NationStates Jolt Archive

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!"

If they are it is their own goddam fault, and they deserve to be held accountable for their failure.
It's not an excuse, but it is a cause. Otherwise decent people can become ruthless monsters in packs. That doesn't deny their culpability for anything done as that pack, but neither does it deny their status as reasonable human beings. They're just puppets of the unified whole. Yes, we need to take care of the puppets to make sure they can't be used in the future, but cutting the strings first seems like a better idea to me than wrestling with them to wear them down.

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.

Or one could accurately conclude that fundamentalist states are dangerous that it makes no difference what kind of fundamentalism it is. When the government allows itself to be so dogmatic (any kind of dogma, not necessarily religious or a specific religion) you have the dangers of Nazi Germany, Red China, the USSR, Iran, Iraq, Rwanda, etc. It has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with people in those countries being brainwashed to a point that it makes them dangerous. Were the Salem witch trials a fundamental problem of Christianity or a problem with fundamentalists and extremists in power? I know the answer. Do you?

The point to make is that everything is debatable. This doesn't mean that convictions have no place in society, just that they should be fundamented, if not, questioned. Even religious belief must have logical threads of thought. If the simple opening of a discussion about a certain theme, issue, object, dogma, etc, offends someone, this simply brings to light the fragility of the stance chosen by the offended individual. Offense is not absolute to those introduced to stoic thought. It should not be the basis for a philosophical (political, religous,etc) discussion, and much less when unjustified. The idea that somethings are a question of sensibility is in itself debatable, as is freedom of speech. Discussing them isn't. It is the only way of establishing references, of evolving, growing culturally and intelectually. Opinions are valid when not falacious, dogmatic or outright lies, not being valid doesn't mean they can't be expressed, just that they can be justifiably set aside, simply because they are not constructive or insightfull enough to lead to something tangible.

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.

I think few if anyone is really dismissing the outrage that these cartoons are inspiring, however, the measure of that outrage itself is so dramatic and sever.. that it in fact is overshadowing the cartoons themselves posing as even more outragous.. responding to something distasteful in a violent manner cross the line between what is civil and appropriate, and what cannot be tolerated.

And I think these cartoonists (and papers) tried to make a point with these images.. one which is being played out before our eyes.. that violence in the islamic world is out of hand.

Or one could accurately conclude that fundamentalist states are dangerous that it makes no difference what kind of fundamentalism it is. When the government allows itself to be so dogmatic (any kind of dogma, not necessarily religious or a specific religion) you have the dangers of Nazi Germany, Red China, the USSR, Iran, Iraq, Rwanda, etc. It has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with people in those countries being brainwashed to a point that it makes them dangerous. Were the Salem witch trials a fundamental problem of Christianity or a problem with fundamentalists and extremists in power? I know the answer. Do you?

I for one have no problem separating the insitution from the faith, and to that mark it is easy to identify the salem witch trials as a problem with the church (the institution) rather then the faith.

I belive you maybe deriving something from my comments im not trying to put out. Im not saying the religion itself is at fault.. but rather the culture surrounding it. Mainstream muslims are by large in part being driven to farther and farther to the extremist right. Though not all are violent, there is a growing number willing to accept it, or refuse to condem it. This is extremely dangerous and reminisent of the salem witch trials themselves.. These protests are not being controled by their fundamentalist governments (ex. Lebenon, Iraq, Australia) in all cases. This shows to some degree average muslims themselves are willing to take up this cause, to the point of violence in many cases.

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.

That was not my intention. You must have misread (or I must have poory worded). I rarely generalise "all muslims are blah blah". I cannot support something that I have not asserted.

However, I do assert that in certain societies in certain countries, the majority do indeed support (or atleast sympathise, which is the same as support to me) jihad. For ex, wahabbis of KSA, sunnis of Pakistani Punjab and NWFP.

Interesting observations in the counterterrorism blog. Shows how much of this sh1t is brewed by the mullahs.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/fabricated_cart.html
Fabricated cartoons worsened Danish controversy

The controversy over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed is expanding, as more Muslims join the boycott and protests against Denmark and various European newspapers decide to publish the cartoons, mostly out of solidarity with Jyllands Posten and to make a strong political stand. One issue that puzzles many Danes is the timing of this outburst. The cartoons were published in September: Why have the protests erupted from Muslims worldwide only now? The person who knows the answer to this question is Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, a man that the Washington Post has recently profiled as “one of Denmark's most prominent imams.”

Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified. In any case, the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that “mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.” And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya, Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV.

Interesting observations in the counterterrorism blog. Shows how much of this sh1t is brewed by the mullahs.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/fabricated_cart.html



Hear, hear+

This is interesting. Care to mention an example?
Throughout history their have been people who, for various reasons, though weaker would prey upon what they might of the powers that were. The solution was to find out where the live, and destroy it.

