don't. They usually vote for someone who is going to protect them and not give in to the demands of their enemy's.

A: Who is Spain at war with?

B: You would prefer to have a proven liar in charge of your safety- even though he just LIED ABOUT WHO ATTACKED YOU!?

What is going on in your brain, child?

Czechoslovakia however was not taken by referendum,

Never claimed it was. In fact I said:

The early consessions to Hitler were not "giving into bullying" but a (failed) attempt to prevent another devestating war on the continent.

and the Bribes taken from the US were taken by force

The US still gave into bullies though.

Somehow I get the impression that you would not accept the claim that Spaniards voted the way way they did because they were were forced to by the threat of more death.

and it was the US that ended the Barbary Pirates reign of the mediteranean.

What a simplistic view of the subject at hand.

snip
Fantastic post Anarchic Conceptions.:)

Never claimed it was. In fact I said:

The early consessions to Hitler were not "giving into bullying" but a (failed) attempt to prevent another devestating war on the continent.



The US still gave into bullies though.

Somehow I get the impression that you would not accept the claim that Spaniards voted the way way they did because they were were forced to by the threat of more death.



What a simplistic view of the subject at hand.


So threatening to start another war if they wouldn't give him Czechoslovakia wasn't bullying? And then giving it to him wasn't....?

So threatening to start another war if they wouldn't give him Czechoslovakia wasn't bullying? And then giving it to him wasn't....?

He never threatened to start a war over the Sudetenland or the rest of the Czech areas.

At the time he made a very logical argument that the people in those lands were on the same ethnicity as those in his own.

So, instead of provoking a potential conflict no one in Europe (apart from Hitler himself) wanted over people of the same ethnicity... they sold the Czechs out in the longer run.

Not happy about it- but you oversimplify a complex situation.

He never threatened to start a war over the Sudetenland or the rest of the Czech areas.

At the time he made a very logical argument that the people in those lands were on the same ethnicity as those in his own.

So, instead of provoking a potential conflict no one in Europe (apart from Hitler himself) wanted over people of the same ethnicity... they sold the Czechs out in the longer run.

Not happy about it- but you oversimplify a complex situation.


Slovaks though weren't the same as the germans in the Sudetenland and he took their lands too. And he did threaten war there.

So threatening to start another war if they wouldn't give him Czechoslovakia wasn't bullying?

He didn't threaten them. He was told that he could take it, provided he stopped there, otherwise France and Britain would respond with war. Hitler didn't threaten war, France and Britain did.

Thus when he took half of Poland (the USSR got the other half, as per the Nazi-Soviet pact), Britain and France declared war on him.

Yea good job they gave into terrorists. Oh also you know they gave into Saudi Arabian and Sharia (totalitarian like law), yea good job Europe. They also again proved that its ok to do what a religion says as long as its not christian, the double bladed sword, maybe Christianity should start blowin people up they might get some respect that way.

I find this statement baffeling ! .. they gave into terrorists by doing what islam said ? by giving into sharia law ? Somehow these cartoons and their adoption accross Europe accomplished this ?

Slovaks though weren't the same as the germans in the Sudetenland and he took their lands too. And he did threaten war there.

No he didn't. At the time, as you know, there was only one state Czecheslovakia (I was just too lazt to type it fully out last time)- and it seemed to be ''Germany's back yard''- why should anyone make a fuss over the second half of a country that had only existed for less then 20 years?

Sucks- but he never threatened war over it. Poland on the other hand changed the situation drastically.

Seriously, what are they teaching you in history classes these days? :confused:

Barbary Pirates were forcing bribes from Europeans, Europeans payed the bribes, did nothing about it, the US then has to go kick the Mamalukes asses in Tripoli.


Ok if you are going to make a claim. At least know something about it.

Piracy in that area started about the 16th century when bigger and faster ships were built. With Colonial expansion there was all that nice gold and goods getting shipped.

Competition made piracy a "business" adventure. For example, English privateers could attack and rob with impunity Spanish shipping. Then there was North African pirates who had license to rob English ships and Madagascar pirates of the 18th century represented France.

The Barbary Coast(which was the western border of Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean) was occupied by independent Islamic states under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. Again I would say that the whole time they had wealthy backers and had been operating for centuries.

It was about the 16th century when it gained political significance. They were probably most powerful during the 17th century and remained active till the 19th.

A guy named Barbarossa united Algeria and Tunisia as military states for the Ottoman sultanate and drew money from piracy.

The Moors came along and made Morocco a new center for pirates and eventually took over control over Barbarossa's territory. The moors encouraged piracy as it was good revenue.

Around the 17th century Algeria and Tunisia pirates joined forces and around 1650 they had about 30000 or so captives in Algiers alone.

Such practices led to several wars between Tripolitania and the US in the 19th century.

The Brits made two attempts to suppress Algerian piracy after 1815. The French finally ended it in 1830.

Now for all you "giving in talk" you might want to know that after the American Revolution, the US agreed to pay money for immunity from attack but it later attacked several Barbary states and helped end the piracy.

It was in the 1800s and early 1900s when Europe finally got sovereignty over the Barbary Coast.

Shall we talk about Buccaneers?


So your claim of knuckling under is baseless.



Adolf Hitler.... what the hell? They let him take the Czechs (excuse my spelling if its off) the Slovaks, Austria, etc. Poland and eastern europe let Uncle Joe steam roll em (Though FDR also let uncle joe have alot so can't put it all on europe).


Somebody else can take this one.

Elections in spain terrorists tell the spanish to vote for this candidate and to withdraw their troops, the spainards do it thats giving into terrorism.


You make the HUGE assumption that the Spanish Goverment was liked in the first place.

*snip the rest as I am bored now*

I feel we may have educated someone tonight :)

I feel we may have educated someone tonight :)

He can't be educated. You can tell when the person says a single Muslim getting offended by a cartoon that is offensive to Muslims is "Europe giving in" while papers all across Europe continue to publish the cartoon. It's obvious that this is not a person is not interested in analyzing facts by more interested in blaming Europe for the world's problems. It's so far from realistic that it's just silly.

As for the newspaper, when Muslims in the Gaza strip for are rioting going into the streets shooting their weapons, threatening to kill people over it thats fascist. Then when you give in by firing the guy that let it happen and printing an apology (THE RIOTS WEREN'T EVEN IN DENMARK) thats giving into the terrorism. And yes the paper may have been muslim owned but muslims can be just as scared for their lives as the rest of us can't they? Its not like the terrorists won't kill a fellow muslim for blasphemy a crime punishable by DEATH!
I'm surprised nobody caught that gem. I understand there was many problems with Droskianishk's post but the bolded part shows you that he wasn't even aware of the situation.

I mean, confusing the Dane's apology and the French's firing as if it was single paper who did both decisions. :rolleyes:

I think I need to repeat this: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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.

Good post!

The Jordanian paper Al Shidan has also published the blasphemous cartoons.
Under the headline: Muslims of the world, be reasonable.
Editor-in-chief Jihad Momani ( no joke ) asks in an editorial:
What provokes more prejudice against Islam, these cartoons, or pictures of a suicide-bomber blowing himself up during a wedding in Amman?
In response to questions, he stated: now people can see what they object to. People are attacking pictures they haven't even seen.


Mr Jihad Momani will probably find himself dead in a few days...sad thing too...he speaks the truth

People have a right to be upset when they are insulted. People have a right to protest things they do not agree with.

You are arguing for the freedom of speech for the cartoonist, but you're forgeting the freedom of speech of those protesting the cartoon.

Stop looking at things from such an ethnocentric viewpoint.

what these cartoonists are doing is wrong. you cannot offend ones religion, youll just spark discontent. what can be gained from that? and if the muslims, themselves, dont like to portray their prophet, who gives that right to these people drawing these cartoons

i am catholic but i am offended by this, and i think that muslims have a right to denounce these cartoons that spark hate. let alone, how can a newspaper condone these?

i understand the muslims who are getting mad at this. if someone offended God, i too, would be very angry

People have a right to be upset when they are insulted. People have a right to protest things they do not agree with.

You are arguing for the freedom of speech for the cartoonist, but you're forgeting the freedom of speech of those protesting the cartoon.

Stop looking at things from such an ethnocentric viewpoint.

We are not mad that muslims are upset, we could care less, they have every right to be. We ARE, however, mad that muslims issuing threatening statements due to a couple of stupid pictures. Freedom of speech and expression does not go so far as to cover freedom of being able to use violence and issue threats.

People have a right to protest things they do not agree with.

You are arguing for the freedom of speech for the cartoonist, but you're forgeting the freedom of speech of those protesting the cartoon.


There is already a bounty on the cartoonists. The Jamaat-e-islami party of Pakistan has announced (although there have been denials later from officials in Pakistan) a bounty on their head. You may think that this is just empty threats and playing to the gallery.

I wish to remind of the fatwa on Rushdie and although Rushdie is alive (thanks to good protection), atleast one person has died due to that fatwa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
On February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah broadcast the following message on Iranian radio: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.". As a result, Hitoshi Igarishi, the Japanese translator of the book was stabbed to death in July 1991, Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month, and William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1991.

Death threats and killing people are not forms of protests. They are forms of rabidity.

i understand the muslims who are getting mad at this. if someone offended God, i too, would be very angry

Offending Mohammed is not offending Allah. Mohammed is not the son of Allah.;)

Actually, by equating him with God, you have just offended muslims. Watch out. :eek:

Here let me offend Mohammed more...

http://islamcomicbook.com/
Mohammed's believe it or else. :)

and if the muslims, themselves, dont like to portray their prophet, who gives that right to these people drawing these cartoons

I'm not sure what it's called in Europe, but in the US it's called the first ammendment. They have the right to offend. You have the right to be offended. You have the right to protest. You have the right to boycott. You DON'T have the right to threaten and encourage violence and call in bomb threats. You DON'T have the right to censor. It's quite simple really.

Victories for freedom of expression are great anywhere they happen. Great job, Europe, for not giving in to intimidation and threats. I swear, if everyone learned to laugh about their religion once in a while we wouldn't have these problems...


You are so very very right!

:)

People have a right to be upset when they are insulted. People have a right to protest things they do not agree with.

