NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

After the 5,000 crusade, you'd be pissed too. Let's face it, Christianity was NOT being nice to the Muslims. The payback was rather fitting.

After the 5,000 crusade, you'd be pissed too. Let's face it, Christianity was NOT being nice to the Muslims. The payback was rather fitting.
Were the Muslims nice to the mainly Christian populations of Northern Africa and Syria? That was pre-crusades, IIRC.

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...

You showed me a case of someone who was responsible for performing their job. They were responsible for themselves. Their job entailed protecting and controlling other people. Seriously, do you actually think people can't see how ridiculous your argument is? Show me a case of one individual held responsible for the actions of another individual not the their own actions. Did you read the case, son?

If someone tells me they are going to blow up a church and shows me the explosives and then does it and I get arrested for aiding and abetting, I am still being held responsible for my own actions. I reasonably knew a crime was going to be committed and did meet the reasonable requirements for preventing that crime. Now, can you show me how these individuals are responsible for aiding and abetting? Particularly when they are no more aware of or responsible for the actions of these individuals than you or I are.

Come on, I know you can do better than this.

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

And the translation was in English. The translation says that they requested the paper be more responsible in their journalism. That is completely within their right to have an opinion. A right you would deny them.

You do know that Muslim armies of conquest advanced across Europe almost to Vienna and Paris,

Actually, they got to Vienna (1337 I think), though no futher.

Quite impressive if you think they campaigned then went all the way back to their barracks only to travel all the way back again.

And the translation was in English. The translation says that they requested the paper be more responsible in their journalism. That is completely within their right to have an opinion. A right you would deny them.

Ye Gods!

Muslims demanding people to be reasonable. Who'd a thunk it?

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

Ah, yes, deception helps your case. Pictures of riots that have NOTHING to do with case should affect this case, um, how? You show more and more that your point is that you wish to condemn all Muslims and that you wish for us to support your hatred. Sorry. Not interested. In fact, I'll be over here, fighting on the side of freedom and democracy. You stay over there with the other fundamentalists who are crying that the only people who deserve freedom are the people they agree with.

Actually, they got to Vienna (1337 I think), though no futher.

Quite impressive if you think they campaigned then went all the way back to their barracks only to travel all the way back again.
Oct. 10, 732 (before crusades) Charles Martel stopped a Muslim army at Tours, France.

the Islamic world is still partying like it's 1299.

BEST. QUOTE. EVER!

Oct. 10, 732 (before crusades) Charles Martel stopped a Muslim army at Tours, France.

I know, just talking about the other side.


Just being a bit picky to help the time pass quicker, saying that they didn't nearly get to Vienna, they got to Vienna.

Were the Muslims nice to the mainly Christian populations of Northern Africa and Syria? That was pre-crusades, IIRC.

Reverse the question. Christianity wasn't nice to themselves, so I think it's safe to say that they weren't nice to muslims either. So I think it's also safe to say that neither religion was nice to any other religion. That's how it's always been.

I know, just talking about the other side.


Just being a bit picky to help the time pass quicker, saying that they didn't nearly get to Vienna, they got to Vienna.
Oh, OK. Weird how the French actually saved western civilization at Tours. If not all of Europe could have been assimilated by the Muslim caliphate and there never would have been an age of discovery, the Renaissance, the enlightenment, and all that good shit.

Ye Gods!

Muslims demanding people to be reasonable. Who'd a thunk it?

Dude, stop defending their rights. They have dark skin and thus don't deserve rights. Didn't you know.

"Freedom for EVERYONE... unless they don't agree with me. These people are violent and we cannot accept any more violence. They deserve to be tortured and put to death."

Dude, stop defending their rights. They have dark skin and thus don't deserve rights. Didn't you know.

"Freedom for EVERYONE... unless they don't agree with me. These people are violent and we cannot accept any more violence. They deserve to be tortured and put to death."

They can protest all they like. I draw the line at the threats to the Danish Ambassador, and similar threats made towards others that certain Muslims feel are responsible.

I'm more than willing to wait until someone actually demonstrates violence - then I shoot back. No torture - just death to those that offer me violence.

As far as that last bit goes, it doesn't matter to me if they're Muslim or not. Anyone who offers me violence dies.

Call it basic self-interest, a desire to survive a violent incident, or survival instinct. I'm not willing to let someone who is pissed off because someone else drew a picture come and monkeystomp me.

They can protest all they like. I draw the line at the threats to the Danish Ambassador, and similar threats made towards others that certain Muslims feel are responsible.

I'm more than willing to wait until someone actually demonstrates violence - then I shoot back. No torture - just death to those that offer me violence.

As far as that last bit goes, it doesn't matter to me if they're Muslim or not. Anyone who offers me violence dies.

Call it basic self-interest, a desire to survive a violent incident, or survival instinct. I'm not willing to let someone who is pissed off because someone else drew a picture come and monkeystomp me.

Thank you :)

BTW, down the street from the white house? I'm in No. Va. myself :)

Thank you :)

BTW, down the street from the white house? I'm in No. Va. myself :)
I'll be in London, UK, for the next eight months...

They can protest all they like. I draw the line at the threats to the Danish Ambassador, and similar threats made towards others that certain Muslims feel are responsible.

I'm more than willing to wait until someone actually demonstrates violence - then I shoot back. No torture - just death to those that offer me violence.

As far as that last bit goes, it doesn't matter to me if they're Muslim or not. Anyone who offers me violence dies.

Call it basic self-interest, a desire to survive a violent incident, or survival instinct. I'm not willing to let someone who is pissed off because someone else drew a picture come and monkeystomp me.

So does everyone here. No one is defending their right to enact or threaten to enact violence. They do have a right to be outraged and a right to protest however. It has been suggested that all Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of SOME muslims.

I'm certain that those that would take away the rights of Muslims here were not calling for taking away the rights of white people when they were attacking and beating everyone who looked remotely Arab (notably Arab and Muslim are not equivalent).

I'll be in London, UK, for the next eight months...

Yeah, for the record, for almost two years I stayed at a hotel right near Thomas Circle. I worked for the Department of Veteran's Affairs at the time.

I've read 14 pages of this, and basically Deep Kimchi and Drunk Commies Deleted and some others are my hero's. As for that nunic and the other guy, ridiculous.

Oh, OK. Weird how the French actually saved western civilization at Tours. If not all of Europe could have been assimilated by the Muslim caliphate and there never would have been an age of discovery, the Renaissance, the enlightenment, and all that good shit.

That's a rather ignorant blanket statement considering the Muslim world discovered algebra, the Number Zero, and other scientific innovations.

That's a rather ignorant blanket statement considering the Muslim world discovered algebra, the Number Zero, and other scientific innovations.
The Hindus discovered the zero.

Arab traders carried it out from there.

The Hindus discovered the zero.

Arab traders carried it out from there.

Really? Where can I find info on that?

Really? Where can I find info on that?
http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~blee27/essays/ancient_mathematics.htm

That's a rather ignorant blanket statement considering the Muslim world discovered algebra, the Number Zero, and other scientific innovations.
Yet the entire arab world produces fewer patents each year than tiny little Israel, they translate fewer books into their language than are written in Spain in any given year, and their universities hand out more degrees in Islamic studies than in Science and Engineering. While they were pretty advanced in the 1400s, they've made no progress on their own since then. Any advancements they have made have been by buying technology from foreign nations.

Middle Eastern culture is a dead end. It can't develop and grow. It inhibits progress and modernization. If Europe had been conquered by the Muslims, Western culture would never have developed to the advanced level it has attained.

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......

We've poked fun at Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. Why should Muslims be exempt?

Europe is in no way superior to the middle east.

Atheists and Christians are in no way superior to Muslims.

As people, no they are not superior. But I think that European cultures are superior in many ways to Middle Eastern cultures because people are free to be atheist, gay, or whatever, and because women have equality with men rather than being controlled by them.

Do you also believe that public figures in the Middle East never say anything that offends Europeans, Americans, gays, or Jews? If they do, would you hold them to the same standard?

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.
I'm fairly sure that Drunk Commies was talking about the present day, not the Dark Ages of Europe.

Thank you.

Offend all you want, but dont cry when you reap the consequences of your own actions.
What consequences are acceptable? Is it OK for someone to bomb the HQ of this Danish newspaper? That's not free speech.

Cool!
So let the imams beware.. we just MIGHT consider nuking any mosque that contains an imam calling for... oh, I dunno... any form of resistance to a jewish state on both side of the jordan just another instance of reaping the consequences of your own actions.
Shut up. You're a troll. The fact that you're on "my side" in this argument doesn't change the fact that you're writing crap.

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

Europe isn't perfect, but far-right parties and restrictions on the fringes of free speech, are small potatoes compared to what exists in the Middle East.

What is called, too loosely, "Islamic" or -- still worse -- "Arabic" science was in fact the product of many non-Muslims as well as Muslims. The famous translators in Baghdad and Corboda were almost entirely Jews and Christians. Even among the Muslims, none of the major figures were Arabs, but rather Persians and some from Central Asia (as al-Farabi) -- a possible reflection of the importance of having something other than Islam, which is all the Arab Muslims possessed, in the cultural background.

Who cares what the real story was? Who cares that so much of the 200-300 years of achievement depended so much on borrowing and transmission -- paper-making from China brought to Damascus (see Dard Hunter), the concept of zero brought from India to the MIddle East. And those acts of translation were important -- but why act as if the translation of some books of Aristotle rival in importance Aristotle himself, or why refuse to note that while Aristotle was translated, as a living thing, to be acted upon and developed, it was only in the Western world that Aristotle had influence. He remained, an authority but an inert one, for Islamic students of Aristotle.

There were two possible outlets: architecture, and calligraphy. As for Islamic architecture, so heavily dependent on Byzantine models (e.g., the squinch) and naturally on Byzantine workmen -- for Arab tribesmen could not suddenly become experts in architecture. The Dome of the Rock is a Byzantine martyrium -- there is nothing especially Islamic about it. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is essentially built upon the vast Christian church that was there first, and much of which remains. There have been Islamic architects -- Sinan comes to mind -- and some beautiful mosques, mainly in Persia and Central Asia. But a good-sized city in Italy contains more art work than all of Islamic civilization ever produced. Surely that is worth noting.

http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~blee27/essays/ancient_mathematics.htm

Thank you!

That is fascinating as I understood it was the Arabs that came up with the concept of zero.....

So in other words, those dirty brown-skinned Muslims have no right to protest their religious figures being profaned because their culture as a whole is an unoriginal and genocidal dead-end? Them towel-heads needs to know who their Western Massahs are right?

So in other words, those dirty brown-skinned Muslims have no right to protest their religious figures being profaned because their culture as a whole is an unoriginal and genocidal dead-end? Them towel-heads needs to know who their Western Massahs are right?
Who said that they have no right to protest? They just have no right to threaten or use violence.

What is called, too loosely, "Islamic" or -- still worse -- "Arabic" science was in fact the product of many non-Muslims as well as Muslims. The famous translators in Baghdad and Corboda were almost entirely Jews and Christians. Even among the Muslims, none of the major figures were Arabs, but rather Persians and some from Central Asia (as al-Farabi) -- a possible reflection of the importance of having something other than Islam, which is all the Arab Muslims possessed, in the cultural background.

Who cares what the real story was? Who cares that so much of the 200-300 years of achievement depended so much on borrowing and transmission -- paper-making from China brought to Damascus (see Dard Hunter), the concept of zero brought from India to the MIddle East. And those acts of translation were important -- but why act as if the translation of some books of Aristotle rival in importance Aristotle himself, or why refuse to note that while Aristotle was translated, as a living thing, to be acted upon and developed, it was only in the Western world that Aristotle had influence. He remained, an authority but an inert one, for Islamic students of Aristotle.

There were two possible outlets: architecture, and calligraphy. As for Islamic architecture, so heavily dependent on Byzantine models (e.g., the squinch) and naturally on Byzantine workmen -- for Arab tribesmen could not suddenly become experts in architecture. The Dome of the Rock is a Byzantine martyrium -- there is nothing especially Islamic about it. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is essentially built upon the vast Christian church that was there first, and much of which remains. There have been Islamic architects -- Sinan comes to mind -- and some beautiful mosques, mainly in Persia and Central Asia. But a good-sized city in Italy contains more art work than all of Islamic civilization ever produced. Surely that is worth noting.

If I'm Michealangelo or Leonardo DaVinci and you're just a farmer that's never done more than raise his children, which is all your father did and his father did, etc., do I have more of a right to life than you do? Is my life somehow more valuable than yours based on the number of books, drawings, inventions and music I produce? If not, what's your point. You don't have to value the production of the culture. You do have to value their right to have their culture.

Who said that they have no right to protest? They just have no right to threaten or use violence.

Then what the hell have you been arguing about for the last 36 pages? Not one of us has condoned violence at any point in the thread, take your strawman elsewhere.

There's something about muslims and burning things...and I thought I was a pyromaniac.

If I'm Michealangelo or Leonardo DaVinci and you're just a farmer that's never done more than raise his children, which is all your father did and his father did, etc., do I have more of a right to life than you do? Is my life somehow more valuable than yours based on the number of books, drawings, inventions and music I produce? If not, what's your point. You don't have to value the production of the culture. You do have to value their right to have their culture.

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. Gauthier is so up about touting the cultural triumphs of Islamic civilization, including outright falsities such as "the invention of the zero".

Islamic culture and progress in fields like math and science (and many other areas) are completely incompatible. It's why you can sum up all the patents, inventions, books, etc., produced since 1900 by Islamic culture, and it amounts to less than nearly any small non-Muslim nation (Greece being a good example).

It's ok to say they should be respected - but I don't expect them to get any more respect than Christianity, which gets Christ as artwork suspended in a bottle of urine. Or any more respect than our own political candidates get during an election cycle.

If they don't like it, don't subscribe to our papers, and continue to live in 1099.

Our cultures are NOT equal - not by any conceivable stretch of the imagination.

Then what the hell have you been arguing about for the last 36 pages? Not one of us has condoned violence at any point in the thread, take your strawman elsewhere.
To be honest, there were bomb threats and threat of violence in protest in the middle east.

But the discussion kinda drifted from there.

To be honest, there were bomb threats and threat of violence in protest in the middle east.

But the discussion kinda drifted from there.
You have to admit, it's not as funny as discussing the recent Canadian elections...

I think I has the solution:

Denmark agrees to the middle eastern demands, and in return, Denmark gets to censor middle-eastern newspapers.

That's fair.

To be honest, there were bomb threats and threat of violence in protest in the middle east.

But the discussion kinda drifted from there.