That these people were not representative of the communities they lived in wasn't of any particular moral consequence, because life was hard, there was little wealth to go around. Sometimes there were states involved, sometimes not.

But the American Indian Wars as a response to some tribes allying themselves with the British, would be one more or less modern example where genocide worked. Doesn't make what happened to them moral or just, but the result is a pretty pleasent world, particularly if one lives in the Western United States.

That was not my intention. You must have misread (or I must have poory worded). I rarely generalise "all muslims are blah blah". I cannot support something that I have not asserted.

However, I do assert that in certain societies in certain countries, the majority do indeed support (or atleast sympathise, which is the same as support to me) jihad. For ex, wahabbis of KSA, sunnis of Pakistani Punjab and NWFP.

Or perhaps, as people did during the Salem witch trials, they simply don't want to be a target so they don't stand up. When you have fundamentalists in power, it is dangerous to dissent. My life would definitely be in danger if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson had full control of the US. (This is also in response to comments from another poster.)

Throughout history their have been people who, for various reasons, though weaker would prey upon what they might of the powers that were. The solution was to find out where the live, and destroy it.

That these people were not representative of the communities they lived in wasn't of any particular moral consequence, because life was hard, there was little wealth to go around. Sometimes there were states involved, sometimes not.

But the American Indian Wars as a response to some tribes allying themselves with the British, would be one more or less modern example where genocide worked. Doesn't make what happened to them moral or just, but the result is a pretty pleasent world, particularly if one lives in the Western United States.

Unless, of course, you're a native american.

Unless, of course, you're a native american.
Lol, zing! :)

One of my favourite Dutch cartoonists drew one of his own. This is the translation into English...

http://www.tomjanssen.net/prenten/english/the_prophet_on_a_cartoon310106.gif

No, not all Muslims are alike.

In fact, some of them are pretty smart.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06153755.htm
GAZA, Feb 6 (Reuters) - When entrepreneur Ahmed Abu Dayya first heard that Danish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad were being reprinted across Europe, he knew exactly what his customers in Gaza would want: flags to burn.

Abu Dayya ordered 100 hard-to-find Danish and Norwegian flags for his Gaza City shop and has been doing a swift trade.

"I do not take political stands. It is all business," he said in an interview. "But this time I was offended by the assault on the Prophet Mohammad."

Offended, and a bit wealthier.

Or perhaps, as people did during the Salem witch trials, they simply don't want to be a target so they don't stand up. When you have fundamentalists in power, it is dangerous to dissent. My life would definitely be in danger if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson had full control of the US. (This is also in response to comments from another poster.)

I take it that I was the other poster you were responding to, so to this note I will respond as well ^-^. I might consider that point strongly in those nations with fundamentalist governments. However nations such as Australia and Lebanon (whose government has apologized to Denmark for the violence) I feel would not warrent this argument.

In fact, some of them are pretty smart.


Well that's reassuring....

Here's another point. Everyone keeps talking about how countries handled similar problems two hundred years ago or more. Keep in mind that quelling a rebellion when the only weapons available to those rebelling are swords and single-action guns that take thirty seconds to reload is not nearly as difficult as quelling a rebellion where in a single instant a single person can kill hundreds of people. Oppression breeds rebellion. The way the US has avoided rebellion is by slowing giving up oppressive behaviors. Europe too. They slowly give back countries (sometimes with a little encouragement), end imperialism, slavery, etc. The way to combat terrorism is to deal swiftly with transgressors while advocating rights that make the vast majority of people have no reason to rebel. There will always be groups like the ALF and its ilk, but if you look where the vast majority of violence occurs in the world it is in the more oppressive areas of the world. A solution of "if you can't beat them, join them" doesn't seem very appetizing to me.

I take it that I was the other poster you were responding to, so to this note I will respond as well ^-^. I might consider that point strongly in those nations with fundamentalist governments. However nations such as Australia and Lebanon (whose government has apologized to Denmark for the violence) I feel would not warrent this argument.

Agreed. In those cases where the government is willing to work with Denmark and the international community to deal with the violence, I feel that is the best approach. We have to actively go after advocates of violence and bring them to justice while do our best to be supportive of the portion of that community that want nothing to do with violence or oppression. I recognize that reasonable force might be required to do the former. However, we must make sure those we 'get' are the advocates of violence and not people who happen to have the same skin color, a similar culture or sound a little similar.

I'm sorry, but if a man is standing behind his children with a pistol preparing to shoot me, I'm not going to fire a shotgun at him. I'd rather be shot. However, we have a rifle with a laser scope and we need to make precise responses to these issues not just wig out and attack the Muslim community as a whole. To do the latter, simply fans the flames and gives MORE people a reason to behave in such a manner.