You are arguing for the freedom of speech for the cartoonist, but you're forgeting the freedom of speech of those protesting the cartoon.

Stop looking at things from such an ethnocentric viewpoint.




Perhaps you should start reading the thread from the start!

and then make asumptions

We are not mad that muslims are upset, we could care less, they have every right to be. We ARE, however, mad that muslims issuing threatening statements due to a couple of stupid pictures. Freedom of speech and expression does not go so far as to cover freedom of being able to use violence and issue threats.


Couldn´t have said it better my self:)

I'm not sure what it's called in Europe, but in the US it's called the first ammendment. They have the right to offend. You have the right to be offended. You have the right to protest. You have the right to boycott. You DON'T have the right to threaten and encourage violence and call in bomb threats. You DON'T have the right to censor. It's quite simple really.


Thanks for simplyfiing

In Denmark it´s just called freedom of speech, and it seems like its very simular to your first ammendment

Hmmm... on the news I saw muslems burning Danish (and American) flags.
I do wonder.. where do they get those ? Do they keep stocks of them just for an occasion like this ?

Hmmm... on the news I saw muslems burning Danish (and American) flags.
I do wonder.. where do they get those ? Do they keep stocks of them just for an occasion like this ?


Internet! ;)

I don't mean to offend anyone with this. I am agnostic, but I personally respect and admire just about everything that Islam stands for, just like I respect 99% of what Christianity or any religion is about. (It's all about looking out for each other and simply helping somone back up when he has fallen down.;) )

If you are a Muslim, feel free to not look at any of these pictures, and I hope you trust that I do not intend to antagonize any Muslims, and I intend this thread to be within the boundaries of taste and curiosity of this forum.

***

Anyways here is an interesting website with a huge collection of pictuers of Prophet Mohammed, made throughout history and in every part of the world.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

if the first link is taking forever to load there are a few mirrorsites

http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/mohammedmirror.htm

http://info2us.dk/muhammed/

Some pictures were drawn by medeival Muslims, with respectful depictions of Mohammed and his life, others were drawn by medieval Christians, depicting Mohammed suffering terrible tortures. There are also more modern pictures, both tasteful and distasteful ones, including the recent controversial Danish cartoons.

Plenty of interesting commentary on that website, although I found an inaccuracy and there may be more. In the section "Modern Iranian Icons" it labels several paintings of a turbaned scholar-warrior as Mohammed but I am pretty sure these are pictures of Imam Ali, the Shia leader and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammed.

The website's commentary is definitely critical of the Muslim world's response to the Danish incident, and sometimes the comments and pictures can be anti-Islamic and flagrantly disrespectful, but just as a disclaimer, I personally do not agree with some of these sentiments and I hope we can all just snicker at the prejudiced portions, move on, and not proceed to have some huge vicious uninformed shouting match in this thread.

***

This one I found amusing, although I do understand how a Muslim can be offended by Mohammed being a prop for an advertisement:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/clifford0104.gif

It is a 1928 German advertisement for soup, showing the Koran story of Mohammed ascending to heaven with the help of Angel Gabriel.

Hopefully you will find this interesting.

what these cartoonists are doing is wrong. you cannot offend ones religion,
Of course you can - there is no reason why religious beliefs should be exempt from the normal debate and criticism which takes place in any other field of ideas. And given its huge influence in the world, there is plenty of reason why it should be scrutinized and criticised, humorously or otherwise.

Islam itself is highly offensive to other beliefs : The Koran is at times conciliatory to Christianity and Judaism and at times contemptuous of them. Regarding other beliefs, including non-belief, is it vitriolic in its hatred, and advocates the killing and torture of infidels. To expect those "infidels" to respect Islam and not answer back is utterly ridiculous and unjust.

youll just spark discontent. what can be gained from that? and if the muslims, themselves, dont like to portray their prophet, who gives that right to these people drawing these cartoons
Free speech gives them the right. Muslims can believe what they choose, but that gives them no right to dictate the beliefs or behaviour of the other 5/6ths of humanity.

i am catholic but i am offended by this, and i think that muslims have a right to denounce these cartoons that spark hate. let alone, how can a newspaper condone these?
How can anyone condone the hatred in the Quran, or the vicious propaganda which is spread in large parts of the Islamic world? Compared to this poison, a few cartoons in a newspaper are utterly insignificant.

Muslims do have a right to complain, just as the rest of us do, but the way to complain about a text or picture you don't like is to answer in kind, not to take to the streets, cause diplomatic incidents etc. They may find the cartoons offensive, but I find their response to them offensive.

Very interesting. So all these representation of Mohammad, many of them very unpleasant, exist throughout history but such a fuss is created over these newspapers.

This only serves to compound my confusion over this whole situation. What makes these people act the way they do? :confused:

http://www.techtonian.com/?p=23

Moses PWN mohammed...

PErsonally since I'm from sweden I find it funny how they get the views of one danish newspaper to become the opinion of scandinavia.

I don't think they should appologize tough, freedom of speech/writing vs 1 religious viewpoint...

It's not like they've been all "omg those guys drew a painting of mohammed, let's kill them" in previous instances (Edit: removed url, missed the fact that it was the same as in above post), but all of a sudden they threaten Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia because of this...Pisses me of.


"Denmark isn't a Dictatorship like Saudiarabia. Are they supposed to decide what we print?" Carsten Juste, Jyllands-Posten Editor

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/CagleJihad.gif

Muslims do have a right to complain, just as the rest of us do, but the way to complain about a text or picture you don't like is to answer in kind, not to take to the streets, cause diplomatic incidents etc. They may find the cartoons offensive, but I find their response to them offensive.

I feel the need to ammend this.
Their right to complain is contingent on them accepting the rules which bestow upon them said right to complain.
And incidentally.. that requires them to grin and bear it like men.
Not like little brats.

Bump.

*shrug* took the time to ask that question to a muslim who considers himself a citizen first, a muslim second.
His comments:
A] Wahhabis ( he used a rather harsher times ) aren't happy unless they've issued 5 fatwa's per day.
B] There's a lot of folks in places like Gaza who consider protesting a lot more interesting than sitting at home, waiting for the day to pass on the dole.

if the first link is taking forever to load there are a few mirrorsites

http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/mohammedmirror.htm

http://info2us.dk/muhammed/

As an Englishman, I am proud of the display of solidarity by European newspapers and people. I am ashamed of the remarks of our Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw and our EU Commissioner, Peter Mandelson. They are happy to condemn the newspapers that have published these cartoons but are unwilling to condemn the organised harassment of Danish embassies in muslim nations and the boycott of Danish goods.

After the 7/7 bombings in London, the reaction of British people to muslims living in this country was admirably restrained. All intelligent people are able to divorce the actions of a few extremist nutters from the wider community to which they belong. Innocent muslims were not persecuted because of what happened in London. British muslims generally reacted with the same horror as non-muslims and this was a very good development for race relations in the UK.

Free speech is an absolute. If there is an organised boycott of Danish goods in the middle east, there should be an organised campaign to buy Danish in the west. Make the next packet of butter you buy Lurpak, the next pint of lager a Carlsberg and buy Danish bacon. We must not be bullied on this one. Danish values are the same as our own and the next time, it might be your country that is being demonised by these intolerant fanatics.

Ok... some people really need to grow a thicker skin.

Of course you can - there is no reason why religious beliefs should be exempt from the normal debate and criticism which takes place in any other field of ideas. And given its huge influence in the world, there is plenty of reason why it should be scrutinized and criticised, humorously or otherwise.

Islam itself is highly offensive to other beliefs : The Koran is at times conciliatory to Christianity and Judaism and at times contemptuous of them. Regarding other beliefs, including non-belief, is it vitriolic in its hatred, and advocates the killing and torture of infidels. To expect those "infidels" to respect Islam and not answer back is utterly ridiculous and unjust.


Free speech gives them the right. Muslims can believe what they choose, but that gives them no right to dictate the beliefs or behaviour of the other 5/6ths of humanity.


How can anyone condone the hatred in the Quran, or the vicious propaganda which is spread in large parts of the Islamic world? Compared to this poison, a few cartoons in a newspaper are utterly insignificant.

Muslims do have a right to complain, just as the rest of us do, but the way to complain about a text or picture you don't like is to answer in kind, not to take to the streets, cause diplomatic incidents etc. They may find the cartoons offensive, but I find their response to them offensive.

I would like you to quote this 'hatred' in the Quran and quote the parts that advocate killing and torture. I have yet to see any passage of the Quran that says such a thing in context. Your post makes me think you have no idea what it actually says (much like some of the people who strap bombs to themselves in support of Islam).

Do not confuse the followers of a religion with the religion itself. The Bible does not mention abortion regardless of how inspired some are to violence on the basis of the Bible and abortion. The Quran does not encourage murder and torture despite the actions of SOME who follow that book.

This thread is not about the flaws in the Islamic religion but in the inability of some members of Islam to see reason.

This thread may well be focused on those few Muslims that can't take a joke. But the widespread attention that this 'outrage' has received is amazing when you consider events that didn't cause any outrage in the Muslim world.
Just from memory, think about these events:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

Dead kids, dead tourists, dead teachers don't cause any Muslim outrage, but put a caricature of Mohammed on the editorial pages and you have a widespread riot on your hands.

Are these Muslims really outraged at the cartoon? Probably not. So what are they really seeking with this circus?

As an Englishman, I am proud of the display of solidarity by European newspapers and people. I am ashamed of the remarks of our Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw and our EU Commissioner, Peter Mandelson. They are happy to condemn the newspapers that have published these cartoons but are unwilling to condemn the organised harassment of Danish embassies in muslim nations and the boycott of Danish goods.

After the 7/7 bombings in London, the reaction of British people to muslims living in this country was admirably restrained. All intelligent people are able to divorce the actions of a few extremist nutters from the wider community to which they belong. Innocent muslims were not persecuted because of what happened in London. British muslims generally reacted with the same horror as non-muslims and this was a very good development for race relations in the UK.