Yes but we never condoned them, I condemned them as completely inexcusable at least three times. Of course Bogmarsh swept the debate before him on a tide of xenophobia and bigotry.:rolleyes:

Yes but we never condoned them, I condemned them as completely inexcusable at least three times. Of course Bogmarsh swept the debate before him on a tide of xenophobia and bigotry.:rolleyes:
And I don't recall anyone credible saying that the Muslims don't have the right to peacefull boycott and protest.

You have to admit, it's not as funny as discussing the recent Canadian elections...

Did you just say 'fun' and 'Canadian elections' in the same sentence?:p

And I don't recall anyone credible saying that the Muslims don't have the right to peacefull boycott and protest.

*cough*BogMarsh*cough*

In the United States, there is no doubt that these people would probably be reviled, but there's no way America could limit this kind of thing legally. Muslims are just blowing the whole thing WAY out of porportion (as usual). It must be a puny God indeed that can be offended because some stupid pictures were published in a newspaper. Religious conservatiives are always so afraid of stupid stuff like this. Can't they take a joke?

Our cultures are NOT equal - not by any conceivable stretch of the imagination.

I dislike attitudes of cultural superiority. It tends to enable condescending and contemptuous thoughts that leads to such miseries as the "White Man's Burden," the Spanish Conquest of South America, the displacement of the Native tribes from the North American continent, the Japanese occupation of China and so on and so forth.

*cough*BogMarsh*cough*

And I don't recall anyone credible saying that the Muslims don't have the right to peacefull boycott and protest.

QED

Did you just say 'fun' and 'Canadian elections' in the same sentence?:p
Yes. I hope the goings-on after the retirement of Tony Blair will be equally amusing.

I dislike attitudes of cultural superiority. It tends to enable condescending and contemptuous thoughts that leads to such miseries as the "White Man's Burden," the Spanish Conquest of South America, the displacement of the Native tribes from the North American continent, the Japanese occupation of China and so on and so forth.

Get used to disappointment.

Get used to disappointment.

In other words, you'd be all for Ann Coulter's all-too serious suggestion of "Kill 'em all and convert them to Christianity."

:rolleyes:

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

Yes, I would call it EQUAL.

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

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

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

Whether these things are required by Islam is irrelevant. If they are required by the government or the culture, then I would say that those governments and cultures are inferior to governments and cultures which respect gender equality.

Xenophobic Racist. Honestly.
I see you've run out of arguments. Shall we take out some quotes of an open-minded, tolerant man, such as President Ahmedinejad of Iran?

If you draw a picture of their Mohhamad, then they have the right to be offended. Their religion considers it almost as big an insult as peeing on their holy book and using its pages as toilet paper right in front of them.
I'm not surprised that Muslims are offended by this. I'm surprised that they don't understand that in the west we have the freedom to mock their religion just as we mock our own most popular religion, Christianity.

QED

Ok, my bad.:p

Yes. I hope the goings-on after the retirement of Tony Blair will be equally amusing.

Well it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that Gordon Brown will take over unless Blair has some tricks up his sleeve (which he probably has).

I dislike attitudes of cultural superiority. It tends to enable condescending and contemptuous thoughts that leads to such miseries as the "White Man's Burden," the Spanish Conquest of South America, the displacement of the Native tribes from the North American continent, the Japanese occupation of China and so on and so forth.
You may dislike it, but it's a fact. From a civil rights standpoint and from the standpoint of encouraging scientific development Western civilization is by far better than Middle Eastern civilization.

You may dislike it, but it's a fact. From a civil rights standpoint and from the standpoint of encouraging scientific development Western civilization is by far better than Middle Eastern civilization.

Maybe now, but back when it all started it wasn't much better. Unless Galileo was making shit up.

Maybe now, but back when it all started it wasn't much better. Unless Galileo was making shit up.
And that's a big part of the problem with Middle Eastern culture. They're so wrapped up in past achievements that they don't see that they've fallen far behind the rest of the world. What use is it to gloat over the past when your future looks so bleak. They and their appologists seem to think that it's enough to have once been the most advanced culture. It's not.

I actually advocate putting a cartoon of muhammad on all western currency. It would go a long way towards restoring social calm.

I actually advocate putting a cartoon of muhammad on all western currency. It would go a long way towards restoring social calm.
I've got a better idea. Conquer every majority-Islamic country and put images of Muhammad on everything. Currency, clothing, flags, wallpaper, everything.

I've got a better idea. Conquer every majority-Islamic country and put images of Muhammad on everything. Currency, clothing, flags, wallpaper, everything.

While that's a worthwhile project it seems like a lot of effort. I actually don't care what they do in their own troglodyte communities in any case.

In other words, you'd be all for Ann Coulter's all-too serious suggestion of "Kill 'em all and convert them to Christianity."

:rolleyes:

Smirk all you want, but here is the elephant in the living room that all you Euros here would rather pretend doesn't exist:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hell002.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/holo.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/911euro.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/slaybutcher.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/massacre.jpg

That's not Riyadh or Islamabad, by the way. It's London.

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.
I'm betting that this is sarcasm...

Smirk all you want, but here is the elephant in the living room that all you Euros here would rather pretend doesn't exist:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hell002.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/holo.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/911euro.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/slaybutcher.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/massacre.jpg

That's not Riyadh or Islamabad, by the way. It's London.
So you propose genocide in response to slogans. :rolleyes:
Should we exterminate all americans because Pat Robertson advocated the murder of President Chavez?

So you propose genocide in response to slogans. :rolleyes:

Where did he propose that?

So you propose genocide in response to slogans. :rolleyes:
Should we exterminate all americans because Pat Robertson advocated the murder of President Chavez?

I don't recall pat robison being able to organize days of large scale civil demonstrations in various european and US cities. It's a false equivalence.

Smirk all you want, but here is the elephant in the living room that all you Euros here would rather pretend doesn't exist:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hell002.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/holo.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/911euro.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/slaybutcher.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/massacre.jpg

That's not Riyadh or Islamabad, by the way. It's London.

Oh, yay. Let's do away with the individual altogether. Hey, you, yeah, you, you look a little like Timothy McVeigh. Off to the lethal injection chamber with you.

Examples of extremists hold no better when talking about Islam than they do when talking about Christianity, the US, France, Democrats, Republicans, white people, black people, etc. Extremists are called extremists for a reason. They are on the extremes of the spectrum.

I don't recall pat robison being able to organize days of large scale civil demonstrations in various european and US cities. It's a false equivalence.

Ah, I see. So demonstrations are evil. I see. Interesting that Western countries seem to consider it a necessary freedom. I guess it must just be proof of the inferiority of the western civilizations. Allowing all that demonstrating and whatnot. Absurd of us, it is.

Where did he propose that?



In other words, you'd be all for Ann Coulter's all-too serious suggestion of "Kill 'em all and convert them to Christianity."
Smirk all you want, but here is the elephant in the living room that all you Euros here would rather pretend doesn't exist:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hell002.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/holo.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/911euro.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/i...laybutcher.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/massacre.jpg

That's not Riyadh or Islamabad, by the way. It's London.
Looks to me he's proposing to "Kill 'em all and convert them to Christianity."

Oh, yay. Let's do away with the individual altogether. Hey, you, yeah, you, you look a little like Timothy McVeigh. Off to the lethal injection chamber with you.

Examples of extremists hold no better when talking about Islam than they do when talking about Christianity, the US, France, Democrats, Republicans, white people, black people, etc. Extremists are called extremists for a reason. They are on the extremes of the spectrum.

:(

These people just ruin the name of Islam itself. They just need to know the real facts of Islam. Sure the images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was wrong and the massive protests are valid (since it is such a high sin), but doing that is plain wrong.

Looks to me he's proposing to "Kill 'em all and convert them to Christianity."

Did the water get poisoned in Montreal? All I said was "HEre is the elephant in the living room you Euros here would rather ignore". Are you actually trying to prove me right? You're doing a helluva job.

I don't recall pat robison being able to organize days of large scale civil demonstrations in various european and US cities. It's a false equivalence.
Some muslim advocate killing = K-man proposes a genocide
Pat Robertson advocate killing = I propose a genocide

My comparison seem equivalent...

Some muslim advocate killing = K-man proposes a genocide
Pat Robertson advocate killing = I propose a genocide

My comparison seem equivalent...

So you have a difficulty with the concepts, one, many and most?

Some muslim advocate killing = K-man proposes a genocide
Pat Robertson advocate killing = I propose a genocide

My comparison seem equivalent...

Here is the elephant in the living room that the Euros on this board would rather pretend doesn't exist...That isn't Riyadh or Islamabad by the way, it's London

Now I realize that I'm an American college student, so my proper English probly isn't the best, but I just finished scanning that and I still can't find a call to genocide in there.

Did the water get poisoned in Montreal? All I said was "HEre is the elephant in the living room you Euros here would rather ignore". Are you actually trying to prove me right? You're doing a helluva job.

Proving you right about what? That you're a bigot? That we recognize the elephant in the room and it's that people who would want to group people together so that they can 'eliminate' their enemies are dangerous. That we recognize another elephant in the room is that fundamentalists, as defined as the "you're either with me or you're my enemy" crowd, are FUNDAMENTALLY dangerous to freedom, democracy and life in general. We recognize that you are among those fundamentalists and that you should be considered dangerous. However, it is also our view that we must allow people the freedom to think as they wish while educating fundamentalists about the value of human life and the value of cooperation and compromise.

Our hope is for peace, be we will accept that we must deal with those individuals or groups that as an individual or group respectively violate peace. We recognize that no matter what color one's skin is or what religion one subscribes to that we must crush those that would bring violence against us, but ONLY those that would do so. Would you like that the position change to anyone that behaves as a fundamentalist and offers up dangerous fundamentalist views should be crushed. I'll remind you that most in this thread would include you in that group.

In other words, you'd be all for Ann Coulter's all-too serious suggestion of "Kill 'em all and convert them to Christianity."

:rolleyes:

Thank you for Gauthier's Non-Sequitur of the Day!

Proving you right about what? That you're a bigot? That we recognize the elephant in the room and it's that people who would want to group people together so that they can 'eliminate' their enemies are dangerous. That we recognize another elephant in the room is that fundamentalists, as defined as the "you're either with me or you're my enemy" crowd, are FUNDAMENTALLY dangerous to freedom, democracy and life in general. We recognize that you are among those fundamentalists and that you should be considered dangerous. However, it is also our view that we must allow people the freedom to think as they wish while educating fundamentalists about the value of human life and the value of cooperation and compromise.

Our hope is for peace, be we will accept that we must deal with those individuals or groups that as an individual or group respectively violate peace. We recognize that no matter what color one's skin is or what religion one subscribes to that we must crush those that would bring violence against us, but ONLY those that would do so. Would you like that the position change to anyone that behaves as a fundamentalist and offers up dangerous fundamentalist views should be crushed. I'll remind you that most in this thread would include you in that group.

You wanna know how you're proving me right? That whole frickn post is an example. I will repeat for a second time my sole statement:

Here is the elephant in the living room the Euros here would rather pretend doesn't exist....That isn't Riyadh or Islamabad by the way, it's London

There you have it. Read it. No calls to genocide, no frothing at the mouth "Kill the Darkies!!" screaming, no wishing for the Constitution to be replaced with the Book of Leviticus.

That's how you are proving me right. I give you pictures, NOTHING MORE, and you totally and completely ignore them while at the same time shooting and dare I say slandering the messenger.

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:
And the last time they murdered a thousand people, hell a dozen, wait ... a handful, as opposed to just make public asses of themselves? Let alone got away with any of it?

We keep those nutcases from going off the deeper end. They fuck up, we end them. In the muslim world there is NO such accountability. They even resent the idea of it. Maybe they're right and it is we who are mistaken. Maybe we shouldn't be protecting them anywhere. The most the Muslims have ever done is issue the occasional Bartelby inspired press release of "I would prefer they not have done that."

This isn't about protesting, writing angry letters, or boycotts. If that's what Muslims did, and was where it stopped no one would give a crap. It wouldn't even be news. The only reason we're even talking about it at all is the unique degree to which muslims tolerate extremely psychotic behavior from within their own communities. Traditionally, the western response is to just lay waste to those communities, dominate them economically, and feel bad about it later. Which in itself would be measured compared to preparing a violent response to anything negetive said about any of the western people, powers or icons appearing in any muslim media the world over. (Laughably pointless and savage in our world. A natural course of events in theirs.) The first prayer of everyday should be to thank Allah those they invite to be their enemies still tolerate their existance, though we've no need to and have been given precious little encouragement. They are truly blessed that we have not chosen to respond as they so often do.

There is a very real question that deserves answering. Why shouldn't we inflict upon them the savagery of their own ideals, naturally enjoying the full measure of our power? Does their way deserve no consideration? Are they truly a people composed entirely of petulent children to be minded? If they can't subscribe to a new social contract where we cherish and guard each other's freedom though we might choose to treat each other callously, I'm more than happy to trade their lives for my freedom. It's the American way.

You wanna know how you're proving me right? That whole frickn post is an example. I will repeat for a second time my sole statement:



There you have it. Read it. No calls to genocide, no frothing at the mouth "Kill the Darkies!!" screaming, no wishing for the Constitution to be replaced with the Book of Leviticus.

That's how you are proving me right. I give you pictures, NOTHING MORE, and you totally and completely ignore them while at the same time shooting and dare I say slandering the messenger.

Um, you realize that none of us are ignoring it. We simply don't agree with you on how to deal with it. You were replying to a statement that said kill them all or convert them to Christianity and you supported that statement and suggested that those who don't are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Everyone here admits there is Muslim unrest in the world and the fundamentalists among them are dangerous. So what elephant in the room were you referring to, since we all agree with the first statement in this paragraph?

Um, you realize that none of us are ignoring it. We simply don't agree with you on how to deal with it. You were replying to a statement that said kill them all or convert them to Christianity and you supported that statement and suggested that those who don't are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Everyone here admits there is Muslim unrest in the world and the fundamentalists among them are dangerous. So what elephant in the room were you referring to, since we all agree with the first statement in this paragraph?

I said NOTHING of the sort. I responded to a typical liberal's assinine hyperbole re: one of Kimchi's post, in which he said Kimchi was advocating genocide or some such BS, much like you're doing now.

I said NOTHING of the sort. I responded to a typical liberal's assinine hyperbole re: one of Kimchi's post, in which he said Kimchi was advocating genocide or some such BS, much like you're doing now.