EDIT: Yes, you were the other poster and I added that part in an edit and since I couldn't see your name at the time, I didn't want to misspell it.

Agreed. In those cases where the government is willing to work with Denmark and the international community to deal with the violence, I feel that is the best approach. We have to actively go after advocates of violence and bring them to justice while do our best to be supportive of the portion of that community that want nothing to do with violence or oppression. I recognize that reasonable force might be required to do the former. However, we must make sure those we 'get' are the advocates of violence and not people who happen to have the same skin color, a similar culture or sound a little similar.

I'm sorry, but if a man is standing behind his children with a pistol preparing to shoot me, I'm not going to fire a shotgun at him. I'd rather be shot. However, we have a rifle with a laser scope and we need to make precise responses to these issues not just wig out and attack the Muslim community as a whole. To do the latter, simply fans the flames and gives MORE people a reason to behave in such a manner.

EDIT: Yes, you were the other poster and I added that part in an edit and since I couldn't see your name at the time, I didn't want to misspell it.


I'm sure that in the future, Europe will love a nuclear armed Iran. The Shahab-3 can already reach a portion of southern Europe, and I'm sure they'll be upset if you draw more funny pictures.

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

Or perhaps, as people did during the Salem witch trials, they simply don't want to be a target so they don't stand up. When you have fundamentalists in power, it is dangerous to dissent.

I can understand people who are afraid to stand up.

In the instances I mentioned, I know of rallies held to collect money for jihad and the public donating. They know where that money is going.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/27ariban.htm
..the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, better known as the Lashkar-e-Tayiba raised Rs 780 million from donations from ordinary people, during last month's Eid celebrations -- far more, than previous years, according to The Friday Times.
.
'The popular perception that only unemployed youth, poor men or school dropouts are attracted by the jihadi outfits proved wrong last week when a section of the country's elite responded overwhelmingly to the jihad call of the country's top militant donating their real estate property, cash, and sons. Hafiz Mohammad Said, the firebrand chief of the defunct Lashkar-e-Tayiba addressed a select gathering in Islamabad at the Ahle-Hadis mosque in the I-8 sector-the secluded enclave of country's top civil bureaucracy, last Sunday.'
..
'To motivate the audience, Said repeatedly quoted the largesse of the First Muslim Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique. "Would you follow Siddique?' Said posed a question spurring the audience's zeal. The audience was charged emotionally. "I donate my two young sons for jihad in Kashmir and 500,000 cash," announced one among the audience. The 'donor' was a merchant. A woman who was not among the audience but listening to Said's sermon [audible for miles through powerful loudspeakers] sent her jewelry worth 300,000 through her son for the mujahideen's widows. The woman, Dr Rookaya Khan, was a physician.'

'Three brothers -- Asghar, Anwar and Akbar, 19, 22, and 24 respectively -- enrolled themselves for jihad training. Asghar had done his A-level from Beaconhouse [probably the most expensive chain of school.] Anwar was an intern with a five-star hotel. Akbar was marketing executive with a multinational.'

It seems, sacrificing their own children to kill Indians is not too difficult a step, as we see:

'A woman entered the assembly and gave her 2-year baby boy to Hafiz Said. "I am donating him for jihad!" publicised the woman. "We appreciate your donation. But he is too young. Keep him with you as our trust. When he would be a grown up boy, we will train him for jihad and he will earn a good name for you," responded Said. The woman was a landlord. "I am the mother of four sons. What happens if I donate one son for jihad, he embraces martyrdom and earns heaven for all of us!" said she rationalising her decision.'

Shehzad goes on to say, that almost everyone present there donated generously for jihadi terror, with a total collection of about 1.2 lakhs. Of course, collecting money in the name of jihad had been banned by the Musharraf regime since March 2001.

When asked about this open fund raising by a proscribed terrorist group, Pakistani Interior Minister Hayat does his deny-deny-deny-at-any-cost act. 'Hafiz Said was soliciting donations for the social welfare cause under the banner of Jamat-ud-Dawa [the new name of Lashkar-e-Tayiba]. 'Since Jamat-ud-Dawa is not an outlawed outfit and undertakes humanitarian work, therefore, the government cannot proceed against it,' he says.

But, these are not isolated incidents -- in fact, the same Pakistani businessmen who are salivating at the thought of and begging to be able to do business with India, literally fall over themselves to give money to the terrorists. The Daily Times of Lahore, reported on one such fund-raising incident in late November:

'LAHORE: Tehrik Khuddamul Islam Ameer Maulana Masood Azhar on Friday was given millions of rupees by businessmen from Lahore's posh and industrial areas for Kashmiri mujahideen. Maulana Azhar said he would personally deliver the donations to the mujahideen. "He took four sacks full of rupees with him," a TKI source told Daily Times. He met with businessmen after the Friday prayers and asked them to give zakat to mujahideen. He also visited the industrial areas of Lahore on Sheikhupura Road and addressed people at an iftar dinner at a factory.'