Free speech is an absolute. If there is an organised boycott of Danish goods in the middle east, there should be an organised campaign to buy Danish in the west. Make the next packet of butter you buy Lurpak, the next pint of lager a Carlsberg and buy Danish bacon. We must not be bullied on this one. Danish values are the same as our own and the next time, it might be your country that is being demonised by these intolerant fanatics.


I agree that what Jack Straw said was a disgrace; perhaps it was the smart thing to do politically speaking but it was cowardly and just sounded like appeasement.

Let them display the pictures, print them, sell them. It's freedom of speech. But if some pissed-off reader cut's the cartoonist's nuts off, then he won't be wondering why.

This thread may well be focused on those few Muslims that can't take a joke. But the widespread attention that this 'outrage' has received is amazing when you consider events that didn't cause any outrage in the Muslim world.
Just from memory, think about these events:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.

False.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

False.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

False.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

False.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
Dead kids, dead tourists, dead teachers don't cause any Muslim outrage, but put a caricature of Mohammed on the editorial pages and you have a widespread riot on your hands.

Still false.

Are these Muslims really outraged at the cartoon? Probably not. So what are they really seeking with this circus?

It's not their circus. If a group of Muslims stand up and denounce the trade center bombings people ignore them, like you did (even though it was widespread and well televised), but when some threaten a newspaper (while others are discussing the outrage of such a threat) all you can see is the threat. The fact you ignore it does not make it cease to exist. The threats are ridiculous but so is pretending that there has been no objection by Muslims to the behavior of some Muslims.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

How's that for a start? People who see only want supports their bigotry sadden me.

This thread may well be focused on those few Muslims that can't take a joke. But the widespread attention that this 'outrage' has received is amazing when you consider events that didn't cause any outrage in the Muslim world.
Just from memory, think about these events:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

Dead kids, dead tourists, dead teachers don't cause any Muslim outrage, but put a caricature of Mohammed on the editorial pages and you have a widespread riot on your hands.

Are these Muslims really outraged at the cartoon? Probably not. So what are they really seeking with this circus?


Maybe when you were flying El Dorado Canyon, they should have put 15,000 pounds of leaflet dispensers on your A-6, and had you shower Libya with pictures of Mohammed.

Worth a try, at least.

Let them display the pictures, print them, sell them. It's freedom of speech. But if some pissed-off reader cut's the cartoonist's nuts off, then he won't be wondering why.

Why are the comments in this thread so hyperbolous and ridiculous? Your statement closely resembles the argument that women should know that they might incite rape if they wear a short skirt and v-neck shirt. It's her fault for not wearing a burka, right? Nothing excuses rape or murder and we should do EVERYTHING we can to allow people to excercise their freedoms without having to be concerned for their safety.

Their right to complain is contingent on them accepting the rules which bestow upon them said right to complain.
And incidentally.. that requires them to grin and bear it like men.
Not like little brats.

Maybe when you were flying El Dorado Canyon, they should have put 15,000 pounds of leaflet dispensers on your A-6, and had you shower Libya with pictures of Mohammed.

Worth a try, at least.
I think the Mk-84s did exactly what they were supposed to do. Khaddafi became very docile after his close encounter with HE.

But watching the masses become apoplectic and explode would have been quite a hoot.

But didn't you just read that there was plenty of outrage at all of those incidents. In fact, didn't Faisal try to buy off NYC with a large gift? That was certainly outrageous of him. Then Cindy McKinney of Georgia tried to intercept the gift for all of the agony we suffered in Atlanta. Even more outrageous.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

How's that for a start? People who see only want supports their bigotry sadden me.
CAIR are just liars. If you google CAIR + terror, there are more connections between them and terror groups, like HAMAS, than I can count. Their outrage is just PR.

I think the Mk-84s did exactly what they were supposed to do. Khaddafi became very docile after his close encounter with HE.

But watching the masses become apoplectic and explode would have been quite a hoot.

But didn't you just read that there was plenty of outrage at all of those incidents. In fact, didn't Faisal try to buy off NYC with a large gift? That was certainly outrageous of him. Then Cindy McKinney of Georgia tried to intercept the gift for all of the agony we suffered in Atlanta. Even more outrageous.


I'm thinking that we really are the good guys. If we were assholes, we would first shower a country with leaflets with Mohammed's picture on them.

Then, when the rioters gathered in their millions in the street, we would lay down cluster munitions on the rioters.

If we're so damned evil, I wonder why we don't do that.

CAIR are just liars. If you google CAIR + terror, there are more connections between them and terror groups, like HAMAS, than I can count. Their outrage is just PR.

Ah, I see. So basically any Muslims that express outrage are just lying? Noted. I'm not noting that it's true, but noting that you refuse to accept facts, that Muslims openly and quickly denounced the bombings. It's okay though. What do you expect from somebody that talks about how nice it would be to see people explode (referring to the bombings of Khadafi and the discussion between you and DK, not the apoplectic part)? Perhaps instead of highlighting your differences, you should relish how much you have in common with these bombers. They romanticized death and mayhem too.

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.

Christian terrorists are more selfish and cowardly than Muslim terrorists; they prefer to be nowhere near the bomb when it goes off and rips people into bloody shreds. Just ask the IRA, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. At least your average Islamic suicide bomber has the guts to see the package through up close and personal like Slim Pickens.

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.

Oh yes, since Good Christian Men and Women save their violent protests for just abortion clinics and their staff we should start pitching them stones in the glass house at them dirty brown-skinned Muslims.

:rolleyes:

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

I'd like to see how well this sanctimonious comment stands up if say for example, someone made a film that said Jesus was a pedophile.

Let's also not forget those wonderful displays of Christian Tolerance in the wake of 9-11 like Mosques being vandalized, or a Sikh store clerk killed because someone who makes Jeff Foxworthy a wealthy man thought "Brown Skin = Muslim = Terrorist."

Ah, I see. So basically any Muslims that express outrage are just lying? Noted. I'm not noting that it's true, but noting that you refuse to accept facts, that Muslims openly and quickly denounced the bombings. It's okay though. What do you expect from somebody that talks about how nice it would be to see people explode? Perhaps instead of highlighting your differences, you should relish how much you have in common with these bombers. They romanticized death and mayhem too.

*shrug*
let's keep it plain and simple.
If you think THEY are right - go live in Saudi Arabia.
If you think WE are right - stay here.
If you think both are right - try London.
If you think both are wrong - try either of the Korea's.

*shrug*
let's keep it plain and simple.
If you think THEY are right - go live in Saudi Arabia.
If you think WE are right - stay here.
If you think both are right - try London.
If you think both are wrong - try either of the Korea's.

How about I think that WE are right and that WE are not represented by the sad lot that think that Muslims are violent, evil people and take joy in death? How about if I think that? How about I earned a right to stay here and be outraged by the actions of Americans when I risked my life to protect them? How about I know from experience that the people in the military who actually think what we do is romantic or a good thing rather than a necessary evil are few and far between and widely regarded as sick and dangerous individuals who have more in common with the 'enemy' than with us? How about that? To suggest that people who don't agree should leave is simply ridiculous.

Their right to complain is contingent on them accepting the rules which bestow upon them said right to complain.
And incidentally.. that requires them to grin and bear it like men.
Not like little brats.
Technically, they have every right to act like little brats. Freedom of speach is great like that. So long as they don't do anything criminal like, say, posing a bomb they can bitch and moan and throw tantrums all they want.

How about I think that WE are right and that WE are not represented by the sad lot that think that Muslims are violent, evil people and take joy in death? How about if I think that? How about I earned a right to stay here and be outraged by the actions of Americans when I risked my life to protect them? How about I know from experience that the people in the military who actually think what we do is romantic or a good thing rather than a necessary evil are few and far between and widely regarded as sick and dangerous individuals who have more in common with the 'enemy' than with us? How about that? To suggest that people who don't agree should leave is simply ridiculous.

How about you deciding which side of the sandwich is buttered?

Technically, they have every right to act like little brats. Freedom of speach is great like that. So long as they don't do anything criminal like, say, posing a bomb they can bitch and moan and throw tantrums all they want.


Not true. Rights - especially in the EU - are contingent upon a Social Contract.
Either they sign on the dotted line... or have no claim to rights.

Technically, they have every right to act like little brats. Freedom of speach is great like that. So long as they don't do anything criminal like, say, posing a bomb they can bitch and moan and throw tantrums all they want.

Yes, exactly. Threats of violence are indefensible, treating the Muslims who are threatening violence like they represent the entire Muslim community is also indefensible. Most Muslims are reacting within the bounds of the law and many are denouncing the threats as embarassing.

Not true. Rights - especially in the EU - are contingent upon a Social Contract.
Either they sign on the dotted line... or hav no claim to rights.

And the ones who are behaving within the bounds of the law didn't sign that social contract, how?

How about you deciding which side of the sandwich is buttered?

How about we try not to use overly simply analogies for extremely complex situations? You sound like Bush. This is not a "you're either with us or against us" kind of situation. There are people on 'both' sides that are behaving in a manner that makes me embarassed to be the same species as them.

Yes, exactly. Threats of violence are indefensible, treating the Muslims who are threatening violence like they represent the entire Muslim community is also indefensible. Most Muslims are reacting within the bounds of the law and many are denouncing the threats as embarassing.


ARTICLE 5
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

A threat against the security of a person, specifically a cartoonist, is a breach of article 5.

ARTICLE 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

ARTICLE 5
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

A threat against the security of a person, specifically a cartoonist, is a breach of article 5.

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

You think? EC was talking about the ones that are throwing tantrums within the bounds of the law. The ones that are pissed and talking about boycotting products, etc., but not issuing threats of violence. EC was talking about the VAST MAJORITY of the protestors.

Posted in another thread:
This is taken from a statement on the ADL website; I know this organisation has a fairly obvious pro-Israel bias but I think that's irrelevant in the context of the point being made here.

"What has been overlooked in the controversy is the fact that despicable anti-Jewish caricatures appear daily in newspapers across the Arab and Muslim world.

While invoking the supposed "freedom of the press" in their countries, Arab and Muslim leaders have refused to take any action to stem the drumbeat of anti-Semitism in widely circulated newspapers, many state-sponsored.

Indeed, leaders of regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have virtually ignored appeals from the United States and Jewish organizations to put an end to incitement in their media, excusing it in the name of "freedom of the press."