No, it said he was advocating cultural superiority, which of course he was. You are mixing me up with another poster. I never mentioned you saying anything about genocide. I mentioned that your post smacked of judging all Muslims on the actions of the ones whose pictures you posted. I haven't hyperbolized anything you said. I simply asked you if you wanted us to actually carry out your attempts at lumping people together to the logical conclusion?

I can't believe what I just saw on the news. All over Europe there are Muslims burning Danish flags at embassies and they are carrying banners saying "behead those who insult Islam". This is frankly rediculous. If people cannot take a simple insult seriously, then people need to develop a sense of humour. Or if they really hate it, then do what the rest of the world do. Write letters, form pertitions etc. Dont shout and wail in the streets telling us how much you want to kill everyone who insults you.

Lets not foget what happens to you in Saudi Arabia if your not a Sunni Muslim

Now I realize that I'm an American college student, so my proper English probly isn't the best, but I just finished scanning that and I still can't find a call to genocide in there.
When taken in the proper context, that is someone asked you if you were for a "bomb every one" strategy, you replied that we were missing the big picture and posted images of slogans that promotes death. The circumstances and content of your posts inferred that you were for a genocide.

But nooo.... you shift the goal post and ask where you typed "genocide" specifically. I'm sorry but I don't play that game.

Every poster can make his own mind as to your views. They only have to read the thread. As such, I'm done with you.

I said NOTHING of the sort. I responded to a typical liberal's assinine hyperbole re: one of Kimchi's post, in which he said Kimchi was advocating genocide or some such BS, much like you're doing now.
Kimchi is a liberal?

You are more deluded than I thought.

Kimchi is a liberal?

You are more deluded than I thought.

I hope you're kidding. I think the point was we 'insulted' a conservative so we must be mocked and ridiculed as evil liberals. He was calling the person who replied to the post a liberal. And of course, he was calling me a liberal which is like calling me a Muslim simply because I'm defending them.

Wow. Monster thread. And here I was, thinking no-one cared.

I have two questions.
1. How come they have time to march around the streets all day? Don't they have work to do or something?
2. Were the helvede did they get the Dansih flags? They store flags of different nationalities just in case...:confused:

Wow. Monster thread. And here I was, thinking no-one cared.

I have two questions.
1. How come they have time to march around the streets all day? Don't they have work to do or something?
2. Were the helvede did they get the Dansih flags? They store flags of different nationalities just in case...:confused:
There's alot of unemployment in the Arab world.

Maybe now, but back when it all started it wasn't much better. Unless Galileo was making shit up.

When what, precisely started?

Science and Philosophy? Hellenestic I am afraid
Religious Tolerance? Hellenestic and Latin
Art? Egyptian

So when what all started of ye of erudition?

erm...

i don't see what the fuss is all about
one country printed something offensive to some muslims
some other countries reprinted it later
and now some muslims are running around burning flags and acting like a load of loonies
no change their then

it'll all blow over in the mean time
i suggest all muslims forget about it and listen to some calming music

Of course, because the Arab politcal world is so enlightened. Because of course, its perfectly right for a government to legislate a state religion and imprision, torture and execute members of another faith

When what, precisely started?

Science and Philosophy? Hellenestic I am afraid
Religious Tolerance? Hellenestic and Latin
Art? Egyptian

So when what all started of ye of erudition?

That was in response to the proud declaration that Christian civilization is more tolerant of scientific progress and development than Muslim civilizations. I brought up Galileo as the most vivid example of how Christians weren't always tolerant of science to counter the "Muslims hate progress unlike Christians who love and embrace it" generalization implied.

what? I made it to the end? For a while it seemed you all were posting faster than I can read. I was worried about starving to death.

what? I made it to the end? For a while it seemed you all were posting faster than I can read. I was worried about starving to death.
Seriously, there should be a T-shirt.

Pics from the "protests" in UK.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims04.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r288321482.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r1840893195.jpg

This is the best...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg

Pics from the "protests" in UK.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims04.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r288321482.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r1840893195.jpg

This is the best...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg

and islam is a peaceful religion?!?!

well I guess... since they want you in peices...

Yes, it is a religion of peace. If you don't accept it, then I will kill you.

I think even I'll have to conceed that last pic had to be someone shooting for ironic. There's just no way....

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

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

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.
The Muslim reaction to this is utterly ridiculous, making a mountain out of a molehill :rolleyes:
They simply can't get away with trying to limit the freedom of speech in non-muslim countries with bombing threats! :mad:

In case anyone hasn't seen the cartoons yet, here's a gallery:
http://www.welt.de/z/photos/index.php/item/karikaturen/

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

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

Aha, at last. a voice of reason. Agreed.

Wait a minute... something's not quite right:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg
and
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/behead.jpg

Same picture, different poster. So which one is manipulated? Or are both?

Wait a minute... something's not quite right:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg
and
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/behead.jpg

Same picture, different poster. So which one is manipulated? Or are both?

AHHH! The plot thinnens! Excellent detective work! :)

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.


I'm not a Muslim, so I shouldn't (and am not) bound by Islamic law. I'm not a Christian either, so I shouldn't (and am not) bound by Christian law, beliefs or traditions.

I am a citizen of the UK, and of Europe, and I am bound by their laws. Both of those polities give me the right to free speech even if it causes grave offence to other parties. Both of those polities are ethically and legally bound to protect me from violence and intimidation when I exercise my rights.

That various officials / official bodies, including Koffi Annan, the UN and the Council of Europe, have condemned the Danes in breach of their clear moral and legal responsibilites to support free speech/secure freedom from violence is utterly reprehensible, especially as those deserving of protection are under no moral or legal obligation to follow ethical/legal systems either adopted or imposed by or on other people.

On the subject of free speech I'd like to quote with approval the words of Winston Churchill (address on the Munich Pact 05 Oct 1938):

"We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said — indeed, I hear it said sometimes now — that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and choroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey."

AHHH! The plot thinnens! Excellent detective work! :)

Why, thank you. You just made my day (and not in a Dirty Harry kind of way) :D

AHHH! The plot thinnens! Excellent detective work! :)

No, no it doesn't. The first one is fake. Admittedly. It was made as a joke. The second is real.

One of my personal favourites:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/realholocaust.jpeg

I wish that had been in Germany, so we could arrest the bitch.

I picked the pics from littlegreenfootballs blog. I should have known better.

*curses self*.

While I am all for free speech and its protection as core to Western and secular governance, just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should- use common sense.

I don't see why the newspapers couldn't have claimed 'solidarity' in other ways apart from re printing the cartoons- that was an idiotic and stubborn thing to do. Most people didn't care in the forst place, and this has only served to make a mountain out of a molehill- to enflame a situation that had previously barely raised its head on the radar, in the West or the Middle East.

The only reason muslims go around waving signs like that is because they can get away with it and they realise how spineless out countries are. Perhaps we should deal with these protestors a bit more firmly like the French did in Paris against Algerian protestors in 1961 or like the Thai army did against muslims in 2004. We need a little display to remind these animals just who holds the power in the world.

The only reason muslims go around waving signs like that is because they can get away with it and they realise how spineless out countries are. Perhaps we should deal with these protestors a bit more firmly like the French did in Paris against Algerian protestors in 1961 or like the Thai army did against muslims in 2004. We need a little display to remind these animals just who holds the power in the world.

Yes, we'll teach those barstards to exercise their freedom of speech.:rolleyes:

Yes, we'll teach those barstards to exercise their freedom of speech.:rolleyes:
It's nice how you defend people who are calling for terrorist attacks and genocide against non-muslims. I suppose those followers of the religion of peace and tolerance are all misunderstood really?

It's nice how you defend people who are calling for terrorist attacks and genocide against non-muslims. I suppose those followers of the religion of peace and tolerance are all misunderstood really?

So, so long as they say things that's ok by you- its ok to exercise that freedom of speech- but if you disagree with what they say- they should shut their dirty animal mouths? Is that correct?

So, so long as they say things that's ok by you- its ok to exercise that freedom of speech- but if you disagree with what they say- they should shut their dirty animal mouths? Is that correct?

No it's not like that. If they have pale skin it's ok; if it's darker than average then they're evil, terrorist scum who should be hunted down like the animals they are.:rolleyes:

Compare the UK trials of Abu Hanza and Nick Griifin for proof of this.

WHY should we listen to those extremeist over their.If we want to make a cartoon fine.I dont see what the big fuss is.We dont have to cater to their religion. Its like they think the whole world must bow down to their toes and worship who they worship.But they dont relize that they offended the west every frickin day.They must not relizen that their everything they do is wrong and the stuff we do is right.we need to go over their and show them whos boss around here.Freedom!!!!!!! down with terrorist:mp5:

Christians were up in arms demanding the banning of the Jerry Springer Opera or whatever the hell it was called. Muslims have every right to be offended by this particular cartoon.

The problem with us arrogant Westerners is, we think we have the right to do absolutely anything we please and get away with it. But we also think we have the right to stop other cultures doing whatever they please IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

But then again, I'm an atheist, so nothing offends me!!!

On CNN:

"Danish Embassy in Syrian capital of Damascus set on fire during protests over cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, Syrian officials say."

That's pretty funny, IMO.

Pics from the "protests" in UK.
[IMG]http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims04.jpg

[IMG]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r288321482.jpg

[IMG]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r1840893195.jpg

This is the best...
[IMG]http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg
Why weren't the protestors who held up violent signs rounded up and charged with inciting violent crimes? Every nation limits free speech when it comes to encouraging people to commit murder.

Why weren't the protestors who held up violent signs charged rounded up and with inciting violent crimes? Every nation limits free speech when it comes to encouraging people to commit murder.

It's a good thing that they aren't being arrested. They have every right to hold those signs, no matter how violent. I wouldn't be surprised if they did those things too. Or shocked.

Yes, we'll teach those barstards to exercise their freedom of speech.:rolleyes:


You still seems to have a problem with the concept of free speech.

IT DOES NOT MEEN THAT YOU CAN BE THREATENING PEOPLE ON THEIR LIVES

On CNN:

"Danish Embassy in Syrian capital of Damascus set on fire during protests over cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, Syrian officials say."

That's pretty funny, IMO.


Funny in what way?

Funny in what way?


Funny as in, Denmark's a joke. "Oh look, us Danish are big defenders of human rights like America", BANG BANG, "Oh no, we're sorry, please forgive us our muslims overlords."

Man, it is pretty funny.

Funny as in, Denmark's a joke. "Oh look, us Danish are big defenders of human rights like America", BANG BANG, "Oh no, we're sorry, please forgive us our muslims overlords."

Man, it is pretty funny.


And this answer makes you ? dum or just very dum

And this answer makes you ? dum or just very dum

It's makes me a realist.

It's makes me a realist.


How come? realists relate to the thruth not to their own opinions

Why weren't the protestors who held up violent signs charged rounded up and with inciting violent crimes? Every nation limits free speech when it comes to encouraging people to commit murder.

The police were concentrating on keeping the peace and they should be commended for their success in this regard.

Anyway, arresting the protestors would really cause trouble as we recently found the leader of the BNP innocent of inciting racial hatred and inciting violence (much to my disgust). Arresting the protestors would give the extremists ammunition to help them claim double standards.

How come? realists relate to the thruth not to their own opinions

Everything I stated there was true. The Danish newspaper posted those cartoons to fight for free speech. They later apologised. So did the Dansh government, I think.

Wait a minute... something's not quite right:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg
and
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/behead.jpg

Same picture, different poster. So which one is manipulated? Or are both?

*Gasp* No. There is no way that these pictures are just attempts of people to make Muslim look ridiculous. People would never do that.

Everything I stated there was true. The Danish newspaper posted those cartoons to fight for free speech. They later apologised. So did the Dansh government, I think.


Think again, the danish gov. neither can nor will apoligise as the have no part in what our press does!

I'm not a Muslim, so I shouldn't (and am not) bound by Islamic law. I'm not a Christian either, so I shouldn't (and am not) bound by Christian law, beliefs or traditions.

I am a citizen of the UK, and of Europe, and I am bound by their laws. Both of those polities give me the right to free speech even if it causes grave offence to other parties. Both of those polities are ethically and legally bound to protect me from violence and intimidation when I exercise my rights.

That various officials / official bodies, including Koffi Annan, the UN and the Council of Europe, have condemned the Danes in breach of their clear moral and legal responsibilites to support free speech/secure freedom from violence is utterly reprehensible, especially as those deserving of protection are under no moral or legal obligation to follow ethical/legal systems either adopted or imposed by or on other people.

On the subject of free speech I'd like to quote with approval the words of Winston Churchill (address on the Munich Pact 05 Oct 1938):

"We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said — indeed, I hear it said sometimes now — that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and choroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey."
The right to do something does not mean it's right to do something. I condemn those that make racist comments and should, but they have the right to say something. You should learn the difference.

Think again, the danish gov. neither can nor will apoligise as the have no part in what our press does!

Hahaha! No matter how many times I hear the "We will never surrender" speech, it never ceases to amuse me.

The only reason muslims go around waving signs like that is because they can get away with it and they realise how spineless out countries are. Perhaps we should deal with these protestors a bit more firmly like the French did in Paris against Algerian protestors in 1961 or like the Thai army did against muslims in 2004. We need a little display to remind these animals just who holds the power in the world.
Ah, yay. I was worried that all of the bigots had left the thread. Please tell us more about 'these animals'.

And this answer makes you ? dum or just very dum

And not being able to spell, DUMB, makes you...? Please limit your answers to discussion of the topic.

You still seems to have a problem with the concept of free speech.

IT DOES NOT MEEN THAT YOU CAN BE THREATENING PEOPLE ON THEIR LIVES

So logically the police should track down and arrest the person who posted this:

WHY should we listen to those extremeist over their.If we want to make a cartoon fine.I dont see what the big fuss is.We dont have to cater to their religion. Its like they think the whole world must bow down to their toes and worship who they worship.But they dont relize that they offended the west every frickin day.They must not relizen that their everything they do is wrong and the stuff we do is right.we need to go over their and show them whos boss around here.Freedom!!!!!!! down with terrorist:mp5:

Agreed?

And not being able to spell, DUMB, makes you...?

Foreign.

Danish I believe.

Hahaha! No matter how many times I hear the "We will never surrender" speech, it never ceases to amuse me.


It would never cease to amuse a real realist, now would it?

The Muslim reaction to this is utterly ridiculous, making a mountain out of a molehill :rolleyes:
They simply can't get away with trying to limit the freedom of speech in non-muslim countries with bombing threats! :mad:

All due to cultural differences. But happily that is easily remedied: just give the ID crew and the Christian faction in the USA what they want and in a few decades the US citizens would respond the same as these muslems (albeit with Jesus instead of Mohammed).