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.

Oh do grow up, were the cartoons anything beyond insincere, humuerous satire, one could feasibly contend that they were wrong, however, frankly, they are not.

If you believe that you are superior to another person, then you are, in fact, that person's inferior. If you think that your language and/or culture is superior, than you are inferior. I don't know what your culture is, but mine doesn't require that you offend someone.

But it is an integral part of human nature to see the world through your own cultural upbringing, AND EVERY CULTURE DOES IT! Both the West and the Middle East included.

In fact the post-modern notion that we should regard all systems as equal in their own merit is peculiar to West, and only attempted by a few liberal sociologists and anthropolgists, most of whom admit that they can only attempt to do this and will never be totally unbiased.

It is not only OK to try to convince people of other cultures of the superior elements of your own culture, but it is human nature, an unstoppable trait of our psyche that as long as it is practiced in a peaceful way should be encouraged, not discoraged.

I can understand people who are afraid to stand up.

In the instances I mentioned, I know of rallies held to collect money for jihad and the public donating. They know where that money is going.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/27ariban.htm

So what's your plan to deal with it? Do we attack a few hundred million people? Attack Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Lebanon, etc.? Do you actually think that would make a lick of difference? Has it so far? The shotgun approach is not a solution. Violence is not the solution. It doesn't mean that we have to permit the actions, but we can't just kill anyone that wants to do us harm. To do so, merely gives the opportunity to go, "See. I told you, all they want is to wipe Islam off the earth." And if you listen to some of the posters in this thread, they're right. Which do you think will help their recruitment more, a policy of diplomatically diffusing these situations or a giving them the belief that we feel that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim?

We have to support the Muslims that don't advocate violence. We have to press for a change in the places where the peaceful cannot be heard. We have to press for the prosecution of those that use violence as a means of expression. That's how we make a change. And the people who look at the hornets' nest, poke it with a stick and then giggle are completely within their rights to poke the hornets' nest. I am also within my rights to consider anyone who pokes the hornets' nest malicious, deranged and a bit sad. However, in excercising my rights, I didn't put anyone in danger.

Agreed. In those cases where the government is willing to work with Denmark and the international community to deal with the violence, I feel that is the best approach. We have to actively go after advocates of violence and bring them to justice while do our best to be supportive of the portion of that community that want nothing to do with violence or oppression. I recognize that reasonable force might be required to do the former. However, we must make sure those we 'get' are the advocates of violence and not people who happen to have the same skin color, a similar culture or sound a little similar.

I'm sorry, but if a man is standing behind his children with a pistol preparing to shoot me, I'm not going to fire a shotgun at him. I'd rather be shot. However, we have a rifle with a laser scope and we need to make precise responses to these issues not just wig out and attack the Muslim community as a whole. To do the latter, simply fans the flames and gives MORE people a reason to behave in such a manner.

EDIT: Yes, you were the other poster and I added that part in an edit and since I couldn't see your name at the time, I didn't want to misspell it.

I disagree, there comes a point where you may move from specifically addressing specific groups to a broader generalization. Here there is wide spread outrage and anger accross the muslim world toward these cartoons and there are many instances violence, or violent retoric.

When the image of Jesus is (arguably) defamed in films such as Dogma or shows like south park... while you may have an outcry from the catholic community, you dont see hundreds of thousands marching to the studios, or boycotting the networks (or even the government for allowing it)

As well this entire affair is hipocritcal to say the least. When Imams defame the jewish faith and islamic news agencies print simliar pictures or articles against jews (which is quite common) where is a similar outrage ? While these cartoons are in poor taste, this is hardly a new event, and muslims should be no more outraged then every other faith which has met such critisim.

Oh do grow up, were the cartoons anything beyond insincere, humuerous satire, one could feasibly contend that they were wrong, however, frankly, they are not.

A well-supported argument. Since you didn't see your way to support your point, I'll offer you a bit to chew on. Would you say they were right if they showed a black face next to an apes face with the caption "All the proof of evolution you'll ever need" or something equally offensive. These 'artists' weren't heroic defenders of freedoms, they were little kids with magnifying glasses burning ants in the front yard.

Or we can go for the sensible option.

Namely, Everyone agrees that the newspapers CAN print the cartoons, but they dont because it is impolite and not very nice to do so.

That way everyone is happy, freedom of speech is protected and other people dont reach for their semtex underpants.


Freedom of speech is not just insulting people "because you can".