One would hope that leaders of Arab and Muslim countries would turn all of the anger being aimed at the European press into a larger lesson for their own people about the power of images"

If anyone has any links or info on this double-standard, I believe this debate can be put to rest with a "bloody hypocrites".

You think? EC was talking about the ones that are throwing tantrums within the bounds of the law. The ones that are pissed and talking about boycotting products, etc., but not issuing threats of violence. EC was talking about the VAST MAJORITY of the protestors.


The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

En Bref: no protest against Democracy is allowed under Democratic rules.

Some folks call that hipocrisy.
I call it logically consistent.

Christian terrorists are more selfish and cowardly than Muslim terrorists; they prefer to be nowhere near the bomb when it goes off and rips people into bloody shreds.


Hmmm that seems to be going on Iraq right now.

Also, the Christians don't have Martyrdoom as a practice so to compare is not exactly right.


Just ask the IRA, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.


The only one that was working for God there was Eric. Don't recall ever hearing babkiller McVeigh or the IRA saying they were doing their thing for God.


At least your average Islamic suicide bomber has the guts to see the package through up close and personal like Slim Pickens.

You do realize a suicide bomber is created. When they are ready they are programmed; that is not exactly guts.


Oh yes, since Good Christian Men and Women save their violent protests for just abortion clinics and their staff we should start pitching them stones in the glass house at them dirty brown-skinned Muslims.

:rolleyes:


That was a bit of a stretch. Violent assults on abortion clinics are not that frequent as the law punishes such actions.

Also, racism != Christianity(well excluding the past) people that go after brown-skins are racist. They just happen to be Christian. If Christians were racist then the ones in California would be going after the Mexicans.


I'd like to see how well this sanctimonious comment stands up if say for example, someone made a film that said Jesus was a pedophile.

Something along that lines already happened. "The last temptation of Christ" suggested Christ had sex :eek:

People were offended and were outraged. They protested theaters, wrote hate mail to the publishers in order to get it pulled.


Let's also not forget those wonderful displays of Christian Tolerance in the wake of 9-11 like Mosques being vandalized, or a Sikh store clerk killed because someone who makes Jeff Foxworthy a wealthy man thought "Brown Skin = Muslim = Terrorist."

Ok shock and fear does make people do stupid things.

Look at the people Nigearian Muslims killed because Nigeria was going to host a beauty pagent.

You also should know that mentioning Jeff Foxworthy diminishes you argument! ;)

NOW STOP MAKING ME DEFEND CHRISTIANS! ;)

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

En Bref: no protest against Democracy is allowed under Democratic rules.
I still fail to see where throwing a tantrum and bitching and boycotting are against the social contract.

If it so, those who bitch and moan about the way muslims are acting are breaching the same article.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are trying to move the goalposts?

Something along that lines already happened. "The last temptation of Christ" suggested Christ had sex :eek:

People were offended and were outraged. They protested theaters, wrote hate mail to the publishers in order to get it pulled.


Except that it didn't.

IIRC, the sex part was part of the dream sequence at the end of the film whilst he was on the cross and contemplating what might have been.

Of course such subtleties went over the heads of many of the protestors.

I still fail to see where throwing a tantrum and bitching and boycotting are against the social contract.

If it so, those who bitch and moan about the way muslims are acting are breaching the same article.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are trying to move the goalposts?

No. Democratic Rules exist first, second and third for the protection of democratic societies.

As Marat pointed out, Human Rights don't pertain to the enemies of Human Rights.

So the matter is very clear: immediate and unquestioning acceptance of the rules of the polity under which said cartoonist operated, or immediate abrogation.

And furthermore:

ARTICLE 16
Nothing in Articles 10, 11, and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

Except that it didn't.

IIRC, the sex part was part of the dream sequence at the end of the film whilst he was on the cross and contemplating what might have been.

Of course such subtleties went over the heads of many of the protestors.

:D Opps. Sorry as I have to confess I haven't seen it. I remember the screaming about it though.

Thank you for the correction. :)

Except that it didn't.

IIRC, the sex part was part of the dream sequence at the end of the film whilst he was on the cross and contemplating what might have been.

Of course such subtleties went over the heads of many of the protestors.
Hell, many protestors didn't even see the movie or knew what it was about and still the complained. It was about Jesus and it was coming from a "mainstream" chritian denomination so they figured it must be bad.

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.

Actually, as a Christian who sees his religion mocked on a regular basis, especially here in these forums, I fully agree with everything you said. My faith is strong enough to endure a little ridicule. Apparently the faith of most Muslims isn't.

No. Democratic Rules exist first, second and third for the protection of democratic societies.

As Marat pointed out, Human Rights don't pertain to the enemies of Human Rights.

So the matter is very clear: immediate and unquestioning acceptance of the rules of the polity under which said cartoonist operated, or immediate abrogation.
That is still not responding the question so I'll ask again:

Say a muslim signed on the dotted line. Say he protests and threathen to boycott. What you consider "acting like a little brat". What article of law is he breaking?

Actually, as a Christian who sees his religion mocked on a regular basis, especially here in these forums, I fully agree with everything you said. My faith is strong enough to endure a little ridicule. Apparently the faith of most Muslims isn't.

And the Inquisition was just a dirty athiest/Muslim propaganda.

:rolleyes:

Actually, as a Christian who sees his religion mocked on a regular basis, especially here in these forums, I fully agree with everything you said. My faith is strong enough to endure a little ridicule. Apparently the faith of most Muslims isn't.

I have to wonder myself. I have some at work and they are royally pissed.

They say they believe in freedom of speech and expression but these cartoons are different as they will create prejudice and yet suicide bombing is something different.....

And the Inquisition was just a dirty athiest/Muslim propaganda.

:rolleyes:


Ok 500 years ago. Got something a little more current?

That is still not responding the question so I'll ask again:

Say a muslim signed on the dotted line. Say he protests and threathen to boycott. What you consider "acting like a little brat". What article of law is he breaking?


Article 16.
Article 8.
Article 9.2
Article 10.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

En Bref: no protest against Democracy is allowed under Democratic rules.

Some folks call that hipocrisy.
I call it logically consistent.

Logically consistent? I can't protest so it's democratic? Ridiculous. They're not protesting about democracy. They're protesting cultural and religious insensitivity, which is their right. According to you, the Rainbow Coalition threatening to boycott the site that portrays Matthew Shepard burning in hell is not completely within their right, but that's simply not true. Show me a single EU that says that people should be able to protest a message they disagree with?

The article you cited could just as easily be applied to the newspaper as to the protestors. The right to protest is a necessary component of democracy. The right to disagree is a necessary component of democracy. The right to offend and to be offende are necessary components of democracy.

The only people who are dangerous to democracy are those that would abridge the freedom of speech and freedom of the press of individuals. You are one of those people

Logically consistent? I can't protest so it's democratic? Ridiculous. They're not protesting about democracy. They're protesting cultural and religious insensitivity, which is their right. According to you, the Rainbow Coalition threatening to boycott the site that portrays Matthew Shepard burning in hell is not completely within their right, but that's simply not true. Show me a single EU that says that people should be able to protest a message they disagree with?

The article you cited could just as easily be applied to the newspaper as to the protestors. The right to protest is a necessary component of democracy. The right to disagree is a necessary component of democracy. The right to offend and to be offende are necessary components of democracy.

The only people who are dangerous to democracy are those that would abridge the freedom of speech and freedom of the press of individuals. You are one of those people

You may not protest against democracy per se.
If you protest that a cartoonist had no right to offend mohammed ( as that muslim leader in france did ), you are breaching that basic rule.

No. Democratic Rules exist first, second and third for the protection of democratic societies.

As Marat pointed out, Human Rights don't pertain to the enemies of Human Rights.

So the matter is very clear: immediate and unquestioning acceptance of the rules of the polity under which said cartoonist operated, or immediate abrogation.

And furthermore:

ARTICLE 16
Nothing in Articles 10, 11, and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

Oh, I see. So Muslims as 'enemies of human rights' don't get rights. I would say that ANYONE who tries to deny ANYONE basic human rights before they've violated the law is an enemy of human rights. That would include, let's see if I can find anyone in this thread, um, YOU.

I just want to know why all the Muslims that are protesting and burning flags and trashing embassies because of some stupid cartoon didn't do the same thing when in the name of their religion people flew planes into the World Trade Center, killed school children in Russia, blew up women and children in Israel, etc. Why don't they get enraged about the coopting of their religion by radical whack jobs? Or is it just the radical whack jobs who are pissed about the cartoon? If that is the case, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

And the Inquisition was just a dirty athiest/Muslim propaganda.

:rolleyes:

I don't see how your statement is relavent to what I said. Or are you just one of those individuals who says "Inquistion" as your answer to every religious discussion?

Oh, I see. So Muslims as 'enemies of human rights' don't get rights. I would say that ANYONE who tries to deny ANYONE basic human rights before they've violated the law is an enemy of human rights. That would include, let's see if I can find anyone in this thread, um, YOU.


ARTICLE 17
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

ARTICLE 18
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

You may not protest against democracy per se.
If you protest that a cartoonist had no right to offend mohammed ( as that muslim leader in france did ), you are breaching that basic rule.

They aren't protesting that he has no right, they are protesting that he shouldn't. They are protesting that people should show more respect for the sacred beliefs of others. By "they", of course, I am talking about the ones who are suggesting more reasonable tracks like boycott. What about someone who deny them the right to say they are upset, which is a basic rule? You are breaching the same rule.

Article 16.
Article 8.
Article 9.2
Article 10.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?

Article 9.2
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?

Article 10.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Again, where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?
Hell, the bolded part would suggest to me that protest is not only allowed but encouraged.

ARTICLE 17
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

ARTICLE 18
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

You're supporting my argument. You're the one trying to outlaw their actions. They are calling for discretion. You are calling for them to be considered in breach of law. Again, you really should read these laws BEFORE you post them. They are making you look more than a little hypocritical.

:D Opps. Sorry as I have to confess I haven't seen it. I remember the screaming about it though.


Though really the context is irrelevent, it just helps highlight the herd mentality of the protesters and draws a nice parrallel.