I suggest people take a good, long look at what they are trying to become.

You still seems to have a problem with the concept of free speech.

IT DOES NOT MEEN THAT YOU CAN BE THREATENING PEOPLE ON THEIR LIVES

And here's another poster to be tracked down:

The only reason muslims go around waving signs like that is because they can get away with it and they realise how spineless out countries are. Perhaps we should deal with these protestors a bit more firmly like the French did in Paris against Algerian protestors in 1961 or like the Thai army did against muslims in 2004. We need a little display to remind these animals just who holds the power in the world.

I take it you are in agreement with me here?

And not being able to spell, DUMB, makes you...? Please limit your answers to discussion of the topic.

Sorry for my spelling, and that was a bit out of line.

It just makes me a tiny bit irritated when people think burning down an embassy is funny.

Foreign.

Danish I believe.


Correct

And here's another poster to be tracked down:



I take it you are in agreement with me here?


Damm, you really are sharp:headbang:

Damm, you really are sharp:headbang:

Meaning? The protestors were advocating violence, the posters were advocating violence. What is the difference?

All due to cultural differences. But happily that is easily remedied: just give the ID crew and the Christian faction in the USA what they want and in a few decades the US citizens would respond the same as these muslems (albeit with Jesus instead of Mohammed).

I suggest people take a good, long look at what they are trying to become.maybe, But I think you'd be wrong tho.

Meaning? The protestors were advocating violence, the posters were advocating violence. What is the difference?


The posters were advocating violence?

I wrote: IT DOES NOT MEEN THAT YOU CAN BE THREATENING PEOPLE ON THEIR LIVES

Thats not advocating for violence but the opposite.

If youre in doubt of my opinion, read my post on this and related threads

Greetings

The posters were advocating violence?

I wrote: IT DOES NOT MEEN THAT YOU CAN BE THREATENING PEOPLE ON THEIR LIVES

Thats not advocating for violence but the opposite.

If youre in doubt of my opinion, read my post on this and related threads

Greetings

You didn't advocate violence but the other people I quoted did. Should the police track them down and charge them? Simple question.

http://danishcartoons.ytmnd.com/

http://danishcartoons.ytmnd.com/

That was hilarious, one of the products that Muslims are apparently now boycotting was beer! :p

Alright, now the bastards have torched norwegian, danish and swedish ambasades. Fuck it! Overreacting deluxe ffs! This was NOT called for, all the muslims have shown is that they are narrowminded and intollerant. No thanks religious fanatism. :mad: :mad: :mad:

The irony in this thread is killing me.

"You can't threaten us. Violence is not covered under freedom of speech. Let's blow them bitches up!!!"

The irony in this thread is killing me.

"You can't threaten us. Violence is not covered under freedom of speech. Let's blow them bitches up!!!"

Don't be stupid, it isn't violence if it's white people doing it. Duh!:rolleyes:

The irony in this thread is killing me.
"You can't threaten us. Violence is not covered under freedom of speech. Let's blow them bitches up!!!"

Well, a controversial topic attracts extremists from all sides to the debate; I mean, it's like moths to a candle and it only increases as the OP and others leave (provided the OP wasn't a troll, of course).

Violence is not the way to defeat these enemies of free expression...it just makes us as bad as them.

Well, a controversial topic attracts extremists from all sides to the debate; I mean, it's like moths to a candle and it only increases as the OP and others leave (provided the OP wasn't a troll, of course).

Violence is not the way to defeat these enemies of free expression...it just makes us as bad as them.

As one muslim journalist wrote: "We must take care that passions are not inflamed by the extremists on either side of the debate."

The times had some excellent quotes from moderate Muslims today, I'll try to find them.

maybe, But I think you'd be wrong tho.

Depends on the type of Christian. The ones actively pushing ID are de facto promoting giving children a mindset which is practically identical to the one we are observing here. So it depends if the sofar mostly silent majority is willing to speak up against them.

Of course, it is also possible all religions will be blended into one big pool of spirituality. The rise of Buddhism and "hippy/paganic/wiccan" religions points that way...

The irony in this thread is killing me.

"You can't threaten us. Violence is not covered under freedom of speech. Let's blow them bitches up!!!"
What do you want us to do then? Dialogue is fruitless; the Danish paper has apologised, and a fat lot of good that did. Punishing the journalists, either by handing them over, arresting them or whatever, is morally repugnant. Sitting back and hoping the whole thing will blow over got the embassies burned down. Mosques are backing the general sentiment of the whole thing, so hoping the more moderate Muslims will calm things down is unlikely too.

Very little short of divine authority will prevent eventual retaliation. Unless you have a better way?

Not what I was looking for but a good story nonetheless:

Muslims choose not to protest to avoid stirring up more anger (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024303,00.html)

As one muslim journalist wrote: "We must take care that passions are not inflamed by the extremists on either side of the debate."

The times had some excellent quotes from moderate Muslims today, I'll try to find them.

Absolutely. At the same time that I praise Europe's resiliency in the face of threats and violence, I am concerned. Even though some Muslims are doing this, we can't use this as an excuse to vent anti-Muslim sentiment against the far greater number of innocents, and I do fear that it will happen at some point in the near future. It seems only a matter of time before anti-Islamic extremists begin using this as an excuse to commit acts of terrorism against Muslims, and I am concerned that people will see that as a legitimate explanation for that violence.

However, we must also be prepared to defend ourselves against violence from extremists on all sides,because extremists of any ideology attract their rivals with the result being...you guessed it...more violence.

Violence is not the way to defeat these enemies of free expression...it just makes us as bad as them.
If you've got a better solution then I'd love to hear it. What do we do then, give them a flower? Beg on our hands and knees for forgiveness? Face it, violence is the only language these people understand. And I don't understand why everybody has such an aversion to a bit of controlled violence. It's been part of our society for thousands of years, a little more won't kill us.

Now the muslims are degrading themselves by making signs that say "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust", "Freedom Go To Hell", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way", and other lovely slogans.

How is that any better then the cartoons which were just bad humour? I will also add that the cartoons were just as bad as the ones Al Jazeera has on its website.

Not what I was looking for but a good story nonetheless:
Muslims choose not to protest to avoid stirring up more anger (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024303,00.html)

I think that is a double edged sword; it will probably prevent more violence there, but a peaceful protest that advocates violence against no one but only voices their concerns would do quite a bit to redeem that community's image and would provide a valuable counterweight to the violence in other places.

a little more won't kill us.
Erm... It probably will. That's the point. Y'know, of it being violence 'n all.

If you've got a better solution then I'd love to hear it. What do we do then, give them a flower? Beg on our hands and knees for forgiveness? Face it, violence is the only language these people understand. And I don't understand why everybody has such an aversion to a bit of controlled violence. It's been part of our society for thousands of years, a little more won't kill us.

We defend against all attacks and violence, but at the same time violently crush any attempt at retaliation against the innocent Muslims in Europe. Self defense against attacks combined with restraining of anti-Muslim sentiment would provide a powerful statement of our commitment to freedom of expression and worship, moreso than any brutality.

We defend against all attacks and violence, but at the same time violently crush any attempt at retaliation against the innocent Muslims in Europe. Self defense against attacks combined with restraining of anti-Muslim sentiment would provide a powerful statement of our commitment to freedom of expression and worship, moreso than any brutality.
All that will do is show us up as weaklings. The more we come out with all this multicultural tolerance rubbish the more muslims will walk all over us. Fear of violence is by far the most effective way to control people.

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

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

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

This is something you woudl expect from tabloid press. It is sad that they can be so insensitive to a very large world demographic, it is something you would think Americans would do, (pun)

I really don't think it is tasteful to reprint them, it is like someones grandma caling in cause you took a picture of someone pissing on their childs grave.

Anyway slanderous libel to an entire religion isn't something that is seen as 'tasteful'

I don't see the intelligence in it, and it seems that sadly the pedistal I had held for Eurpeans as far as being higher citivilization seems false when this tdisplay of toilet humour reigns.

Anyway. Nothing against the press I just find it stupid.

We defend against all attacks and violence, but at the same time violently crush any attempt at retaliation against the innocent Muslims in Europe. Self defense against attacks combined with restraining of anti-Muslim sentiment would provide a powerful statement of our commitment to freedom of expression and worship, moreso than any brutality.
And if that proves economically unsustainable? What will you choose to sacrifice next, your freedom, your security, or your compassion for the nebulous "them." Ancient solutions to this problem have traditionally proven very effective, and we all seem pretty happy with the results.

All that will do is show us up as weaklings. The more we come out with all this multicultural tolerance rubbish the more muslims will walk all over us. Fear of violence is by far the most effective way to control people.

Fear of violence isolates and radicalizes people. The main reason why so many Muslims in the Middle East are radical is because they live under repressive regimes that are willing to use violence against their own people, and have no qualms about inflicting economic warfare against them as a means of control.

I really don't think it is tasteful to reprint them, it is like someones grandma caling in cause you took a picture of someone pissing on their childs grave.

Anyway slanderous libel to an entire religion isn't something that is seen as 'tasteful'

Noone (well.. there no doubt will be someone, but lets ignore him/her) is saying the cartoons are tastefull. They are however saying that a government should not *forbid* them.

And if that proves economically unsustainable? What will you choose to sacrifice next, your freedom, your security, or your compassion for the nebulous "them." Ancient solutions to this problem have traditionally proven very effective, and we all seem pretty happy with the results.
That's very true, throughout history violence has worked successfully as a way of controlling people. Take the Romans for example. Pax Romana never came through begging and throwing money at rebellious tribes. When people know that rebellions will be met with extreme violence towards them then they're much less likely to rebel. It was ugly, but it sure as hell worked.

Fear of violence isolates and radicalizes people. The main reason why so many Muslims in the Middle East are radical is because they live under repressive regimes that are willing to use violence against their own people, and have no qualms about inflicting economic warfare against them as a means of control.
I don't consider muslims abroad to be a particular threat. Sure, they can cause us a lot of trouble, but if they start to become a threat to us their countries can be completely destroyed. Do that enough times and they'll soon start to question wether it's wise to antagonise the west. It's the enemy within that's the main threat. Take the London bombings. The perpetrators were all 'British' muslims, not middle eastern. They knew our government would be too spineless to take reprisals, so it was no bother to them to kill innocent people. Perhaps if they knew they would provoke a far more ruthless reaction from both the British government and the British people then things may have turned out differently....

I don't consider muslims abroad to be a particular threat. Sure, they can cause us a lot of trouble, but if they start to become a threat to us their countries can be completely destroyed. Do that enough times and they'll soon start to question wether it's wise to antagonise the west. It's the enemy within that's the main threat. Take the London bombings. The perpetrators were all 'British' muslims, not middle eastern. They knew our government would be too spineless to take reprisals, so it was no bother to them to kill innocent people. Perhaps if they knew they would provoke a far more ruthless reaction from both the British government and the British people then things may have turned out differently....

All acts of terrorism deserve a strong, unequivocal response from the government and people. Those involved with the act need to be hunted down and captured or killed. There is a difference between irrational violence and taking legitimate action against terrorists and people who commit crimes; a strong response, be it legal and/or throught military action and the use of force, is vital to stopping the forces of terrorism.

All acts of terrorism deserve a strong, unequivocal response from the government and people. Those involved with the act need to be hunted down and captured or killed. There is a difference between irrational violence and taking legitimate action against terrorists and people who commit crimes; a strong response, be it legal and/or throught military action and the use of force, is vital to stopping the forces of terrorism.
One man's terrorist is another man's warrior. In the Danes' eyes, what has been committed against them is an act of terrorism.

All acts of terrorism deserve a strong, unequivocal response from the government and people. Those involved with the act need to be hunted down and captured or killed. There is a difference between irrational violence and taking legitimate action against terrorists and people who commit crimes; a strong response, be it legal and/or throught military action and the use of force, is vital to stopping the forces of terrorism.
Of course, it goes without saying. But what if that's not enough? A suicide bomber isn't going to worry much about a police manhunt, for obvious reasons. And even those muslim terrorists who aren't suicide bobmers are always willing to take risks of getting caught. And despite what 'moderate' muslims say, they enjoy large amounts of support from muslim communities. So you have to look at what they want to achieve, and see to it that exactly the opposite happens. If the terrorists want the west to stop supporting Israel, then respond by selling Israel things like guns, tasers and attack helicopters at cut prices. If these terrorists seek an islamic theocracy where muslims have better lives, then work towards making the lives of everyday muslims even more difficult. A bit of collective punishment could go a long way. This would work particularly well for potential terrorists that leave behind a wife and kids.

Sometimes you need more than simply catching the bad guys and punishing them. You have to make an example if you want to intimidate people from acting up again.

One man's terrorist is another man's warrior. In the Danes' eyes, what has been committed against them is an act of terrorism.

The attack against the Danish embassy is an attack on the very foundations of Western civilization. There are fundamental divides between us and the Islamic world, and the hysterical reaction to the cartoons is only one symptom of this.

That's why the West needs to be so vigilant about maintaining our traditions of free speech and democracy: if we lose those, the terrorists have won.

That's why the West needs to be so vigilant about maintaining our traditions of free speech and democracy: if we lose those, the terrorists have won.
I think the West is about to see its attempt to dehumanise "Terrorists" backfire horrifically. My point is ultimately that anyone who fights for a cause other than our own can be considered a Terrorist, and with the "Kill the Terrorists!" mindset, a clear opposition and the perfect conditions for hostility, things are not going to be pretty...

Wait a minute... something's not quite right:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg
and
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/behead.jpg

Same picture, different poster. So which one is manipulated? Or are both?

I'll post this also in the other thread but note this Little Green Footballs link and the words at the bottom of the photo. They were being sarcastic. The Malkin photo, OTOH, came straight from Reuters. It would seem to be genuine.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19075_Peaceful_Religion_Watch&only

I think printing it was ill-advised. I think reprinting it was ill-advised, unnecessary and a grab for controversy. This is the same kind of "free speech" that develops into berating people at abortion clinics, hassling folks outside a gay bar, or calling people "sheep" when they walk into a church. Free Speech was a good idea when people had something worthwhile to say.

That was in response to the proud declaration that Christian civilization is more tolerant of scientific progress and development than Muslim civilizations. I brought up Galileo as the most vivid example of how Christians weren't always tolerant of science to counter the "Muslims hate progress unlike Christians who love and embrace it" generalization implied.
Why do apologists for Muslims always bring up Christian intolerance from centuries ago? We're talking about the present. I'm as atheist as they come, but let's face the facts: compared to Middle Eastern Muslims in general, Western Christians are torchbearers of tolerance and progress. This statement applies for the present day, not retroactively.