A well-supported argument. Since you didn't see your way to support your point, I'll offer you a bit to chew on. Would you say they were right if they showed a black face next to an apes face with the caption "All the proof of evolution you'll ever need" or something equally offensive. These 'artists' weren't heroic defenders of freedoms, they were little kids with magnifying glasses burning ants in the front yard.

Frankly, to fully support every statement I ever posted upon NS would be oth tedious and untenable. Incidentally, surely in an erudite and civilzed state the very fallacy of an argument or, herein, cartoon, ought to suffice as its refute, not the imposition of legislation designed to suppress any remotely contravertial sentiment no?

I disagree, there comes a point where you may move from specifically addressing specific groups to a broader generalization. Here there is wide spread outrage and anger accross the muslim world toward these cartoons and there are many instances violence, or violent retoric.

When the image of Jesus is (arguably) defamed in films such as Dogma or shows like south park... while you may have an outcry from the catholic community, you dont see hundreds of thousands marching to the studios, or boycotting the networks (or even the government for allowing it)

You're right you don't. You don't have widespread oppression in Catholic communities. These are a widely oppressed people that are defending one of the few things in their lives that they can cling too. If there were oppressive Catholic countries out there, you would see a much different reaction. Let's not forget that extremists groups have had this kind of an effect every time they've gained power. I listed a dozen different examples of different kinds of extremists and the effect is broad. You can try to lump all you want, but oppression, violence and a denial of rights is like throwing gasoline on a fire and thinking it should have put it out just because it's a liquid.

But, hey, we know that crimes in the US (at least the ones we prosecute) are disproportionately involving black people. Let's just kick them all out and then we won't have that problem. Let's ignore the causes of the problem itself and blame on everyone who happens to look like them or happens to sound like them or happens to worship the same god as them, etc. Equality is for the birds. Freedom is an outdated concept. Murder. Mayhem. Destruction. That's the answer to dealing with these animials. /sarcasm

As well this entire affair is hipocritcal to say the least. When Imams defame the jewish faith and islamic news agencies print simliar pictures or articles against jews (which is quite common) where is a similar outrage ? While these cartoons are in poor taste, this is hardly a new event, and muslims should be no more outraged then every other faith which has met such critisim.

So what? You want me to say people who are advocating violence are wrong? They are. You want me to say people who are crying over these cartoons while laughing at ones that lampoon Jesus are hypocrites? They are. What does that get you? Nothing. It does not excuse the widespread oppression of Muslims and it does not excuse widespread aggression towards Muslims. The problem is not with the faith, but with those in power who are bastardizing the faith to create zealots. The answer is to slow the take away the reasons to become zealots, not to give them more.

Frankly, to fully support every statement I ever posted upon NS would be oth tedious and untenable. Incidentally, surely in an erudite and civilzed state the very fallacy of an argument or, herein, cartoon, ought to suffice as its refute, not the imposition of legislation designed to suppress any remotely contravertial sentiment no?

Who is advocating legislation? I haven't heard a single person in this thread support such a thing. There is a difference between taking responsibility and being remotely sensitive to other cultures and views and denying people freedom. Take your strawman with you when you go.

EDIT: I'll hold on to that. If the post is by TBC, don't expect it to be anything more than an unsupported assertion. Good to know. If you consider your points tedious, who am I to argue.

Who is advocating legislation? I haven't heard a single person in this thread support such a thing. There is a difference between taking responsibility and being remotely sensitive to other cultures and views and denying people freedom. Take your strawman with you when you go.

It is more the premise I arue against, my apologies if I misused legislation somewhat:)

One does wonder, however, how the Islamic world tolerates and advocates such poor propaganda as "Stalingrad, Jeningrad", and the torching of US flags, yet contrives to be offended to the point of civil unrest by satirical cartoons no?

My prediction came true Police have started gunning down the protesters in Afaghanstain.
http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=2219&eeid=4844673&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt

Current Stats (Inspired by the YTMND.)
Freedom= 1
Theocracy=3

Casualities
Hostiles
Dead=6
Wounded=50+
Imprisoned=200+

Friendlies
Wounded= ?

So what's your plan to deal with it? Do we attack a few hundred million people? Attack Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Lebanon, etc.? Do you actually think that would make a lick of difference? Has it so far? The shotgun approach is not a solution. Violence is not the solution. It doesn't mean that we have to permit the actions, but we can't just kill anyone that wants to do us harm. To do so, merely gives the opportunity to go, "See. I told you, all they want is to wipe Islam off the earth." And if you listen to some of the posters in this thread, they're right. Which do you think will help their recruitment more, a policy of diplomatically diffusing these situations or a giving them the belief that we feel that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim?

We have to support the Muslims that don't advocate violence. We have to press for a change in the places where the peaceful cannot be heard. We have to press for the prosecution of those that use violence as a means of expression. That's how we make a change. And the people who look at the hornets' nest, poke it with a stick and then giggle are completely within their rights to poke the hornets' nest. I am also within my rights to consider anyone who pokes the hornets' nest malicious, deranged and a bit sad. However, in excercising my rights, I didn't put anyone in danger.