Though it is a film recommend.

Hell, many protestors didn't even see the movie or knew what it was about and still the complained. It was about Jesus and it was coming from a "mainstream" chritian denomination so they figured it must be bad.

Indeed. Though it was interesting that many priests did and went on record saying it was a good film with no blasphemous content. The writer of the book it was based on stressed he wasn't writing historical fiction but it was an artistic experiment looking at Jesus as a sinless individual who faced the temptations and problem all of us face. Scorcese similarly stressed this, putting a disclaimer in the film stating it wasn't a historic portrayal of Jesus.

Unsurprisingly though the backlash began before the film was even finished with many religious leaders denouncing it and accussing it of being pornographic. I also think it has had one of the most violent receptions of any Hollywood film, in Paris fundementalists petrol bombed a screening of it.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?

Article 9.2
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?

Article 10.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Again, where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?
Hell, the bolded part would suggest to me that protest is not only allowed but encouraged.


The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?

Article 9.2
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?

Article 10.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Again, where does it say that you can't protest or boycott?
Hell, the bolded part would suggest to me that protest is not only allowed but encouraged.

Shhhh... you're not allowed to defend the dirty Muslims or you're a defender of the 'enemy'. Don't you know which side of the bread is buttered?

ARTICLE 17
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

ARTICLE 18
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
So why are you advocating that Muslim should not have the same rights as other?

So why are you advocating that Muslim should not have the same rights as other?

Does anyone notice the only one advocating the destruction of rights (rather than simply using discretion) are the ones that are advocating denying Muslims the right to protest?

Ok 500 years ago. Got something a little more current?

CHRISTIAN IDENTITY MOVEMENT (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm)

So why are you advocating that Muslim should not have the same rights as other?

I'm advocating the simple legal principle that no one has the right to freedoms derived from statutes whose validity he questions.

Crown Prosecutor vz Mohammed B. ( the guy who killed Theo van Gogh )

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime.
Again, I fail to see where a protest or an economical boycott breach these stipulations.

As I said, they can act like a spoiled child all they want so long as they don't break the law by doing a criminal act.

CHRISTIAN IDENTITY MOVEMENT (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm)

OK. 6 years ago. Got anything more current?

I'm advocating the simple legal principle that no one has the right to freedoms derived from statutes whose validity he questions.

Crown Prosecutor vz Mohammed B. ( the guy who killed Theo van Gogh )
Even if that were true, the burden is on you to show that they are indeed questionning such rights.

Again, I fail to see where a protest or an economical boycott breach these stipulations.

As I said, they can act like a spoiled child all they want so long as they don't break the law by doing a criminal act.

The motivation: a claim that said person did not have the right to offend mohammed.

I don't see how your statement is relavent to what I said. Or are you just one of those individuals who says "Inquistion" as your answer to every religious discussion?

I brought up the Inquisition as a point of refutal for the posters here who go on with their dreamland notions that Christianity has been an entirely tolerant and open religion as opposed to the dirty brown-skinned Muslims.

And the Inquisition was just a dirty athiest/Muslim propaganda.

:rolleyes:

There is actually evidence to suggest that much of Spanish Inquisition myth was simply Protestant propaganda, with the Inquisition being one of the best legal recourses of the time, demanding actual evidence for crimes rather then hearsay and conjecture. The witch craze which engulfed much of early modern Europe largely didn't touch Spain and the Italian states because of this.

A good book on the subject is Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition. Kamen uses the Inquisitional records in Toledo (and somewhere else that slips my mind) to show that in the vast majority of case tortures was rarely used, and even more rarely used more than once. He also looks at the effect of art such a Schiller and Verdi's Don Juan has had on the myth of the Spanish Inquisition.

Even if that were true, the burden is on you to show that they are indeed questionning such rights.

It's true. And the HCP's have already delivered their opinions. Way back in Rushie days.
Meanwhile.... stare decisis.

OK. 6 years ago. Got anything more current?

What? You want a Live Update on Christian Intolerance and Terrorism? Pat "God Gave Sharon The Stroke" Robertson and Fred "God Hates Everyone Else" Phelps aren't enough? This isn't Super Mario Strikers, stop moving the goalpost.

:rolleyes:

I'm advocating the simple legal principle that no one has the right to freedoms derived from statutes whose validity he questions.

Crown Prosecutor vz Mohammed B. ( the guy who killed Theo van Gogh )

First, your example is of someone who broke the law. Secondly, because some are questioning the validity of freedom of speech does not mean all are. You are generalizing in a wholly inaccurate way to try and make a point, but the problem is that the majority of the protestors wish for the newspaper to excercise discretion (which on the newspapers did) and be respectful of the beliefs of others or to expect to experience economic effects of such a lack of discretion. This is completely within the bounds of the law and within the intent of said rights.

The only one here advocating the denial of rights is you. You can no longer speak. No one has the right to freedoms derived from statutes whose validity he questions. Cover your mouth with your hands please as this will prevent you from speaking or typing. Thanks for giving me legal backing for stopping you from continuing this charade.

There is actually evidence to suggest that much of Spanish Inquisition myth was simply Protestant propaganda, with the Inquisition being one of the best legal recourses of the time, demanding actual evidence for crimes rather then hearsay and conjecture. The witch craze which engulfed much of early modern Europe largely didn't touch Spain and the Italian states because of this.

A good book on the subject is Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition. Kamen uses the Inquisitional records in Toledo (and somewhere else that slips my mind) to show that in the vast majority of case tortures was rarely used, and even more rarely used more than once. He also looks at the effect of art such a Schiller and Verdi's Don Juan has had on the myth of the Spanish Inquisition.

I will have to give that book a read. Thanks.....

What? You want a Live Update on Christian Intolerance and Terrorism? Pat "God Gave Sharon The Stroke" Robertson and Fred "God Hates Everyone Else" Phelps aren't enough? This isn't Super Mario Strikers, stop moving the goalpost.

:rolleyes:

I was being sarcastic. Your link was more than adequate.

First, your example is of someone who broke the law. Secondly, because some are questioning the validity of freedom of speech does not mean all are. You are generalizing in a wholly inaccurate way to try and make a point, but the problem is that the majority of the protestors wish for the newspaper to excercise discretion (which on the newspapers did) and be respectful of the beliefs of others or to expect to experience economic effects of such a lack of discretion. This is completely within the bounds of the law and within the intent of said rights.

The only one here advocating the denial of rights is you. You can no longer speak. No one has the right to freedoms derived from statutes whose validity he questions. Cover your mouth with your hands please as this will prevent you from speaking or typing. Thanks for giving me legal backing for stopping you from continuing this charade.

Question: do you have standing as a citizen, resident alien, or temporary resident before a EU court?
I do.
You don't.
Case closed.

The motivation: a claim that said person did not have the right to offend mohammed.

So one Muslim makes that claim and the equates to all Muslims. And here I thought they were each seperate thinking people. They are a hive-mind. I see. *pretends the idea is not ridiculous*

I was being sarcastic. Your link was more than adequate.

Ohh so that was aimed at me?

You have to admit bring up events from 500+ years ago is rather a weak way to justify an argument of intollerence. Unless of course somebody says there was never any intollerence......

Question: do you have standing as a citizen, resident alien, or temporary resident before a EU court?
I do.
You don't.
Case closed.

Bwahaha. Ridiculous. See. Those laws apply to you. And you are violating them. Thus, you must take on the responsibility of their violation, which, according to you, is the revocation of those rights. Again, put your hands over your mouth please.

So one Muslim makes that claim and the equates to all Muslims. And here I thought they were each seperate thinking people. They are a hive-mind. I see. *pretends the idea is not ridiculous*


Have you heard any one muslim who protests claiming the cartoonist was entirely within his rights?

Meanwhile, open statements by members of the islamic executives in France and Belgium are all the evidence that is needed.

Ohh so that was aimed at me?

You have to admit bring up events from 500+ years ago is rather a weak way to justify an argument of intollerence. Unless of course somebody says there was never any intollerence......

Not exactly. I was fooling around. Why do we have to get so riled up in these discussions. I can laugh at myself (if you saw what I'm wearing it would be hard not to). You can laugh at yourself. Why does that seem like such a bad idea in such a discussion?

As to the point, there are no Christian Fundamentalist nations at the moment but at the times when there were we were as bad or worse than other nations. Hell, even when we were pretending not to be Christian nations we let 'Christian' ideals and supports of such ideals inspire homophobia, sexism, racism, imperialism, etc. It wasn't very long ago that imperialism from the west was considered a mandate from God, Himself. History and culture cannot be isolated to a moment but must be looked over time. We must use the examples of our cultures to realize that Islam is not the problem but fundamentalism is. Any belief system that tramples individual rights like fundamentalism is wont to do is inherently dangerous. Meanwhile, threatening to violate individual rights to stem the tide of fundamentalists is equally dangerous and puts one more on the side of fundamentalists of one kind or another than of the moderates who by and large are responsible for more tolerant societies.

Have you heard any one muslim who protests claiming the cartoonist was entirely within his rights?

Meanwhile, open statements by members of the islamic executives in France and Belgium are all the evidence that is needed.

You are correct. All the evidence that is needed, if you're a bigot. Non-bigotted people treat people as individuals. Bigots act like the actions of one are the actions of all. Which are you?

You are correct. All the evidence that is needed, if you're a bigot. Non-bigotted people treat people as individuals. Bigots act like the actions of one are the actions of all. Which are you?

That's all you need for a court of law.
Especially since said Executives have legal standing.
Specifically as representative bodies...

That's all you need for a court of law.
Especially since said Executives have legal standing.
Specifically as representative bodies...

You're full of it. They don't have legal standing over all of Islam. The Muslims in France aren't subject to the rule of the leaders of Egypt. Many Arabs are demanding an apology and NOT DEMANDING LEGAL ACTION. That says they respect the rights, but they think it was insensitive and wrong and should be apologized for. Kind of like when someone demands an apology from a sportscaster who makes a comment about some black guy have the strength of a jungle warrior. Yes, they have the right to say and others have the right to find it in poor taste and demand an apology.

Now show me a court of law that held an individual responsible for the actions of another individual? If the Pope makes a racist comment, am I reponsible for it because I'm Christian?