Free Speech was a good idea when people had something worthwhile to say.

And it still is. If you don't like it I'm sure Saudi Arabia or the PRC will be happy to accept immigrants. :rolleyes:

And it still is. If you don't like it I'm sure Saudi Arabia or the PRC will be happy to accept immigrants. :rolleyes:

There was no need to reprint the dinky little cartoon. It's not even that good. This was done to push buttons and hide behind free speech while turning these papers into martyrs.

But we also think we have the right to stop other cultures doing whatever they please IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

Ideally, honour killings and female genital mutilation would not be allowed, and would be prevented anywhere in the world. Does this make me one of those white imperialist bastards?

The right to do something does not mean it's right to do something.

This is a fairly vapid statement dressed up as some kind of vague philosophical wisdom or principle, but I'll bite anywho.

Let's start with the generalities.
It is a fairly meaningless, vapid, general statement. So yes, I'm willing to concede that it could be true in some circumstances.

Now, let's look at the particularities (hey, did I just make up a word?)
'The right to do something' I presume that you mean the right to free speech.

does not mean it's right to do something
Presumably you're referring to the actions of Jyllands-Posten, et al.

So, I assume that what you are saying is that: while Jyllands-Posten had the right to free speech, it was wrong to exercise that right.

JP was making a political point that free speech (which is now firmly embedded as both a political principle and a legal right in European life) in relation to the depiction of Mohammed was subject to a chilling effect i.e. there was self-censorship owing to the likely threats of violence

Subsequent events have proved that the original cartoonists who refused to illustrate the children's book were engaging in self-censorship for a very good reason - their fears have a basis in reality. Drawing pictures of Mohammed may well expose you to threats of violence. So many people choose not to exercise their rights to free speech owing to that threat of violence. Chilling of speech in relation to Islam and the Prophet is very real.

JP was exposing the contradiction between the deeply held legal and cultural values of Europe - i.e. free speech, and the reality, self-censorship and the chilling effect on free speech.

JP was, as a newspaper, bringing this issue to the attention of the public in a way that was entirely consistent with its function in society as a newspaper.

JP therefore had both the legal right and ethical duty to act in the way that it did.



I condemn those that make racist comments

I condemn those that make racist comments too.


I condemn those that make racist comments and should, but they have the right to say something.


I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here.

If by 'they' you mean Muslim protestors, then yes, they have every right to protest at what the Danish paper did. If by 'they' you mean the various govt bodies/individuals I mentioned, then yes, they have every right to comment on an ongoing political event.

What I condemn is this ...

*Threatening violence in an attempt to stifle or chill free speech
*Tolerating those who make or imply said threats of violence
* Those in authority who do not supporting those who exercise both their moral and legal right to free speech (step forward Jack Straw) when it is clearly incumbent on those in authority to so support


The right to do something does not mean it's right to do something. I condemn those that make racist comments and should, but they have the right to say something. You should learn the difference.

... with particular reference to the phrase ...

You should learn the difference.

I'm really not sure what you are on about here. Do you mean I should learn the difference between having the legal right to do something and the ethical duty not to exercise it? I have already demonstrated that I know this (see above). Do you mean that I should learn the difference between racist comment and the right of reply? Do you mean something else? Please clarify and I'll respond.

All the best,

CDA

The right to do something does not mean it's right to do something. I condemn those that make racist comments and should, but they have the right to say something. You should learn the difference.


Oh, and, as another point, I'd add this ...

On the subject of free speech I'd like to quote with approval the words of Winston Churchill (address on the Munich Pact 05 Oct 1938):

" I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said — indeed, I hear it said sometimes now — that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey."

If we adopt a policy of 'submission' i.e. don't say this or that because it will offend a given group of people, then we will end up with a doped and chloroformed polity in which the will of the most violent and extreme is imposed. Jyllands-Posten had every right, and, possibly, the duty, to expose this chloroforming of public debate

Those placards that say "Behead those who insult Islam" are (at least in the UK) commiting a crime. Specificly that of soliciting murder, which can carry a maximum of up to life sentence

How is that any better then the cartoons which were just bad humour? I will also add that the cartoons were just as bad as the ones Al Jazeera has on its website.

Has anyone got a link to the cartoons mentioned here?

CDA

Has anyone got a link to the cartoons mentioned here?

CDA

Ask and ye shall receive! ^_~

This link shows all 12 of the actual cartoons. Just scroll down.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

This link provides a list of the sites that have posted 1 or more of the original 12 cartoons.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004446.htm

Hope this helps! :)

Ask and ye shall receive! ^_~

This link shows all 12 of the actual cartoons. Just scroll down.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

This link provides a list of the sites that have posted 1 or more of the original 12 cartoons.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004446.htm

Hope this helps! :)


Thanks for the links.

I have seen the original 12 (I quite like the representation of Mohammed with the crescent and the star for an eye), I meant, does anyone have a link of the various anti-semitic and anti-christian cartoons touted about in the Islamic press?

Cheers

CDA

Ask and ye shall receive! ^_~

This link shows all 12 of the actual cartoons. Just scroll down.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

This link provides a list of the sites that have posted 1 or more of the original 12 cartoons.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004446.htm

Hope this helps! :)


PS - that Michelle Malkin is a bit of a cutie!

If you've got a better solution then I'd love to hear it. What do we do then, give them a flower? Beg on our hands and knees for forgiveness? Face it, violence is the only language these people understand. And I don't understand why everybody has such an aversion to a bit of controlled violence. It's been part of our society for thousands of years, a little more won't kill us.

Oh, the irony, the irony.

The attack against the Danish embassy is an attack on the very foundations of Western civilization. There are fundamental divides between us and the Islamic world, and the hysterical reaction to the cartoons is only one symptom of this.

That's why the West needs to be so vigilant about maintaining our traditions of free speech and democracy: if we lose those, the terrorists have won.

Key thought. And this applies to all free speech and other liberties, not just that we agree with or are comfortable with.

Key thought. And this applies to all free speech and other liberties, not just that we agree with or are comfortable with.

*applauds*

What do you want us to do then? Dialogue is fruitless; the Danish paper has apologised, and a fat lot of good that did. Punishing the journalists, either by handing them over, arresting them or whatever, is morally repugnant. Sitting back and hoping the whole thing will blow over got the embassies burned down. Mosques are backing the general sentiment of the whole thing, so hoping the more moderate Muslims will calm things down is unlikely too.

Very little short of divine authority will prevent eventual retaliation. Unless you have a better way?

First, you point out the ones that burned down the embassy and we'll start there.

Second, we could try, oh, I don't know, diplomacy. There are tons of options. Bombing is not and should not be the first response every time.

Third, some papers could try, let's see, not intentionally enflaming a volatile situation. I have every right to bring a bunch of my white friends put on hoods and show up with signs saying how the niggers need to go home to the million man march, but I would be an idiot to do so. The situation had calmed down. Freedom of speech was respected. Muslims were respected. And it was all settled. And the newspapers said, "wait, it's settling peacefully. We can't have that." And now there are a bunch of idiots on the internet talking about how we should bomb the dirty buggers back to the stone age.

The Muslims involved in this incident, the newspapers involved in this incident and the people calling for violence and a denial of rights for Muslims should ALL be ashamed of themselves.

If you've got a better solution then I'd love to hear it. What do we do then, give them a flower? Beg on our hands and knees for forgiveness? Face it, violence is the only language these people understand. And I don't understand why everybody has such an aversion to a bit of controlled violence. It's been part of our society for thousands of years, a little more won't kill us.

Yep, that's the reasoning they use. Congrats.

All that will do is show us up as weaklings. The more we come out with all this multicultural tolerance rubbish the more muslims will walk all over us. Fear of violence is by far the most effective way to control people.

I hope you never stop posting. You couldn't make it easier to show an example of the problem with extremists on both sides.

Yep, that's the reasoning they use. Congrats.
As long as we're the ones with superior firepower I don't care about their resoning.

I hope you never stop posting. You couldn't make it easier to show an example of the problem with extremists on both sides.
I aim to please!

That's very true, throughout history violence has worked successfully as a way of controlling people. Take the Romans for example. Pax Romana never came through begging and throwing money at rebellious tribes. When people know that rebellions will be met with extreme violence towards them then they're much less likely to rebel. It was ugly, but it sure as hell worked.


I don't consider muslims abroad to be a particular threat. Sure, they can cause us a lot of trouble, but if they start to become a threat to us their countries can be completely destroyed. Do that enough times and they'll soon start to question wether it's wise to antagonise the west. It's the enemy within that's the main threat. Take the London bombings. The perpetrators were all 'British' muslims, not middle eastern. They knew our government would be too spineless to take reprisals, so it was no bother to them to kill innocent people. Perhaps if they knew they would provoke a far more ruthless reaction from both the British government and the British people then things may have turned out differently....

I love this. One group of extremists are saying they're worthless because they never got out of the dark ages and another group are advocating taking a dark ages approach for dealing with the Muslims.

Good to know that we don't have to make an effort to advance as a civilizations. Romans also had slaves, used murder as a part of diplomacy, and were imperialistic. Yep, sure would be a great regime to live under. Maybe we can destroy freedom of religion too, while we're at it. Who needs freedom? Let's just all get clubs and we can go back to bashing anyone who doesn't agree with us over the head.

As long as we're the ones with superior firepower I don't care about their resoning.


I aim to please!

Oh, hey, there it is. Might makes right. They deserve to die for wanting to kill us. Good to know that you don't have anything against being a hypocrite.

Of course, it goes without saying. But what if that's not enough? A suicide bomber isn't going to worry much about a police manhunt, for obvious reasons. And even those muslim terrorists who aren't suicide bobmers are always willing to take risks of getting caught. And despite what 'moderate' muslims say, they enjoy large amounts of support from muslim communities. So you have to look at what they want to achieve, and see to it that exactly the opposite happens. If the terrorists want the west to stop supporting Israel, then respond by selling Israel things like guns, tasers and attack helicopters at cut prices. If these terrorists seek an islamic theocracy where muslims have better lives, then work towards making the lives of everyday muslims even more difficult. A bit of collective punishment could go a long way. This would work particularly well for potential terrorists that leave behind a wife and kids.

Sometimes you need more than simply catching the bad guys and punishing them. You have to make an example if you want to intimidate people from acting up again.

How's that working out in Isreal? The isrealis have superior firepower. One wonders why if aggression and violence is so effective why they aren't all gardeners and ballet dancers. Of course, we could seek to make people all over Europe and America deal with the level of violence people regularly see in Isreal.

How's that working out in Isreal? The isrealis have superior firepower. One wonders why if aggression and violence is so effective why they aren't all gardeners and ballet dancers. Of course, we could seek to make people all over Europe and America deal with the level of violence people regularly see in Isreal.
The reason that superior firepower hasn't won in Israel is because the Israelis aren't ruthless enough. They sometimes seem a bit too keen to absolutely adhere to democratic principles, irrespective of the cost to their society. But they're learning, and some things they've done have been effective so far. The West Bank wall, for example. From what I've heard keeping the Palestinians out has reduced terrorist attacks on their soil.

This is a fairly vapid statement dressed up as some kind of vague philosophical wisdom or principle, but I'll bite anywho.

It must be vapid. Otherwise why would one say it twice. The drawings were designed for NO OTHER PURPOSE but to offend. And they did, but the matter had settled until the press decided to stir the pot. They were wrong to do it. As wrong as a paper that prints an article that says blacks can't read an asians are monkeys. And if a paper wrote those things, I would absolutely expect the government to be embarassed and apologize while IN NO WAY sactioning the paper. Which is exactly what happened.

Let's start with the generalities.
It is a fairly meaningless, vapid, general statement. So yes, I'm willing to concede that it could be true in some circumstances.

Wait, is the statement vapid? I'm not sure. Maybe if you say it again.

Now, mind you, people were saying that the paper is right because they excercised their freedom of speech so it was a direct and appropriate statement stating that excercising a freedom isn't necessarily a noble act.

Now, let's look at the particularities (hey, did I just make up a word?)
I presume that you mean the right to free speech.

Absolutely. I'm saying that I have every right to stand in front of Wal-Mart pointing at people and calling them fat, but it doesn't make me a champion of free speech.

Presumably you're referring to the actions of Jyllands-Posten, et al.

So, I assume that what you are saying is that: while Jyllands-Posten had the right to free speech, it was wrong to exercise that right.

Actually, I was referring to the other papers reprinting the cartoons simply to enflame the situation.

JP was making a political point that free speech (which is now firmly embedded as both a political principle and a legal right in European life) in relation to the depiction of Mohammed was subject to a chilling effect i.e. there was self-censorship owing to the likely threats of violence

They were? Or perhaps, they were doing what papers often do. You know, trying to make money. How many times has this paper that the majority of the posters here have NEVER heard of been mentioned just in this thread? But I'll humor you and pretend like the paper is one of those unique companies that is not interested primarily in making money. Of course, we have no reliable evidence of this, but let's romanticise their efforts for a moment.

Subsequent events have proved that the original cartoonists who refused to illustrate the children's book were engaging in self-censorship for a very good reason - their fears have a basis in reality. Drawing pictures of Mohammed may well expose you to threats of violence. So many people choose not to exercise their rights to free speech owing to that threat of violence. Chilling of speech in relation to Islam and the Prophet is very real.

They didn't just draw pictures of Muhammed. They drew insulting pictures of Muhammed. It is NOT the same thing. Their fears would not have been realized if they had not suggests all Muslims are terrorists for example.

JP was exposing the contradiction between the deeply held legal and cultural values of Europe - i.e. free speech, and the reality, self-censorship and the chilling effect on free speech.

That made me giggle.

JP was, as a newspaper, bringing this issue to the attention of the public in a way that was entirely consistent with its function in society as a newspaper.

But not consistent with its function as a business. Hmmmm... I wonder which function usually wins out.

JP therefore had both the legal right and ethical duty to act in the way that it did.

The ethical duty? Amusing. My free speech should not be abridged, either. I'm going to mall right now to scream out about how I hate niggers. It's my ethical duty to do so. And before I do, I'm going to predict that everyone really wants to call black people niggers but they are afraid of the "violent monkeys".


I condemn those that make racist comments too.

I can tell. You know, calling it their ethical duty and all.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here.

If by 'they' you mean Muslim protestors, then yes, they have every right to protest at what the Danish paper did. If by 'they' you mean the various govt bodies/individuals I mentioned, then yes, they have every right to comment on an ongoing political event.

I mean that I will defend the right to say something, but I won't defend what they said. I think what I said was clear. I guess it must have been just so vapid that you were unable to gather the point from a very clear statement in the context of an overarching point.