I too would advocate supporting those condeming violence, and supporting a peaceful resolution, but at the same time find it nessesary to as well support the news agencies which printed these characterizations. And it is to this I feel any effort to reach out would be hampered. Irriguardless to this, it is essential to support these news agencies as it is characterizations such as these which challenge the establishments and help bring to public light those unfavorable elements which we need to target. No better event could have more effectivly captured the level to which violent retoric and action has become so prevalent in the middleast. For me, this is beyond stirring a hornets nest, but shining a much needed light on the problems at hand.

It doesn't mean that we have to permit the actions, but we can't just kill anyone that wants to do us harm.

How about those who are about to kill you?

How about those who train and arm themselves to kill you?

How about people who donate money to kill you?

I would like to know the answers for the above three questions.

How about those who are about to kill you?

How about those who train and arm themselves to kill you?

How about people who donate money to kill you?

I would like to know the answers for the above three questions.

Jocabia is making the mistake of thinking that soldiers in a war should be treated as a law enforcement/criminal problem.

How about those who are about to kill you?

How about those who train and arm themselves to kill you?

How about people who donate money to kill you?

I would like to know the answers for the above three questions.

No problem. Merely read my posts. I answered them very clearly throughout the last few pages.

Jocabia is making the mistake of thinking that soldiers in a war should be treated as a law enforcement/criminal problem.

on the other hand, I wouldn't put those involved in last weeks protests as militant terrorist members (nessesarily). These are not people nessesarly looking for our deaths, or seeking to attack "us" but wishing to express outrage (in an inappropriatly violent manner). These I would put in a criminal civilian category which I belive Jacobia was so talking about

Jocabia is making the mistake of thinking that soldiers in a war should be treated as a law enforcement/criminal problem.

Am I? Would you please point out where I did that?

EDIT: People who can only see black and white always make ridiculous statements like this about people who can see color.

on the other hand, I wouldn't put those involved in last weeks protests as militant terrorist members (nessesarily). These are not people nessesarly looking for our deaths, or seeking to attack "us" but wishing to express outrage (in an inappropriatly violent manner). These I would put in a criminal civilian category which I belive Jacobia was so talking about

See how easy things are when people actually read the posts of people they disagree with. I simply won't lump everyone together. Some Muslims abhor violence as much as most people do. Some Muslims are willing to use violence to express anger (meaning they put violence on paper but don't act on it, like someone who suggests that NAMBLA members be castrated). And some Muslims would quite literally kill the cartoonists were they capable of doing so (among them are the ones actually perpetrating violence). I am only concerned about the last group and I only believe action should be taken against the last group. And that action should be the action that keeps our ENTIRE population the safest, the action that costs the fewest innocent lives or reasonably seems like it will cost the fewest innocent lives.

Am I? Would you please point out where I did that?
You've said we shouldn't shoot the people who organize and offer us violence.

Since you also said that we shouldn't just let the violence slide, the natural conclusion is that you wish to arrest and try those who commit violence.

Which makes it a law enforcement problem.

When in fact, the problem is a military one. We are in a war. Denying that it is a war doesn't change the fact that many are organizing to kill us.

You've said we shouldn't shoot the people who organize and offer us violence.

Since you also said that we shouldn't just let the violence slide, the natural conclusion is that you wish to arrest and try those who commit violence.

Which makes it a law enforcement problem.

When in fact, the problem is a military one. We are in a war. Denying that it is a war doesn't change the fact that many are organizing to kill us.
Liar. Quote me.

Liar. Quote me.
Easy to clear this up.

Yes or No answers -

1. Is the West at war with militant Islam?
2. If we are in such a war, is this a military problem?

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.

In some of "their own countries", minority groups are killed openly in the street for peacefully protesting, women are beaten by their husbands and then denied the right to divorce their husbands, the country is run by dictators who enforce their rule with fascist style secret police, even in the so-called "democracies" women are not aloud to vote (thats over 50% of the population).

Do you think this is OK?

If you had the power to put an end to this, wouldn't you?

How can it be "their own country" if it is run by violent dictators and male chauvanist pigs anyway?

Easy to clear this up.

Yes or No answers -

1. Is the West at war with militant Islam?

Nope. Not all of militant Islam is at war with us or anyone for that matter. I don't believe we have the right to attack people because we don't like them.

2. If we are in such a war, is this a military problem?
Sometimes.

I'll take this as an admission that you admit I never said that we can't shoot them. Good. I won't wait on an apology.

Easy to clear this up.