Representative bodies represent certain groups not all groups that you choose to group with them.

Yamashita vz Styer.

Oh, what a nice flipflop.
Since there is no right to sensitivity, there can be no remedy for insensitivity.

Yamashita vz Styer.

Ah, yes, more efforts to not provide links. You're very good at that.

EDIT: Nevermind. I looked it up. You are talking about a person who was held responsible by the court for his OWN ACTIONS as a leader within the military and responsible for the people under his command. How many people under his command were tried for the actions of Yamashita?

Seriously, are you trying to support my argument or do you just not look at these laws and cases?

The motivation: a claim that said person did not have the right to offend mohammed.
Give me one proof that any european have claimed that. One.

In the meantime, freedom of speach is still applying to any and all so protest is still perfectly legal. Every muslim living in europe has every right to be offended and to proclaim it loudly.

Ah, yes, more efforts to not provide links. You're very good at that.

You are entirely free to subscribe to online law-libraries.
You're not free to expect me to arrange your subscription.

If you are unfamiliar with US Supreme Court cases, the problem is yours.

BogMarsh's posts have prooved conclusively that he wants to limit the freedom of every muslim in Europe.

According to the european social contract (or whatever it is called) he therefore forfeits every and all rights accorded with said document, including freedom of speach.

BogMarsh, kindly refrain from further posting as you have no right to express yourself.

Thank You :D

You are entirely free to subscribe to online law-libraries.
You're not free to expect me to arrange your subscription.

If you are unfamiliar with US Supreme Court cases, the problem is yours.
And, pray tell, what does a US case has to do with European law?

You are entirely free to subscribe to online law-libraries.
You're not free to expect me to arrange your subscription.

If you are unfamiliar with US Supreme Court cases, the problem is yours.

Ah, but you are proved wrong by the case of Madeupname vs. Genericarabname.

And no, I won't provide a link, find it yourself.

And, pray tell, what does a US case has to do with European law?

I'm still not sure how that case helps his case even if a US case has anything to do with European law :confused:

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.

Religon is a joke.


Muslims follow a joke. Its only right that they are made fun of. I spit on their idiotic beliefs.

I brought up the Inquisition as a point of refutal for the posters here who go on with their dreamland notions that Christianity has been an entirely tolerant and open religion as opposed to the dirty brown-skinned Muslims.

Note that I said "my faith," not anyone else's.

Give me one proof that any european have claimed that. One.

In the meantime, freedom of speach is still applying to any and all so protest is still perfectly legal. Every muslim living in europe has every right to be offended and to proclaim it loudly.


http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/704

http://spaces.msn.com/mata2004/Blog/cns!1pLlR4KbFA8izNd0w195GnUQ!448.entry

Many Arabs are demanding an apology and NOT DEMANDING LEGAL ACTION. That says they respect the rights, but they think it was insensitive and wrong and should be apologized for. Kind of like when someone demands an apology from a sportscaster who makes a comment about some black guy have the strength of a jungle warrior. Yes, they have the right to say and others have the right to find it in poor taste and demand an apology.

The newspaper in question has already apoligised. What the protesting Arabs seem to want is that the Danish government does the same and takes steps to forbid such publications in the future. But that obviously would go against the freedom of speech and press ideal.

Religon is a joke.


Muslims follow a joke. Its only right that they are made fun of. I spit on their idiotic beliefs.

Well don't be surprised if they spit on your beliefs then.

I'm still not sure how that case helps his case even if a US case has anything to do with European law :confused:

Now show me a court of law that held an individual responsible for the actions of another individual?


I showed him a landmark case within his very own jurisdiction...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/704

http://spaces.msn.com/mata2004/Blog/cns!1pLlR4KbFA8izNd0w195GnUQ!448.entry
You'll have to quote me which part you are refering to, because I didn't see anything after skimming through the Brussel Journal link.

As for the other one: a blog? You have to be joking.

You'll have to quote me which part you are refering to, because I didn't see anything after skimming through the Brussel Journal link.

As for the other one: a blog? You have to be joking.

It gives you the original letter. Photographed. In arabic.

I'm sure Keruvalia could translate it for you.
I'm sure his translations are better than mine.

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.


THis is 2006 not 1406, lets try to keepthe dicussion of the cartoon within the last 100 years please...

Nanic, this is what you say you claim to believe


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.



And this is what you write


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


You vapid slackjawwed yank, go back to Kansas.


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


so like I said---typical for a piece trash

you are an idiot as well.

You are a hypocrite.

THis is 2006 not 1406, lets try to keepthe dicussion of the cartoon within the last 100 years please...

And lets try and keep our replies to within the last 100 posts

It gives you the original letter. Photographed. In arabic.

I'm sure Keruvalia could translate it for you.
I'm sure his translations are better than mine.
Where?

There is so much link on this page that I can't be arsed to check them all.

Where?

There is so much link on this page that I can't be arsed to check them all.

I see. So you expect me to solve your problems?
HINT: you already saw it.
But probably skipped it because... it was in arabic.

Well don't be surprised if they spit on your beliefs then.

But thats the point! they can spit on anyones beliefs, and they do, but then they whine like little bitches when we criticise them.

they burn our flags and say we're all infedels and going to hell and they oppress gays and women and human rights.

then they complain when we print a picture of muhammad. theyl probly start boycotting danish bacon now.

Nanic, this is what you say you claim to believe

...

And this is what you write

...

You are a hypocrite.
I have to just give you a hat-tip for that...very nicely done. :)

But thats the point! they can spit on anyones beliefs, and they do, but then they whine like little bitches when we criticise them.

they burn our flags and say we're all infedels and going to hell and they oppress gays and women and human rights.

then they complain when we print a picture of muhammad. theyl probly start boycotting danish bacon now.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't nearly all Christians say that everyone who isn't Christian is going to burn in hell?

I unqualifiably support the cartoonist's right to draw the cartoons. However, they were poorly drawn, not very funny and didn't really make any legitimate point; in short: they were designed purely to provoke outrage and anger. The paper prints the cartoons which were aiming to provoke outrage and, shock horror, they provoke outrage! Who would have thought it?:eek:

This could go two ways.

1. Muslims get used to it and start to become more moderate
2. War

Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't nearly all Christians say that everyone who isn't Christian is going to burn in hell?

I unqualifiably support the cartoonist's right to draw the cartoons. However, they were poorly drawn, not very funny and didn't really make any legitimate point; in short: they were designed purely to provoke outrage and anger. The paper prints the cartoons which were aiming to provoke outrage and, shock horror, they provoke outrage! Who would have thought it?:eek:

I suppose we can live with the outrage. But we have no reason to put up with the snotty attitude. As seen before in.... France?

http://www.radiofarda.com/images/photo/France%20Riot%20100.JPG
http://www.ultrasworld.com/eng_france34a.jpg
http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/franskdemo.jpg

This could go two ways.

1. Muslims get used to it and start to become more moderate
2. War

I think that's a little hyperbolic.

I think that's a little hyperbolic.

Yeah, I guess I was exaggerating on the whole "becoming moderate" bit.

I suppose we can live with the outrage. But we have no reason to put up with the snotty attitude. As seen before in.... France?

http://www.radiofarda.com/images/photo/France%20Riot%20100.JPG
http://www.ultrasworld.com/eng_france34a.jpg
http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/franskdemo.jpg

Live with the outrage? The cartoonist deliberate created the outrage, I'm guessing it was a publicity stunt.

And please explain how the Paris riots are at all relevant to this.

Live with the outrage? The cartoonist deliberate created the outrage, I'm guessing it was a publicity stunt.

And please explain how the Paris riots are at all relevant to this.

You're guessing. You don't know. Coincidentally... I think your guess is wrong.

Well... I'd say we have a fair amount of coat-trailing by certain persons, and it is a good moment to decide just WHAT values are to reign supreme in Europe.

This could go two ways.

1. Muslims get used to it and start to become more moderate
2. War
Neither of those is idiotic enough.

This could go two ways.

1. Muslims get used to it and start to become more moderate

To his credit, Al Sistani, or whatever, in Iraq is more or less saying that same thing.

The problem is that Muslims move in to Western countries for the better life that we offer. But then they expect to be treated just like they were back in the stone-age civilization that they just left. I don't think both Western progress and Muslim fundamentalism can exist in the same society. The immigrants need to understand that they left that back in the 1500 AD civilization that they just left.

Yeah, I guess I was exaggerating on the whole "becoming moderate" bit.

The Muslims in the west have already become more moderate, note the peaceful protests, the complaints through official channels and the lack of violence in any form. I don't think we have anything to fear from that quarter.

In the Middle East I think moderatism (not sure if that's even a word but what the hell) will slowly prevail. In Saudi Arabia the state are fighting a losing battle against pornography and other 'immoral practises'. Once the younger generation begin to take power I think we'll see a noticable change in attitudes, assuming of course that Bush doesn't screw the whole process up by creating even more hatred for the west.

Live with the outrage? The cartoonist deliberate created the outrage, I'm guessing it was a publicity stunt.

And please explain how the Paris riots are at all relevant to this.

Because people darker than the average bear took part, silly.

You're guessing. You don't know. Coincidentally... I think your guess is wrong.

Well... I'd say we have a fair amount of coat-trailing by certain persons, and it is a good moment to decide just WHAT values are to reign supreme in Europe.

Friend, we know that the cartoonist knew about Muslim feelings concerning depictions of Muhammed; he then drew deliberately provocative pictures of Mushammed, portraying him as a terrorist. It isn't hard to see his motives.

I see. So you expect me to solve your problems?
HINT: you already saw it.
But probably skipped it because... it was in arabic.
Again, Where?