What I condemn is this ...

*Threatening violence in an attempt to stifle or chill free speech
*Tolerating those who make or imply said threats of violence
* Those in authority who do not supporting those who exercise both their moral and legal right to free speech (step forward Jack Straw) when it is clearly incumbent on those in authority to so support

The only ones defending violence are the ones supporting violence against Muslims. The statement was the same as a picture depicting black people as apes. Do they have a moral obligation to print such pictures? Does the government have to defend it? The 'statement' of this paper was offensive and the government merely acknowledged them as such.

... with particular reference to the phrase ...

I'm really not sure what you are on about here. Do you mean I should learn the difference between having the legal right to do something and the ethical duty not to exercise it? I have already demonstrated that I know this (see above). Do you mean that I should learn the difference between racist comment and the right of reply? Do you mean something else? Please clarify and I'll respond.

All the best,

CDA
Interesting. You are insulting and yet you struggle with understand a clear and plain statement that having a right does not make it some kind of heroism every time one excercises it. Should the government sanction these papers? Nope. But the papers behaved poorly and set out to offend and the action of setting out with the design to insult a large portion of the world simply because you can is absolutely something that any government should not defend.

The reason that superior firepower hasn't won in Israel is because the Israelis aren't ruthless enough. They sometimes seem a bit too keen to absolutely adhere to democratic principles, irrespective of the cost to their society. But they're learning, and some things they've done have been effective so far. The West Bank wall, for example. From what I've heard keeping the Palestinians out has reduced terrorist attacks on their soil.

Gosh, I hope you're a Christian. I can't wait for someone to associate me with you. I take it you've never heard of revolution. You're view is sooooo in line with history. I mean, as long as you've not actually read any history.

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

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

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.Sounds like an abuse of "freedom of speech". Bad. These cartoons are something neo-nazis can enjoy.

I love this. One group of extremists are saying they're worthless because they never got out of the dark ages and another group are advocating taking a dark ages approach for dealing with the Muslims.

Good to know that we don't have to make an effort to advance as a civilizations. Romans also had slaves, used murder as a part of diplomacy, and were imperialistic. Yep, sure would be a great regime to live under. Maybe we can destroy freedom of religion too, while we're at it. Who needs freedom? Let's just all get clubs and we can go back to bashing anyone who doesn't agree with us over the head.
So that some of their choices were ineffective and undesriable, that invalidates all of them? Sorry thanks, I think I'll keep the indoor plumbing, just not the lead pipes.

These people, from their communities, and churches have, for a long while, have expressed their desire to have a final war with the West. Having a public policy debate about accepting their declaration is hypocrisy, and ignoring them like petulent children isn't hubris, but somehow noble? They're waging war against us, and our values. We can end the war. It's a matter of how important that is to us.

They are playing on a flaw in the ideals of the age of enlightenment. That man is a creature of reason, and reason will win. This isn't true. It's never been true. They're trusting that we'll be more reasonable than they will be, and we won't respond disproportunately destroying the communities they use for sanctuary. And as long as this is true, their strategy will work. This was as true for ancient cultures as it is today, and it is why they were ultimately so quick to respond so viciously. An effective ancient solution to an intractable ancient problem doesn't seem so out of line.

The choice is between a permenant low level conflict (which may escalate at anytime), and a short extrememly expensive one, followed by more and lasting peace. They've long ago made their choice. They've yet to be anything but encouraged by their choice. At some point we will have to choose. I won't choose peace at the cost in lives of those who support the values and freedoms I enjoy when it's far simpler and cheaper to choose peace at the expense of those so opposed to my way of life. They're the ones who can't get along. We're the ones with all the power. Who are we to value their lives more than they do? It's just that simple.

Sounds like an abuse of "freedom of speech". Bad. These cartoons are something neo-nazis can enjoy.
Freedom of speech is meaningless if you only support freedom for the speech you personally support. Supporting the speech of those who say things you like isn't called "freedom of speech," it's called "agreement."

Neo-nazis should have the right to free speech. So should the people who printed those cartoons. I may personally think they were bad cartoons (and I mean bad both in terms of subject and in terms of artistic merit), but my opinion does not overrule their right to express their beliefs. I am horrified by the number of people who seem to think that their feelings trump another person's right to free speech.

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

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

I'm pleased at this display of European solidarity. The more papers that print it the better, this should show the muslim world that non-muslims hae no obligation to follow islamic law. I hope to see some British papers get the guts to print them.
Agree. I think it's shameful that no British papers have (nor do they look like they will) actually make such a solid statement that they believe in freedom of speech. As an aside, all the Muslims protesting in London with such colourful slogans as "Behead those who would insult the prophet." are a bunch of complete and utter bloody lunatics.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if you only support freedom for the speech you personally support. Supporting the speech of those who say things you like isn't called "freedom of speech," it's called "agreement."

Neo-nazis should have the right to free speech. So should the people who printed those cartoons. I may personally think they were bad cartoons (and I mean bad both in terms of subject and in terms of artistic merit), but my opinion does not overrule their right to express their beliefs. I am horrified by the number of people who seem to think that their feelings trump another person's right to free speech.


Good post

Exactly my point of view,

This is something you woudl expect from tabloid press. It is sad that they can be so insensitive to a very large world demographic, it is something you would think Americans would do, (pun)

I really don't think it is tasteful to reprint them, it is like someones grandma caling in cause you took a picture of someone pissing on their childs grave.

Anyway slanderous libel to an entire religion isn't something that is seen as 'tasteful'

I don't see the intelligence in it, and it seems that sadly the pedistal I had held for Eurpeans as far as being higher citivilization seems false when this tdisplay of toilet humour reigns.

Anyway. Nothing against the press I just find it stupid.


Have a look at the story behind the 12 pictures, from 12 different cartoonist, that might put things in another perspective

Greetings

This is NOT a pic from blogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/05/nflag105b.jpg
Man dressed as a suicide bomber outside the Danish embassy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/05/nflag105.jpg
Police hinder photographers as they try to get further pictures of the protester in the 'bomb vest'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/05/nflag105.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/05/ixnewstop.html
Unchallenged, a man poses as a suicide bomber. Police stop press taking pictures
By Andrew Alderson, Nina Goswami, James Orr and Chris Hastings
(Filed: 05/02/2006)

Protests against cartoons satirising Mohammed continued around the world yesterday.

In London, a crowd of 1,000 Muslims clutching orange placards demonstrated outside the Danish embassy. Two dressed as suicide bombers were allowed to stand next to a police van while officers - who had made no arrests the previous day - tried to prevent photographers from taking pictures of them.

The protesters chanted Allah Aqbar (God Is Great), and their placards bore slogans including: "Free Speech Equals Cheap Insults"; "Rudeness, Slander, Disrespect: Is This Freedom Of Speech?"; "Leave Muslims alone" and "Freedom is hypocrisy".

Another placard had pictures of Tony Blair, George Bush and Ariel Sharon with the caption: "Wanted terrorists".

There were sporadic skirmishes when the demonstration broke up at lunchtime, but emotions were not running as high as on Friday.

The uniformity of the placards suggested that the protest had been organised to prevent a repetition of the scenes the previous day when demonstrators carried placards declaring: "Butcher those who insult Islam" and chanted slogans threatening a July 7th attack.

The group behind yesterday's more controlled protest is believed to be Hizb Ut-Tahrir, an Islamic splinter group with a reputation for shrewd dealing with the media and the police.

One of protesters, Mehdi Gashi, 26, originally from Kosovo but now living in London, said the cartoons degraded the Prophet. "The people who printed the cartoons should be punished," he said.

"There's one cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb on his head and this intimates that he is the root of terror, that Islam is terrorism, which is very insulting.":rolleyes:

One Muslim leader yesterday condemned Friday's protest and said it should have been banned.

Asghar Bukhari, the chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said police should have stopped the demonstration because protesters advocated violence. "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting," he told BBC News Online. "I condemn them without reservation. These people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of British people."

Rather than dying down, anger over the cartoons appeared to be growing more organised and determined.

In the most serious incident yesterday, hundreds of demonstrators stormed the Danish embassy in Damascus, the Syrian capital, setting fire to the building. Windows were broken but nobody was injured.

In Pakistan, the foreign ministry called in ambassadors from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Holland, Hungary, Norway and the Czech Republic to protest at publication of the cartoons.:confused:

The Vatican, while deploring violence, said that certain forms of criticism represented an "unacceptable" provocation. "The right to freedom of thought and expression cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," a statement said.

Anger from European Muslims has not matched the furious scenes in Islamic countries. In Jakarta, capital of Indonesia, on Friday protesters clashed with police outside the Danish embassy. The fresh protests came as the journalist who approved publication of the cartoons last September said he was merely upholding Denmark's tradition of satire.

Fleming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, justified the images by saying Denmark simply wanted to treat Muslims "as we treat everybody else".

Mr Rose told BBC News 24's Hardtalk programme: "In Denmark, we do have a tradition of satire and humour. We make fun of the royal family. We make fun of Jesus Christ."

He was interviewed with Ahmed Abu Laban, the Muslim cleric responsible for leading much of the angry reaction across Europe.

Mr Laban insisted that Muslims were right to protest, saying they had been "looked upon as a pupil who should sit on his desk, keep quiet and behave".

The drawings included a cartoon depicting the Prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb. Another shows him announcing that paradise is running out of virgins.

The BBC disclosed yesterday that it has received more than 2,400 complaints after showing "fleeting images" of the cartoons in news reports.

The vast majority said either that they should not show the images again (1,116 respondents), or that they should never have been shown (950 respondents). Just 20 people wanted the cartoons shown fully.

However, despite the uproar, the corporation confirmed that BBC News Online, its flagship site, was still providing links to the material. The majority of complaints to the corporation were from Muslims.

Yesterday, Doug Marlette, one of America's most acclaimed cartoonists, told Radio 4's Today that he had received death threats and hate mail after drawing the Prophet driving a pick-up truck with a missile in the back. More than 20,000 people complained to the newspaper where he worked and another 20,000 complained to his website.

A BBC Radio 5 Live poll which asked whether the cartoons shown in Denmark should be published in Britain found that most respondents opposed the idea. Forty-two per cent said they approved of publication but 58 per cent did not.

One of protesters, Mehdi Gashi, 26, originally from Kosovo but now living in London, said the cartoons degraded the Prophet. "The people who printed the cartoons should be punished," he said.

He should go back to where people wanted to butcher him for being a muslim then, since he doesn't seem to care for secular democracy.

Personally I think they already have a big enough image problem...holding up signs that say "Freedom Go to Hell" and "Europe take a lesson from 9/11" only shows how intolerant they are...I respect their right to protest, I respect their right to be outraged, but burning embassies and stuff is NOT a right, and its nobody's fault but theirs that a. they have the image problem that inspired the cartoons and b. if anywhere in Europe gets bombed as a result of this, it should rightly be blamed on the extremists and not the cartoonists.

Do people enjoy just rehashing these few morons with their protests in London?
Look at the protests in Belgium, or France. Or the lack of protests in Germany. I don't think you'll find the same picture there.

And besides, the leaders of the Muslim community in Britain have said they want these protesters to be charged (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2025704,00.html)), the Mufti of Lebanon has told people to calm the f*ck down (link (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200602060301.htm)) and the same tune has now come from a few leaders in the Middle East.

The newspaper did something dumb they shouldn't have done. They made a lot of people angry. This is not about free speech (at no point was a government involved in this), it's about showing the responsibility and respect that goes hand in hand with free speech in our society, as the German President put it.
If that Swedish Pastor calling homosexuals pedophiles says these things - would you not say that it was inappropriate, and would you not tolerate, if not agree with, gay protests, provided they weren't violent or calling for violence?

Some people on the other side reacted in an entirely inappropriate fashion, and should be treated accordingly. I hope that they will, because I really don't see the point of not doing so, seeing as the government has the backing of pretty much everyone around the world for this.

So,
Newspapers: Stupid, cynical and disrespectful, but not criminally so.
Average Muslim: Justified in his/her annoyance with the newspaper.
Extremist Protestors: Criminals, should be charged and tried.

Dhimmispeak: We should be more respectful of them and try not to offend their feelings.

He should go back to where people wanted to butcher him for being a muslim then, since he doesn't seem to care for secular democracy.
That's exactly why we should refuse entry to all refugees from muslim countries, regardless of their circumstances. If that means they get persectuted and killed then so be it. It's about time that our governments started looking after their own people.

Dhimmispeak: We should be more respectful of them and try not to offend their feelings.
It's the same respect I offer everyone. Whether it be Muslims, or Gays, or Aztecs - you don't have to piss off people just to prove that you can.

You can hold on to your idea that all Muslims are out to get us, but personally, as I said before, have never met one who thought that way. In Europe at least, the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with this whole extremism that has hijacked Islamic Scholarship in the last hundred years or so, and personally, I'd rather be friends with them, and hope that they can turn Islam around than throw them all into the same pot.

I mean, drawing Mohammed as a suicide bomber? How can that serve any purpose at all?

EDIT: A very good article from the German magazine Spiegel, which largely reflects what I think about the issue. However, you might have to use Babelfish to translate the website if you don't speak German.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/debatte/0,1518,399198,00.html
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr

Personally I think they already have a big enough image problem...holding up signs that say "Freedom Go to Hell" and "Europe take a lesson from 9/11" only shows how intolerant they are

Actually its worse than you know. The signs saying things such as "Butcher those who insult Islam" and "Behead all who mock Islam" etc are guilty of soliciting murder, which is in the UK an offence.

Actually its worse than you know. The signs saying things such as "Butcher those who insult Islam" and "Behead all who mock Islam" etc are guilty of soliciting murder, which is in the UK an offence.
The thing in the UK is the laws restricting free speech are entirely based around intent. It needs to be reasonably demonstrated that people mean what they say in order for it to be an offense. Arresting people under those laws is tantamount to declaring a belief that there is a desire among the muslim community to reinact the London Bombings and cause death and destruction throughout the country; a statement that cannot be easily made.

The thing in the UK is the laws restricting free speech are entirely based around intent. It needs to be reasonably demonstrated that people mean what they say in order for it to be an offense. Arresting people under those laws is tantamount to declaring a belief that there is a desire among the muslim community to reinact the London Bombings and cause death and destruction throughout the country; a statement that cannot be easily made.

Well the arguement against that is, if they did not mean what they say, then why did they say it?

Also, you would only need to prove that the person in particular who held the placard wished to encourage the Muslim community to reneact the London bombings. Not that the entire Islamic community did.