Yes or No answers -

1. Is the West at war with militant Islam?
2. If we are in such a war, is this a military problem?

by these questions are you suggesting protestors should be dealt with by the military ? If so..how is this constructive and not outright counterproductive

by these questions are you suggesting protestors should be dealt with by the military ? If so..how is this constructive and not outright counterproductive

It's war, dammit. We must destroy them and everyone who looks like them.

Although I do make an honest attempt to get on with Muslims (although I've found this especially difficult following the 7/7 attrocities in my home-city), I don't find their reaction to a meesly cartoon to be very sensible. They want to be respected and treated as equals and so they react to a little joke by dressing up as suicide-bombers on the streets of London, by burning flags, by dressing their children in 'I Love Al-Qieda' hats and by threatening to kill us all because we do not follow a religion that basically says you can marry and rape a 6 year old girl, and can beat your wife if your meals are not prepared when you get home.

Now I'm trying not to make them out to be baddies, but coming from a Ronneist family in a Christian village, I have have to put up with religious prejudice throughout my life, and I have not once rised to it - and this way I have had no real problems as regards it since. The prophets of my religion were too insulted on many occasion, but I smiled sweetly and said simply: "believe and say what you want, and I will too" and very few sought contest again. Now, in contrast, look the way people are reacting to these cartoons: violent, agressive, threatening - and what are the other nations doing? They're playing against it by re-printing it.

Bullies love people who fight back - 'let someone know how to hurt you and they'll never stop doing it' - this applies to politics and religion alike.

Although I do make an honest attempt to get on with Muslims (although I've found this especially difficult following the 7/7 attrocities in my home-city), I don't find their reaction to a meesly cartoon to be very sensible. They want to be respected and treated as equals and so they react to a little joke by dressing up as suicide-bombers on the streets of London, by burning flags, by dressing their children in 'I Love Al-Qieda' hats and by threatening to kill us all because we do not follow a religion that basically says you can marry and rape a 6 year old girl, and can beat your wife if your meals are not prepared when you get home.

Now I'm trying not to make them out to be baddies, but coming from a Ronneist family in a Christian village, I have have to put up with religious prejudice throughout my life, and I have not once rised to it - and this way I have had no real problems as regards it since. The prophets of my religion were too insulted on many occasion, but I smiled sweetly and said simply: "believe and say what you want, and I will too" and very few sought contest again. Now, in contrast, look the way people are reacting to these cartoons: violent, agressive, threatening - and what are the other nations doing? They're playing against it by re-printing it.

Bullies love people who fight back - 'let someone know how to hurt you and they'll never stop doing it' - this applies to politics and religion alike.

I love how your 'honest attempt' includes suggesting they are a religion of pedophiles and wife-beaters.

Although I do make an honest attempt to get on with Muslims (although I've found this especially difficult following the 7/7 attrocities in my home-city), I don't find their reaction to a meesly cartoon to be very sensible. They want to be respected and treated as equals and so they react to a little joke by dressing up as suicide-bombers on the streets of London, by burning flags, by dressing their children in 'I Love Al-Qieda' hats and by threatening to kill us all because we do not follow a religion that basically says you can marry and rape a 6 year old girl, and can beat your wife if your meals are not prepared when you get home.

Now I'm trying not to make them out to be baddies, but coming from a Ronneist family in a Christian village, I have have to put up with religious prejudice throughout my life, and I have not once rised to it - and this way I have had no real problems as regards it since. The prophets of my religion were too insulted on many occasion, but I smiled sweetly and said simply: "believe and say what you want, and I will too" and very few sought contest again. Now, in contrast, look the way people are reacting to these cartoons: violent, agressive, threatening - and what are the other nations doing? They're playing against it by re-printing it.

Bullies love people who fight back - 'let someone know how to hurt you and they'll never stop doing it' - this applies to politics and religion alike.

Good post. Regardless of what the PC left wants to say....paragraph 1 is absolutley correct....we felt the same way after 9/11.

Good post. Regardless of what the PC left wants to say....paragraph 1 is absolutley correct....we felt the same way after 9/11.

No, WE didn't. Don't speak for US. Speak for YOU.

Good post. Regardless of what the PC left wants to say....paragraph 1 is absolutley correct....we felt the same way after 9/11.

All i know is, you should be thanking your lucky stars we have the muslim population we do.. and not like those in Europe or the middle east.. because THEY are the ones really keeping us out of the terrorists reach, probably more so then the government ever could.

No, WE didn't. Don't speak for US. Speak for YOU.
It seems like a reasonable statement to make, though obviously not an entirely accurate one. The Harris Poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=257) from the week after the attacks certainly seems to suggest that a third of the country found trusting muslims more difficult after the attack. This doesn't extend to raping and wife beating accusations, of course, but a general distrust towards muslims does seem to have occurred in the 'States.