Here's the page you linked to:
Comments
Due to heavy server load, comments have been disabled temporarily.
Newsletter
Register now to receive our weekly newsletter.
Brussels Hotels
Looking for a hotel in Brussels?
Book now, pay at the hotel.
Who We Are
Editor:
Paul Belien
Webmaster:
Luc Van Braekel
Writers:
George Adair, Washington DC
Chresten Anderson, Copenhagen
Eline van den Broek, The Hague
Alexandra Colen, Brussels
Chris Gillibrand, Brussels
Hjörtur Gudmundsson, Reykjavik
Daniel Hannan, London
Elaib Harvey, Brussels
Martin Helme, Tallinn
Waldemar Ingdahl, Stockholm
Filip van Laenen, Oslo
Carlo Stagnaro, Turin
Contributors:
Norman Barry, Buckingham
Martin De Vlieghere, Brussels
Koenraad Elst, Brussels
George Handlery, Maienfeld (CH)
Edwin Jacobs, Brussels
Richard Rahn, Washington DC
Matthias Storme, Brussels
Schrijvers (in Dutch):
Peter Fleming
Jan Lievens
Jan Neckers
Marc Vanfraechem
Jos Verhulst
User login
Username:

Password:

Create new account
Request new password
Who's online
There are currently 4 users and 3494 guests online.
Online users:
Luc Van Braekel
Evert Hardeman
Paul Belien
benrottman
External counters:



website analysis software
free counter


Popular pieces
Today's:
Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute
Jihad Against Danish Newspaper
Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons
Danish Cartoon Affair: Letter from a Muslim
Cartoon Case Escalates into International Crisis


All time:
Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute
Jihad Against Danish Newspaper
First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons
Our Lady of Cultural Differences
Cartoon Case Escalates into International Crisis
France's Toll of Destruction
Danish Cartoon Affair: Letter from a Muslim
Danish Prime Minister Shocked at Lies
Ramadan Rioting in Europe's No-Go Areas
The Myth of the Scandinavian Model
Norway Apologizes over Muhammad Cartoons
Denmark: Moderate Muslims Oppose Imams
Danish Muslims Divided over Cartoon Affair
Avenging Muslims Seek to Kill Belgian Journalist
Down with America: the Anti-American Dance (2)
European Appeasement Reinforces Muslim Extremism
Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-met-de-Blote-Borsten
Show Them Who Is the Boss in France
Buy Danish. Nothing Rotten in the State of Denmark
Home » English » European Appeasement Reinforces Muslim Extremism



European Appeasement Reinforces Muslim Extremism
From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2006-01-24 12:40
The Brussels Journal has reported on the developments in the Danish cartoon case since it started in October 2005. We are one of the few non-Danish European observers to do so. Last Sunday, instead of linking to a website with the twelve Danish Muhammad cartoons we decided to add them to our article about the case. In a sense we were republishing the cartoons, but as we are only a non-commercial website with some 5,000 visitors a day, have no paper edition and did not make a great fuss about publishing them we only received two “threats.” One e-mail, from a certain “Hayet” said:

hello;
Les vrais trait de visage de notre profet (que seul les musulmans) les
connais sont d’un homme le plus beau de monde donc votre photo est
raté
The real trace face of our profet mohamed are the best; he is the
best beautiful men in the word. Your photo is misfire



The other, from a certain “Siham,” said:

good morning
you must take us a lot of excuses We respect your profect and all profects; and you you must respect our profect for not to have in futur other problems between us

Both emails were sent via the same IP address in France, indicating that “Hayet” is probably “Siham.”

The best way to end the whole cartoon affair would be for as many websites, blogs and papers in Europe just to publish the cartoons in an act of defiance to extremists. Moderate Muslims take no offense at the cartoons, as could be seen last week in Denmark where the refusal of the government to give in to demands for press censorship has encouraged the moderates to speak out against the radicals. As Glenn Reynolds wrote in a comment on the affair: “I think that moderate Muslims are a lot more likely to speak out if they feel confident that the government will stand up to the immoderate ones.” This is an appeal to all of us, not just our governments: If we all stand up to the extremist Muslims the moderate ones will be encouraged to speak out.

We have been critical (and still are) of the Dutch Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali on account of her opposition to religion and religious people but Ms Hirsi Ali had a point yesterday when she said that the only way to confront the radicals is a free and open debate. Sadly, she says, there is no free and open debate “because of the complacency and self-censorship of Europe’s political and intellectual elites, the self-pity of the Muslims, and the threat of violence by the jihadists.” Indeed, it is the appeasement attitude and behaviour of the Europeans that is strenghtening the power of the extremists over the moderate Muslims.

Hirsi Ali was speaking in The Hague where she received the “European of the Year Award” from our American friend (and former inhabitant of Brussels) Conrad Kiechel, the editor of the international editions of Readers’ Digest. The European commissioner Neelie Croes said in her speech that Hirsi Ali is sometimes criticised because of her confrontational approach. “If you believe in eternal life you can afford to be sophisticated. If you do not, you need rebels on this earth to bring about change. Ayaan is a rebel.” In our opinion the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen would have been a better candidate for the European of the Year Award. He is not a rebel but a man of principles. Europe does not need rebellion to change things; all it needs is to stand by its principles in order to safeguard its civilization.

One of our readers drew our attention to the wise commentary of Mona Eltahawy, a journalist of Egyptian Muslim origin, in today’s Daily Star. Unlike Ms Hirsi Ali, Ms Eltahawy has not turned against religion as the root of all evil, but practices a liberal Islam by speaking out against the militancy and terrorism committed in the name of her religion.

She writes about the cartoon case:

Can we finally admit that Muslims have blown out of all proportion their outrage over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper last September? [...] The initial printing of the cartoons in Denmark led to death threats being issued against the artists, demonstrations in Kashmir, and condemnation from 11 countries. What did any of this achieve but prove the original point of the newspaper’s culture editor, that artists in Europe were censoring themselves because they feared Muslim reaction? [...]


Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was right not to intervene, insisting the government has no say over media – the argument used by Arab leaders when they are asked about anti-Semitism in their media, by the way. [...]

What should have remained a local issue turned into a diplomatic uproar that Muslims otherwise rarely provoke when fighting for their rights around the world. Perhaps the Muslim governments who spearheaded the campaign – led by Egypt – felt this was an easy way to burnish their Islamic credentials at a time when domestic Islamists are stronger than they have been in many years.

Must we really boycott Danish products, as one e-mail I received exhorted? [...] Here are a few facts we should remember. However offensive any of the 12 cartoons were, they did not incite violence against Muslims. For an example of incitement, though, one must go back a few weeks before the cartoons were published. In August, the Danish authorities withdrew for three months the broadcasting license of a Copenhagen radio station after it called for the extermination of Muslims. Those were real threats and the government protected Muslims – the same government later condemned for not punishing the newspaper that published the cartoons.

Second, the cartoon incident belongs at the very center of the kind of debate that Muslims must have in the European countries where they live - particularly after the Madrid train bombings of 2003 and the London subway bombings of 2005. While right-wing anti-immigration groups whip up Islamophobia in Denmark, Muslim communities wallow in denial over the increasing role of their own extremists.

As just one example, last August Fadi Abdullatif, the spokesman for the Danish branch of the militant Hizb-ut-Tahrir organization, was charged with calling for the killing of members of the Danish government. [...] Muslims must honestly examine why there is such a huge gap between the way we imagine Islam and our prophet, and the way both are seen by others. Our offended sensibilities must not be limited to the Danish newspaper or the cartoonist, but to those like Fadi Abdullatif whose actions should be regarded as just as offensive to Islam and to our reverence for the prophet. Otherwise, we are all responsible for those Danish cartoons.


We need Muslims like Ms Eltahawy, who speak out against the extremists. We need Western journalists and politicians who support them by not allowing themselves to be intimidated by the extremists. But where are these journalists and politicians? None of his European colleagues has dared to publicly support Mr Rasmussen. On the contrary, both the European Union and the Council of Europe (as well as the United Nations) criticized Denmark over the cartoons. Only a handful of Europe’s papers and magazines has publicly supported a Danish newspaper’s decision to publish the cartoons. Most European mainstream media have not even dared to write about the case, leaving the European public in complete ignorance of a very important international conflict that has been going on for four months now.

More on the Danish cartoon case:

Jihad Against Danish Paper, 22 October 2005

Cartoon Case Escalates into International Crisis, 27 October 2005

Out of the Iranian Frying Pan into the Danish Fire, 29 October 2005

Pigs Do Not Fly, 17 November 2005

Bounty Offered for Murdering Cartoonists, 4 December 2005

UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists, 7 December 2005

Dispatch from the Eurabian Front, 9 December 2005

Europe Criticises Copenhagen over Cartoons, 21 December 2005

Cartoon Case: EU and UN Call Denmark to Account, 28 December 2005

Danish Cartoon Affair: Letter from a Muslim, 31 December 2005

Danish Muslims Divided over Cartoon Affair, 8 January 2006

Danish Prime Minister Shocked at Lies, 11 January 2006

Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons, 14 January 2006

Denmark: Moderate Muslims Oppose Imams, 19 January 2006

Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Case, 22 January 2006


Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/trackback/704
Libya joins the boycott bandwagon
from GagWatch on Mon, 2006-01-30 11:02
First Saudi Arabia and now, as the BBC reports, Libya has decided to close its embassy in Denmark over the

Libya joins the boycott bandwagon
from GagWatch on Mon, 2006-01-30 02:03
First Saudi Arabia and now, as the BBC reports, Libya has decided to close its embassy in Denmark over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

As with the Saudis and the Jordanians, Tripoli appears to believe that the Danish government s...

Mohammed Cartoon Update
from L'Ombre de l'Olivier on Sat, 2006-01-28 22:48
A couple of events. Firstly the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Denmark has been recalled.

Mohammed im Rampenlicht
from steirerblog on Sat, 2006-01-28 17:14
Sehr viele Moslems w?sich in einem Europa ohne dieses ganze ungl䵢ige Pack mit ihren abstrusen Auffassungen von Demokratie,

Mohammed Cartoon Update
from L'Ombre de l'Olivier on Fri, 2006-01-27 14:23
(see also yesterday's post)
A couple of events. Firstly the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Denmark has been recalled.