Well the arguement against that is, if they did not mean what they say, then why did they say it?

Also, you would only need to prove that the person in particular who held the placard wished to encourage the Muslim community to reneact the London bombings. Not that the entire Islamic community did.
A lot of those placards seem to have been written in the same script. I would argue that rather than each individual drawing a sign, it's likely that some drew out a few of them and handed them out. Hence, why people might have said things they didn't necessarily mean, but also why the subcommunity would have joint culpability. (Subcommunity being that particular community of Muslims rather than the whole Islamic faith).

Sounds like an abuse of "freedom of speech". Bad. These cartoons are something neo-nazis can enjoy.

Neo-nazis have as much a right to free speech as anyone else...freedom of speech requires us to accept speech we find offensive as well as speech we agree with. Anything else threatens freedom of speech rather than protects it.

you don't have to piss off people just to prove that you can.

Never said that.

You can hold on to your idea that all Muslims are out to get us,
Never said that either.

In Europe at least, the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with this whole extremism that has hijacked Islamic Scholarship in the last hundred years or so

Goes beyond last 100 years. Stop looking at islamism through western prism.

Your extrapolation of your experience with German muslims (whom you claim are non-religious....by which you yourself are insinuating that a good muslim is a non-muslim...which is more insulting to islam than whatever you managed to misconstrue from my posts) to European muslims (and even worldwide muslims) do not hold water. Majority of British muslims are of Pakistani descent. They have no qualms over things like this

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060205/481/isl10502050940
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060205/481/isl10602050941
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060205/481/mul10102050955

All through the 90s funds were openly collected in British mosques for jihad. I am not aware of being a single incident of a muslim reporting that to the cops. I am not aware of a single incident of that happening even after 7/7. I am open to correction here.

I mean, drawing Mohammed as a suicide bomber? How can that serve any purpose at all?

Don't care what a cartoonist draws. Worser things have been done to other religions, including mine (like putting hindu Gods on underwear and slippers....somehow I don't remember the violent protests by hindu suicide bombers burning embassies and threatening to indulge in mayhem)

Why should I accord more respect to someone just because he feels offended and would indulge in violence when offended especially when I am not inclined to indulge in violence when I feel offended.

By saying "oh they get offended so we should not be doing this" in the backdrop of the above, I give a psychological space that "they have a right to get offended and do violent things"...which smacks of dhimmihood.

BTW, here's more "rehashing"

http://nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2006/6/index1.php
While addressing another rally, Ameer Jamaat ud Dawah (JD) Hafiz Mohammad Saeed appealed to all the religious parties to get united to launch a forceful movement to counter Western conspiracies against Islam, while addressing a public gathering here on Sunday in connection with the Kashmir Solidarity Day.
He said Denmark has launched the Judo-Christian terrorism against Islam and will be held responsible for spreading Jihad all over the world.

Jamaad ud Dawah is the parent org (actually a pseudonym) of the Lashkar e Toiba. By now, I hope I do not need to explain what LeT is.

Note how it is Denmark's responsibility for "offending" him for which he is "forced" to do jihad.

IOW, My religion is religion of peace. It is you who is anti-my religion. Because of that I am forced to kill you, to prove that my religion is really a religion of peace.

So that some of their choices were ineffective and undesriable, that invalidates all of them? Sorry thanks, I think I'll keep the indoor plumbing, just not the lead pipes.

These people, from their communities, and churches have, for a long while, have expressed their desire to have a final war with the West. Having a public policy debate about accepting their declaration is hypocrisy, and ignoring them like petulent children isn't hubris, but somehow noble? They're waging war against us, and our values. We can end the war. It's a matter of how important that is to us.

They are playing on a flaw in the ideals of the age of enlightenment. That man is a creature of reason, and reason will win. This isn't true. It's never been true. They're trusting that we'll be more reasonable than they will be, and we won't respond disproportunately destroying the communities they use for sanctuary. And as long as this is true, their strategy will work. This was as true for ancient cultures as it is today, and it is why they were ultimately so quick to respond so viciously. An effective ancient solution to an intractable ancient problem doesn't seem so out of line.

The choice is between a permenant low level conflict (which may escalate at anytime), and a short extrememly expensive one, followed by more and lasting peace. They've long ago made their choice. They've yet to be anything but encouraged by their choice. At some point we will have to choose. I won't choose peace at the cost in lives of those who support the values and freedoms I enjoy when it's far simpler and cheaper to choose peace at the expense of those so opposed to my way of life. They're the ones who can't get along. We're the ones with all the power. Who are we to value their lives more than they do? It's just that simple.

How about the value of our lives and our values? Should we abandoned our values? What's left to value if we abandon our values? You're not choosing peace at all. You claim you are, but it's completely a load of crap. You aren't choosing peace. You're choosing war. It's the opposite of the pretend crap you're claiming.

Now, who's they?

That's exactly why we should refuse entry to all refugees from muslim countries, regardless of their circumstances. If that means they get persectuted and killed then so be it. It's about time that our governments started looking after their own people.

And completely abandon our people altogether. Why abide principles. Screw the principles. What do they mater anyway, right?

Never said that.


Never said that either.



Goes beyond last 100 years. Stop looking at islamism through western prism.

Your extrapolation of your experience with German muslims (whom you claim are non-religious....by which you yourself are insinuating that a good muslim is a non-muslim...which is more insulting to islam than whatever you managed to misconstrue from my posts) to European muslims (and even worldwide muslims) do not hold water. Majority of British muslims are of Pakistani descent. They have no qualms over things like this

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060205/481/isl10502050940
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060205/481/isl10602050941
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060205/481/mul10102050955

All through the 90s funds were openly collected in British mosques for jihad. I am not aware of being a single incident of a muslim reporting that to the cops. I am not aware of a single incident of that happening even after 7/7. I am open to correction here.


Don't care what a cartoonist draws. Worser things have been done to other religions, including mine (like putting hindu Gods on underwear and slippers....somehow I don't remember the violent protests by hindu suicide bombers burning embassies and threatening to indulge in mayhem)

Why should I accord more respect to someone just because he feels offended and would indulge in violence when offended especially when I am not inclined to indulge in violence when I feel offended.

By saying "oh they get offended so we should not be doing this" in the backdrop of the above, I give a psychological space that "they have a right to get offended and do violent things"...which smacks of dhimmihood.

BTW, here's more "rehashing"

http://nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2006/6/index1.php


Jamaad ud Dawah is the parent org (actually a pseudonym) of the Lashkar e Toiba. By now, I hope I do not need to explain what LeT is.

Note how it is Denmark's responsibility for "offending" him for which he is "forced" to do jihad.

IOW, My religion is religion of peace. It is you who is anti-my religion. Because of that I am forced to kill you, to prove that my religion is really a religion of peace.

Prove it. Right now, I simply hold that you're full of crap. So far you've just asserted that a majority of Muslims support this mentality rather than just the small group of people, you've actually shown. I'll hold my breath while you support bigotryl.

http://danishcartoons.ytmnd.com/

Hey!

Where have you been? :)

That's exactly why we should refuse entry to all refugees from muslim countries, regardless of their circumstances. If that means they get persectuted and killed then so be it. It's about time that our governments started looking after their own people.

Well you are from the UK so I will speak from the US side.

Why should we stop with Muslims? What about Poles(like yours truely)? Africans, Turks, Pakis, etc. etc.

See where this is going?

There is no way to measure the merit of a man. You get bad people but the majority will be good.

Punish the bad people. Don't take the easy way out with "They might be bad so block them all"

Mankind would be far worst if we simply said to each his own.

Prove it. Right now, I simply hold that you're full of crap. So far you've just asserted that a majority of Muslims support this mentality rather than just the small group of people, you've actually shown. I'll hold my breath while you support bigotryl.

Prove what mentality? Nice strawman there.

Where did I say muslims are a monolith entity?

How about the value of our lives and our values? Should we abandoned our values? What's left to value if we abandon our values? You're not choosing peace at all. You claim you are, but it's completely a load of crap. You aren't choosing peace. You're choosing war. It's the opposite of the pretend crap you're claiming.

Now, who's they?
Idealism has its place. When it is emperically ineffective, theory should take a back seat, sometimes to brute force. War is chosen. Not by the West. How long do you want to fight it, waiting for them to become divinely inspired to reason, 100 years? 200? At what cost? This is exactly the choice the US was faced with when some tribes allied themselves with the British and against America. (Note they actually had a reasonable greivence.) The result has been a lot of prolonged peace. A peace purchased at great cost, in lives and lost heritage, but the wealth it has fostered has been likewise great, likely a wise investment.

"They" are the Islamists and all the communities that shelter them. The problem as it exists defies all modern solutions. It's not a new problem. It has been solved before. The only real question is what's the most economical course of action, and how long will we be able to search for alternatives? Their values haven't changed in 500 years, they don't value freedom, opportunity or well being of others, they're perfectly willing to kill without provokation, what makes you think any of this is likely to change in your lifetime if the current course of action persists? Or presuming you're for appeasment, has that EVER worked? Their god is small weak (as non-existant beings tend to be), and he needs to be revealed in all the awful glory of his limitations. Left with no recourse, some might chose reason and save some vestige of themselves. That is the lesson from history.

There is a lesson for the powerful too. Carthage could have destroyed Rome, and saved their civilization (more enlightened in some respects), they chose to let the embers of Rome smolder until it rose to erase them from history. At the end, how do you think they felt about their foreign policy decisions? What had the Romans, and have the Islamists (and their protectors) done to earn the benefit of the doubt?

That's exactly why we should refuse entry to all refugees from muslim countries, regardless of their circumstances. If that means they get persectuted and killed then so be it. It's about time that our governments started looking after their own people.

Yeah, why bother discerning between individuals at all? That would require brainpower. Something xenophobic nationalists like you seem to have a shortage of. I can understand that, you want to conserve your limited resources. But the rest of us don't want to be such total assholes, that's also why we've moved beyond executing heretics, gassing Jews and burning books.

Let me guess, BNP?

How's that working out in Isreal? The isrealis have superior firepower. One wonders why if aggression and violence is so effective why they aren't all gardeners and ballet dancers. Of course, we could seek to make people all over Europe and America deal with the level of violence people regularly see in Isreal.

Making "war" on "terrorism" is kind of like fighting fire with oil.

The 'Muslim World' is like an enormous petulant toddler! Shhh! You'll wake up the baby! Just let it be or it'll throw a fit. The slightest provocation brongs a extreme and overly dramatic response. Just like with an infant you have to eventually stop walking on eggshells, not only to save your own sanity but to see the child grow to be a reasonable, well adjusted person. Ignore the fits that you can and let the baby grow up.

...It's not a new problem. It has been solved before....
This is interesting. Care to mention an example?

The thing in the UK is the laws restricting free speech are entirely based around intent. It needs to be reasonably demonstrated that people mean what they say in order for it to be an offense. Arresting people under those laws is tantamount to declaring a belief that there is a desire among the muslim community to reinact the London Bombings and cause death and destruction throughout the country; a statement that cannot be easily made.
Not to be a pain here, but...HUH?! If somebody walks around waving a sign saying, "I want to kill Kamsaki," and joins in a violent riot with others who are expressing their desire to kill Kamsaki, wouldn't you feel like there is at least some tiny reason to think that maybe this person wants to hurt you?

I think the protestors are making their "intent" quite clear. Personally, I think they should be free to express their intent/desire to kill non-Muslims, because I don't think it should be illegal to do that kind of thing, but if the UK laws are based on intent then I think this is a pretty clear case against the protestors.

The thing is, there doesn't need to be any evidence of ANY desire "among the Muslim community" for the PROTESTORS to be held to task. The Muslim community isn't the problem, it's the Muslims who are showing their arses and acting like bloody children. Lumping all Muslims together is exactly the kind of idiocy that gets wars started.

Not to be a pain here, but...HUH?! If somebody walks around waving a sign saying, "I want to kill Kamsaki," and joins in a violent riot with others who are expressing their desire to kill Kamsaki, wouldn't you feel like there is at least some tiny reason to think that maybe this person wants to hurt you?

I think the protestors are making their "intent" quite clear. Personally, I think they should be free to express their intent/desire to kill non-Muslims, because I don't think it should be illegal to do that kind of thing, but if the UK laws are based on intent then I think this is a pretty clear case against the protestors.


Threatening someone with death is a crime in the US. "Making terroristic threats" for example, is an offense in most US States.

Inciting to riot is also a crime, as is conspiracy to commit murder or arson.

It's best, if you're protesting, to make your statement more general, and say that you hate a particular person or group, rather than say you're going to kill them.

Threatening someone with death is a crime in the US. "Making terroristic threats" for example, is an offense in most US States.

Inciting to riot is also a crime, as is conspiracy to commit murder or arson.

It's best, if you're protesting, to make your statement more general, and say that you hate a particular person or group, rather than say you're going to kill them.
Yeah, that much I was aware of, but I figured I would get my ass handed to me if I started talking about American law in the midst of discussion about European riots...usually when I do that, the whole discussion gets hijacked onto, "Why do Americans always think the world should follow their law?!!!!!" :P

Yeah, that much I was aware of, but I figured I would get my ass handed to me if I started talking about American law in the midst of discussion about European riots...usually when I do that, the whole discussion gets hijacked onto, "Why do Americans always think the world should follow their law?!!!!!" :P

IIRC, in some European countries, there are crimes that a speaker can commit merely by expressing hate or profound ridicule of a group.

IIRC, in some European countries, there are crimes that a speaker can commit merely by expressing hate or profound ridicule of a group.
Yeah, and in that case I think it's pretty damn obvious that the rioters would be breaking the law in those countries. Whether or not I agree with those laws is a topic for another thread...:)

I wonder what the big deal with the cartoons is. It's actually been done before in Southpark (the ridiculing of all religions) so I don't get what the big fuss is all about. And besides in any democratic world it's your right to say whatever you like no matter how inflamatory this may be. You respond to inflamatory rhetoric by presenting your own arguments in a civilized way. You do not make your point by burning flags, burning embassies, threating with retaliatory attacks and so on. Unless we want to return to the era of state enforced religious beliefs and perhaps reinstate the Inquisition. Yeah, that should do it. Perhaps burn a few heretic cartoons in the pyre while we're at it. Remember people, the Inquisition did this and also a dude named Adolph used to burn books he didn't like. Read your history. Some of the worst wars in our collective history have been fueled and sparked by religious fanatics who wanted to impose their beliefs on others. Remember what Voltaire said:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with my life"

This is the essence of democracy i think.