Thursday's Middle East Memo, 01.26.2006
from Security Watchtower on Fri, 2006-01-27 06:22
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION This biweekly memo appears Monday and Thursday. It is intended to discuss issues to which I do not devote a full post in summary format providing brief commentary with links. The Palestinians gave the terrorist group Hamas a stron

A Matter of Solidarity
from Roncesvalles on Thu, 2006-01-26 18:37
I herewith follow the appeal of the Brussels Journal: "The best way to end the whole cartoon affair would be for as many websites, blogs and papers in Europe just to publish the cartoons in an act of defiance to

Solidarit䴠mit D䮥n-Zeitung Jyllands Posten!
from Eussner.net on Thu, 2006-01-26 13:03
Deutsche Blogosph䲥 ver?ntlicht Mohammed-Karikaturen.
J?Krafzik von der Gegenstimme ist heute einem Aufruf des Brussels Journal (?The

Solidarit䴠mit D䮥n-Zeitung Jyllands Posten!
from Das politisch inkorrekte Weblog in Deutschland on Thu, 2006-01-26 12:33
Deutsche Blogosph䲥 ver?ntlicht Mohammed-Karrikaturen
J?Krafzik von der Gegenstimme ist heute einem Aufruf des Brussels Journal ('The best way to end the whole cartoon affair

Defending Freedom of Opinion, Speech and Press!
from Gegenstimme on Thu, 2006-01-26 04:00
Aus gegebenem Anlass schlieߥ ich mich folgendem Aufruf des Brussels Journal an
The best way to end the whole cartoon affair would be for as many websites, blogs and papers in Europe just to publish the cartoons in an act of defiance to extremists.
...

La libertad de expresión y los musulmanes: las caricaturas
from Eurabian News on Tue, 2006-01-24 18:34
La Unión Internacional de "Estudiosos" Musulmanes ha urgido a Noruega y a Dinamarca a parar los actos en ofensa del Islam (vía Ji ...

» email this page | printer friendly version | 12952 reads

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that Muslims move in to Western countries for the better life that we offer. But then they expect to be treated just like they were back in the stone-age civilization that they just left. I don't think both Western progress and Muslim fundamentalism can exist in the same society. The immigrants need to understand that they left that back in the 1500 AD civilization that they just left.

Not a bad strawman, needs a bit of refinement but it'll be fine with a bit of work.

Friend, we know that the cartoonist knew about Muslim feelings concerning depictions of Muhammed; he then drew deliberately provocative pictures of Mushammed, portraying him as a terrorist. It isn't hard to see his motives.

And we know about the feelings of some Americans concerning depictions of Bush; he's drawn deliberately in provocative pictures, portraying him as a cowboy, an idiot, etc. It isn't hard to see the motives of the cartoonists there.

Then again, Americans who support Bush aren't rioting in the streets or calling for a Day of Anger against Europe, are they?

The Muslims in the west have already become more moderate, note the peaceful protests, the complaints through official channels and the lack of violence in any form. I don't think we have anything to fear from that quarter.

In the Middle East I think moderatism (not sure if that's even a word but what the hell) will slowly prevail. In Saudi Arabia the state are fighting a losing battle against pornography and other 'immoral practises'. Once the younger generation begin to take power I think we'll see a noticable change in attitudes, assuming of course that Bush doesn't screw the whole process up by creating even more hatred for the west.

I hope you're right.

Friend, we know that the cartoonist knew about Muslim feelings concerning depictions of Muhammed; he then drew deliberately provocative pictures of Mushammed, portraying him as a terrorist. It isn't hard to see his motives.

Especially since the cartoons were drawn in reaction to the Danish paper claiming no one would dare draw pictures of Mohammed for a book and opened a competition for people to send entries into.


(btw, there were 12 seperate cartoonists AFAIK, not just one)

Especially since the cartoons were drawn in reaction to the Danish paper claiming no one would dare draw pictures of Mohammed for a book and opened a competition for people to send entries into.


(btw, there were 12 seperate cartoonists AFAIK, not just one)

Are there? I thought it was one guy who did twelve cartoons but I could be wrong. I'll check when I've got a moment.

Then again, Americans who support Bush aren't rioting in the streets or calling for a Day of Anger against Europe, are they?

Americans who support Bush hardly see him in the same way Muslims regard Muhammed do they?

And we know about the feelings of some Americans concerning depictions of Bush; he's drawn deliberately in provocative pictures, portraying him as a cowboy, an idiot, etc. It isn't hard to see the motives of the cartoonists there.

Then again, Americans who support Bush aren't rioting in the streets or calling for a Day of Anger against Europe, are they?

An interesting view of cause and effect, so the motives behind an action are determined by the response to it? Either that or you admit that he was trying to cause outrage.

Oh, and comparing the attitudes towards a President and a Prophet doesn't really work to be honest...

Americans who support Bush hardly see him in the same way Muslims regard Muhammed do they?

Oh I don't know, I can think of a few names on this forum...

An interesting view of cause and effect, so the motives behind an action are determined by the response to it? Either that or you admit that he was trying to cause outrage.

Oh, and comparing the attitudes towards a President and a Prophet doesn't really work to be honest...

Works for me. They are upset because we're making fun of their idol....

wait a second...

they're actually engaging in idolatry, which is what the whole "no pics of the Prophet" was supposed to prevent.

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

Works for me. They are upset because we're making fun of their idol....

wait a second...

they're actually engaging in idolatry, which is what the whole "no pics of the Prophet" was supposed to prevent.

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

I'm afraid I don't have a clue what you're saying here and I suspect you didn't really understand my previous post.

You seemed to be claiming that the cartoonist wasn't aiming to provoke outrage because of the reaction of muslims, this is clearly faulty logic.

And please can you explain how it is idolatry.

I'm afraid I don't have a clue what you're saying here and I suspect you didn't really understand my previous post.

You seemed to be claiming that the cartoonist wasn't aiming to provoke outrage because of the reaction of muslims, this is clearly faulty logic.

And please can you explain how it is idolatry.

Yes, he was trying to provoke outrage, which is what my post was saying.

Just as people who make fun of Bush in cartoons are trying to amuse the people who hate Bush and enrage the people who like Bush.

If you care so much about a person that you hold him on high as a symbol of your religion, and you would be willing to kill someone to prevent them from drawing a picture of him, you're definitely worshipping that person.

And that, my friend, is idolatry.

Religon is a joke.


Muslims follow a joke. Its only right that they are made fun of. I spit on their idiotic beliefs.

How nice that you entered the thread to give such a reasonable and thought-out position. Thank you for your input.

Who cares if the cartoonist was trying to provoke outrage? Free speech and a free press are allowed to provoke outrage. Hell, there have been art exhibits in the US including such works as "Piss Christ",

http://www.burrac.com/ah/45/Serrano,%20Piss%20Christ,%201987.jpg

a crucifix floating in a container of urine, which were much more blasphemous. There was some outrage, but the laws protected the artist's right to free speech. I don't see what all this fuss is about. If the Muslims don't like it, they can boycott, they can protest, whatever. What they can't do is use or threaten violence.

Yes, he was trying to provoke outrage, which is what my post was saying.

Just as people who make fun of Bush in cartoons are trying to amuse the people who hate Bush and enrage the people who like Bush.

If you care so much about a person that you hold him on high as a symbol of your religion, and you would be willing to kill someone to prevent them from drawing a picture of him, you're definitely worshipping that person.

And that, my friend, is idolatry.

You may have a point and I'm sure this would make an interesting thread in its own right but I won't hijack the thread by arguing the point here.

If you do start a new thread post a link here and I'll come and have a look.

You are entirely free to subscribe to online law-libraries.
You're not free to expect me to arrange your subscription.

If you are unfamiliar with US Supreme Court cases, the problem is yours.

Uh, it doesn't take subscriptions. And this is the internet. Your claimed cases are as useful as the information you give about them. Which is in this case, NONE.

Now, the more amusing part is that as a US citizen I have no right to discuss the laws of the EU, according to you, but apparently the EU's laws are subject to the US Supreme Court? BogMarsh, I'd like to introduce you to consistency, but I'm afraid consistency will laugh you out of the room.

Ah, but you are proved wrong by the case of Madeupname vs. Genericarabname.

And no, I won't provide a link, find it yourself.

Ha. It took me twice reading that before I got the joke. Too much caffeine at lunch. I nearly looked that case up.

If the Muslims don't like it, they can boycott, they can protest, whatever. What they can't do is use or threaten violence.

Agreed, and so far the vast majority of protests have been exactly that.

Who cares if the cartoonist was trying to provoke outrage? Free speech and a free press are allowed to provoke outrage. Hell, there have been art exhibits in the US including such works as "Piss Christ",

http://www.burrac.com/ah/45/Serrano,%20Piss%20Christ,%201987.jpg

a crucifix floating in a container of urine, which were much more blasphemous. There was some outrage, but the laws protected the artist's right to free speech. I don't see what all this fuss is about. If the Muslims don't like it, they can boycott, they can protest, whatever. What they can't do is use or threaten violence.

EVERY major religion has had it's bloody times. This is just the Muslim's. They were attacked during the Crusades, and the Crusaders did HORRIBLE things to them quite often, yet they, quite often, kept their cool. However, now we seem to see Muslims taking things too far. You are right, you can't blow up the entire world because the majority of the people in it do not agree with you.

EVERY major religion has had it's bloody times. This is just the Muslim's. They were attacked during the Crusades, and the Crusaders did HORRIBLE things to them quite often, yet they, quite often, kept their cool. However, now we seem to see Muslims taking things too far. You are right, you can't blow up the entire world because the majority of the people in it do not agree with you.
Kept their cool? You do know that Muslim armies of conquest advanced across Europe almost to Vienna and Paris, killing folks and taking slaves along the way, don't you? Islam's bloody times have been going on for about 1,400 years now.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/704

http://spaces.msn.com/mata2004/Blog/cns!1pLlR4KbFA8izNd0w195GnUQ!448.entry

You offered two examples of groups that suggested the paper should have censored itself. Do you not know what freedom of the press is? It is not a violation of my freedom of speech for me to notice someone is fat and decide it's impolite to point it out.

The newspaper in question has already apoligised. What the protesting Arabs seem to want is that the Danish government does the same and takes steps to forbid such publications in the future. But that obviously would go against the freedom of speech and press ideal.

That is not true of the majority of protesting Muslims. There are dozens of papers publishing the articles and upon the initial apology this all died away. These fires got fanned recently and that's what has caused them to flame up again.