I wonder what the big deal with the cartoons is. It's actually been done before in Southpark (the ridiculing of all religions) so I don't get what the big fuss is all about. And besides in any democratic world it's your right to say whatever you like no matter how inflamatory this may be. You respond to inflamatory rhetoric by presenting your own arguments in a civilized way. You do not make your point by burning flags, burning embassies, threating with retaliatory attacks and so on. Unless we want to return to the era of state enforced religious beliefs and perhaps reinstate the Inquisition. Yeah, that should do it. Perhaps burn a few heretic cartoons in the pyre while we're at it. Remember people, the Inquisition did this and also a dude named Adolph used to burn books he didn't like. Read your history. Some of the worst wars in our collective history have been fueled and sparked by religious fanatics who wanted to impose their beliefs on others. Remember what Voltaire said:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with my life"

This is the essence of democracy i think.


Something tells me that Muslims in Third World countries don't have access to South Park.

And besides in any democratic world it's your right to say whatever you like no matter how inflamatory this may be. You respond to inflamatory rhetoric by presenting your own arguments in a civilized way. You do not make your point by burning flags, burning embassies, threating with retaliatory attacks and so on.
My (Muslim) office mate had this to say about the Muslims rioting about the cartoons:

"Way to prove them right, assholes."

My (Muslim) office mate had this to say about the Muslims rioting about the cartoons:

"Way to prove them right, assholes."

He's 100% right, I tottaly agree. This is no way to make your point at all. It sends back all the wrong messages and fuels a counterresponse. It's basic physics at work here. Action - reaction. Stonger action - stronger reaction. There is no end to it this way. And another thing about the Muslim world in general if I may. Why can't they do something like what Ghandi did in India. Passive resistance. They fight against you, you don't fight back, you gain the MORAL HIGH GROUND that way which is the ESSENCE to proove to the world public opinion that you are right. If you do this you've won. No one is ever going to yield to threats of violence or to violence itself.

<puts on tinfoil hat, makes tuning adjustments>

"This is all part of a plot by Cheney and Bush to distract the attention of Muslims from US actions. CIA toadies have paid the editors of various European newspapers (or used mind control devices) to publish laughable images of Muhammed."

He's 100% right, I tottaly agree. This is no way to make your point at all. It sends back all the wrong messages and fuels a counterresponse. It's basic physics at work here. Action - reaction. Stonger action - stronger reaction. There is no end to it this way. And another thing about the Muslim world in general if I may. Why can't they do something like what Ghandi did in India. Passive resistance. They fight against you, you don't fight back, you gain the MORAL HIGH GROUND that way which is the ESSENCE to proove to the world public opinion that you are right. If you do this you've won. No one is ever going to yield to threats of violence or to violence itself.
It has given the BNP in the UK all the amunition it wants.
Now they can argue that it is a religion of hate!
Demonstrate by all means but keep within the law, and if you don't accept your punishment.

And now, for unwanted advice from the US, to various European newspapers..

"Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it."

I'd also give that advice to the various Muslims who have already burned something to the ground recently.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/suitability.jpg

<puts on tinfoil hat, makes tuning adjustments>

"This is all part of a plot by Cheney and Bush to distract the attention of Muslims from US actions. CIA toadies have paid the editors of various European newspapers (or used mind control devices) to publish laughable images of Muhammed."
*GASP* Our hats are totally on the same frequency. I must admit, this administration is doing a great job of driving me utterly insane, because that one my first random thought when I heard about the whole mess.

I thought, "Wow, it's very handy of the Muslims to go on a rioting spree just as Americans were starting to grow tired of hating on Islam and the Bush poll numbers were returning to their all-time lows..."

Oooh, Fafnir has some wittiness up about this topic at fafblog.blogspot.com.

A snippet:

"If only Sandwich Buddha were here to save us!" says me.
"But he was too enlightmelicious for this world," says Giblets, "especially when purchased as a special value meal with a twelve-ounce coke and a bag of chips."
"Will God ever forgive us for eating his bready bodhisattva?" says me.
"As long as we never draw his picture," says Giblets.

Prove what mentality? Nice strawman there.

Where did I say muslims are a monolith entity?

You make it sound like all Muslims support violence. You certainly intended to give that impression. Support you assertion. Asking you to support it isn't a strawman.

Idealism has its place. When it is emperically ineffective, theory should take a back seat, sometimes to brute force. War is chosen. Not by the West. How long do you want to fight it, waiting for them to become divinely inspired to reason, 100 years? 200? At what cost? This is exactly the choice the US was faced with when some tribes allied themselves with the British and against America. (Note they actually had a reasonable greivence.) The result has been a lot of prolonged peace. A peace purchased at great cost, in lives and lost heritage, but the wealth it has fostered has been likewise great, likely a wise investment.

"They" are the Islamists and all the communities that shelter them. The problem as it exists defies all modern solutions. It's not a new problem. It has been solved before. The only real question is what's the most economical course of action, and how long will we be able to search for alternatives? Their values haven't changed in 500 years, they don't value freedom, opportunity or well being of others, they're perfectly willing to kill without provokation, what makes you think any of this is likely to change in your lifetime if the current course of action persists? Or presuming you're for appeasment, has that EVER worked? Their god is small weak (as non-existant beings tend to be), and he needs to be revealed in all the awful glory of his limitations. Left with no recourse, some might chose reason and save some vestige of themselves. That is the lesson from history.

There is a lesson for the powerful too. Carthage could have destroyed Rome, and saved their civilization (more enlightened in some respects), they chose to let the embers of Rome smolder until it rose to erase them from history. At the end, how do you think they felt about their foreign policy decisions? What had the Romans, and have the Islamists (and their protectors) done to earn the benefit of the doubt?

First, idealism has been quite effective. As has been pointed out, you are more likely to die in the bath than to die at the hands of a terrorist. You are more likely to be mugged and murdered than die at the hands of a terrorist. Freedom affects us everyday in thousands of tiny ways and several big ones. Would you really want to abridge that freedom to prevent something that IS NOT a major threat? Wouldn't those resources be better used to prevent murder and rape within our own countries? Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we should do nothing. I'm suggesting that we should continue to be vigilant without compromising the priniciples of freedom and democracy.

Second, I'm not interested in supporting your bigotry. "They" are a multicultural, diverse group of people that vary from extremely violent to extremely peaceful. I'm not willing to treat them like a single homogenous group simply because you don't understand what an individual is. And I am one of the ones sheltering them. If you come and try to burn down the mosque in my neighborhood I'll be standing next to the Muslims, protecting them.

You make it sound like all Muslims support violence. You certainly intended to give that impression. Support you assertion. Asking you to support it isn't a strawman.

I would not say all muslims support violence.. but recent events over the Danish cartoons has been very telling in MANY mulsims willingness to take it on.

IN IRAQ: "Protesters called for the death of anyone who insults Muhammad and demanded withdrawal of 530-member Danish military contingent operating under British control."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10705393/

First, idealism has been quite effective. As has been pointed out, you are more likely to die in the bath than to die at the hands of a terrorist.
To be fair, I'm sure the government is trying very hard to combat the subversive terroristic actions of the bathtubs hiding among us, probably by placing listening devices in all our bathroom fixtures.

I would not say all muslims support violence.. but recent events over the Danish cartoons has been very telling in MANY mulsims willingness to take it on.

IN IRAQ: "Protesters called for the death of anyone who insults Muhammad and demanded withdrawal of 530-member Danish military contingent operating under British control."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10705393/

And...

Some Muslims != All Muslims. It doesn't even equal most Muslims. There have been many examples of people calling for reason and peace in this situation. Just like the idiots who printed those cartoons in the first place don't represent all newspapers, the idiots who are calling for violence don't represent all Muslims.

Not to be a pain here, but...HUH?! If somebody walks around waving a sign saying, "I want to kill Kamsaki," and joins in a violent riot with others who are expressing their desire to kill Kamsaki, wouldn't you feel like there is at least some tiny reason to think that maybe this person wants to hurt you?
The reason I wouldn't think that, necessarily, is that I know that the vast majority of this population, including many Muslims, are complete retards when in bunches. People say things because they're suckered into a group mentality - they don't think about what they're saying. My opinion is simply that the individual in question is a sheep; weak, stupid, easily persuaded, but ultimately harmless on its own. It's when you get them together and the flock starts to form that you have a problem.

Not to be a pain here, but...HUH?! If somebody walks around waving a sign saying, "I want to kill Kamsaki," and joins in a violent riot with others who are expressing their desire to kill Kamsaki, wouldn't you feel like there is at least some tiny reason to think that maybe this person wants to hurt you?

I think the protestors are making their "intent" quite clear. Personally, I think they should be free to express their intent/desire to kill non-Muslims, because I don't think it should be illegal to do that kind of thing, but if the UK laws are based on intent then I think this is a pretty clear case against the protestors.

The thing is, there doesn't need to be any evidence of ANY desire "among the Muslim community" for the PROTESTORS to be held to task. The Muslim community isn't the problem, it's the Muslims who are showing their arses and acting like bloody children. Lumping all Muslims together is exactly the kind of idiocy that gets wars started.

I'd like to point out that laws on violent protests are sketchy at best. Imagine if you will a sign that says, "castrate the child molestors at NAMBLA." One might argue that it is not a threat I intend for anyone to carry out. Sometimes you can get away with it simply by being vague enough. The complication with these protests is that history teaches us that the protestors can reasonably expect the violence portrayed in their signs to become a reality whether that is their intent or no.

Hell, look at this thread. There are many in this thread calling for those that are insulted by insults against Islam to be hunted down and killed.

The reason I wouldn't think that, necessarily, is that I know that the vast majority of this population, including many Muslims, are complete retards when in bunches. People say things because they're suckered into a group mentality - they don't think about what they're saying. My opinion is simply that the individual in question is a sheep; weak, stupid, easily persuaded, but ultimately harmless on its own. It's when you get them together and the flock starts to form that you have a problem.
I guess I don't share your optimism. I agree that many individuals are sheeple, but that doesn't mean they aren't also dangerous.

And...

Some Muslims != All Muslims. It doesn't even equal most Muslims. There have been many examples of people calling for reason and peace in this situation. Just like the idiots who printed those cartoons in the first place don't represent all newspapers, the idiots who are calling for violence don't represent all Muslims.

And like i said in my statement.. this dosn't represent all.. or even most.. but MANY. Many to the point at which we cannot reasonably ignore this phenomina. The prevalence of violence in the muslim world is something those muslim nations need to start addressing. When embassies are burned to the ground, and christians attacked over cartoons... this is a major cultural divide that needs to be bridged.

And i would argue, most newspapers would wholely support the Danish publications as its an issue vital to their livelyhood... freedom of press.

I'd like to point out that laws on violent protests are sketchy at best. Imagine if you will a sign that says, "castrate the child molestors at NAMBLA." One might argue that it is not a threat I intend for anyone to carry out. Sometimes you can get away with it simply by being vague enough. The complication with these protests is that history teaches us that the protestors can reasonably expect the violence portrayed in their signs to become a reality whether that is their intent or no.

Hell, look at this thread. There are many in this thread calling for those that are insulted by insults against Islam to be hunted down and killed.
Yeah, that's pretty much one of my major beefs with laws restricting free speech.

And like i said in my statement.. this dosn't represent all.. or even most.. but MANY. Many to the point at which we cannot reasonably ignore this phenomina. The prevalence of violence in the muslim world is something those muslim nations need to start addressing. When embassies are burned to the ground, and christians attacked over cartoons... this is a major cultural divide that needs to be bridged.

And i would argue, most newspapers would wholely support the Danish publications as its an issue vital to their livelyhood... freedom of press.

The violence in those countries is something those countries need to start addressing. If Europeans and Americans are not safe in those countries then we should withdraw from them and isolate them until they learn to play nice. I don't care what color skin the people of those countries have or what religion they are. However, your problem is with the countries, not with Islam.

I guess I don't share your optimism. I agree that many individuals are sheeple, but that doesn't mean they aren't also dangerous.
I guess it's the only way to get by when you spend the larger part of your childhood in a region where community conflict is a part of everyday life. Belfast kids are nice by themselves, but stick them in a group and they won't hesitate to beat the shit out of the guys on the other side of the river.

That's just how the world works. Individuals are reduced to mere cogs in the system.

Yeah, that's pretty much one of my major beefs with laws restricting free speech.

Actually, look at the people in my links calling for violence against gays, etc. Those aren't Muslims.

I guess it's the only way to get by when you spend the larger part of your childhood in a region where community conflict is a part of everyday life.

But that's the thing: I grew up in several such communities. I spent a few years living in a neighborhood where tensions between Latinos and African Americans were usually out of control. And that's where my concern comes from...individuals don't become LESS likely to harm you when they're part of a mob. If you see one guy walking around with a sign that says, "Kill All Blacks," odds are that one guy isn't going to actually do much of anything. But if you see a troop of people all carrying those signs, the odds that one of them will act violently is much much higher.

I, for one, do not consider the mob mentality to be any excuse. I believe people are ALWAYS responsible for their choices, and that they should never be allowed to get away with saying, "Oh, but it was peer pressure! It was just the mob mentality!"


That's just how the world works. Individuals are reduced to mere cogs in the system.
If they are it is their own goddam fault, and they deserve to be held accountable for their failure.

The violence in those countries is something those countries need to start addressing. If Europeans and Americans are not safe in those countries then we should withdraw from them and isolate them until they learn to play nice. I don't care what color skin the people of those countries have or what religion they are. However, your problem is with the countries, not with Islam.

It is one thing to try to separate the actions of afew contries to an entire religion.. but when most or many islamic states (and even some not .. Australia) exhibit these violent tendenices one must begin to belive there is something symptomatic here in the prevailing culture. This is not to say islam itself preaches violence, becuase it dosnt... it is peaceful. However, there seems to be a disconnect between the prevailing culture and the preachings of the religion itself.

And like i said in my statement.. this dosn't represent all.. or even most.. but MANY. Many to the point at which we cannot reasonably ignore this phenomina. The prevalence of violence in the muslim world is something those muslim nations need to start addressing. When embassies are burned to the ground, and christians attacked over cartoons... this is a major cultural divide that needs to be bridged.

And i would argue, most newspapers would wholely support the Danish publications as its an issue vital to their livelyhood... freedom of press.

The violence is certainly something that should be worked on for protests that turn into riots do not solve the issue that is being protesting and only hurts your cause. Though I am really annoyed that people are dismissing the outrage that many Muslims feel over this issue. The do not find these cartoons funny but see it as an insult to their religion. Freedom of the press is essential but it would be nice if decency and common sense was used. I think these newspapers just like poking a hornet's nest with a stick and shout with glee at the chaos that results.