It seems like a reasonable statement to make, though obviously not an entirely accurate one. The Harris Poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=257) from the week after the attacks certainly seems to suggest that a third of the country found trusting muslims more difficult after the attack. This doesn't extend to raping and wife beating accusations, of course, but a general distrust towards muslims does seem to have occurred in the 'States.

Do you see the difference between saying, "There was a fairly widespread distrust of Muslims after 9/11 in the US." and "We felt that Muslims can't be trusted after 9/11."? One suggests homogeny and the other doesn't it.

Do you see the difference between saying, "There was a fairly widespread distrust of Muslims after 9/11 in the US." and "We felt that Muslims can't be trusted after 9/11."? One suggests homogeny and the other doesn't it.
He didn't say the latter though. What he said was
Although I do make an honest attempt to get on with Muslims (although I've found this especially difficult following the 7/7 attrocities in my home-city), I don't find their reaction to a meesly cartoon to be very sensible.
Which was responded with
We felt the same way after 9/11.
In other words, it's a hybrid between the two: "We found that trusting Muslims was more difficult after 9/11". According to the statistics, that seems like a reasonably accurate statement if you consider the collective "we" to refer to the nation of America.

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

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

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

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

can i say "hell yeah"

Do you see the difference between saying, "There was a fairly widespread distrust of Muslims after 9/11 in the US." and "We felt that Muslims can't be trusted after 9/11."? One suggests homogeny and the other doesn't it.

It also represents (methinks) a fair idea of how many people in this country actually knew Muslims before. For those of us with friends who happen to be Muslim, 9/11 didn't make us suddenly up and distrust all Muslims any more than seeing the guy on the news who attacked those people in the gay bar makes me suddenly afraid of all straight white guys.

He didn't say the latter though. What he said was

Which was responded with

In other words, it's a hybrid between the two: "We found that trusting Muslims was more difficult after 9/11". According to the statistics, that seems like a reasonably accurate statement if you consider the collective "we" to refer to the nation of America.

It's the same thing. WE found it more difficult, isn't true. Because I am American and I didn't. If he'd said "many of us" or "most" or "statistically" etc, then I'd say yeah. But said the way he said it is exactly the problem this thread is ripe with. Treating groups like they are some homogenous mass.

It also represents (methinks) a fair idea of how many people in this country actually knew Muslims before. For those of us with friends who happen to be Muslim, 9/11 didn't make us suddenly up and distrust all Muslims any more than seeing the guy on the news who attacked those people in the gay bar makes me suddenly afraid of all straight white guys.

Yes, exactly. I looked a lot like McVeigh after OK City bombing, but no one threatened me. People who acted like that small group somehow represented Muslims in this country are people who don't know the very meaning of the word individual.

It's the same thing. WE found it more difficult, isn't true. Because I am American and I didn't. If he'd said "many of us" or "most" or "statistically" etc, then I'd say yeah. But said the way he said it is exactly the problem this thread is ripe with. Treating groups like they are some homogenous mass.
Fair enough. I could suggest that perhaps some groups are formed with the intention of being homogenous masses (ie, protest mobs), but you didn't like that last time I tried it, so perhaps I shall curtail my freedom of expression this time. ^^;

Fair enough. I could suggest that perhaps some groups are formed with the intention of being homogenous masses (ie, protest mobs), but you didn't like that last time I tried it, so perhaps I shall curtail my freedom of expression this time. ^^;

Actually, I don't disagree with that entirely. We just don't agree on which groups have that intention.

Although I do make an honest attempt to get on with Muslims (although I've found this especially difficult following the 7/7 attrocities in my home-city)
Why?? Do you think that because a handful of Muslims carried out these bombings, that all, or even most, other Muslims suddenly transformed themselves from being decent people into being terriorists or terrorist sympathisers? English people have committed their fair share of atrocities over the years (often by the authority of a government which we all elected) - perhaps we should find it difficult to get on with ourselves! :)

I don't find their reaction to a meesly cartoon to be very sensible. They want to be respected and treated as equals and so they react to a little joke by dressing up as suicide-bombers on the streets of London, by burning flags, by dressing their children in 'I Love Al-Qieda' hats and by threatening to kill us all because ...
There are about 2 million Muslims in the UK. A few hundred (let's say a thousand, for the sake of argument) were at the demonstration in London - that means that 1,999,000 - 99.95% - chose not to take part in it. We have to stop judging whole groups by the actions of a few; otherwise this insane sectarian divide is going to get far worse and far more dangerous.

I don't believe we have the right to attack people because we don't like them.



What, like if, you mean, someone draws a dodgy cartoon about me I can't go round threating to butcher, slay or behead them? Bummer.

What, like if, you mean, someone draws a dodgy cartoon about me I can't go round threating to butcher, slay or behead them? Bummer.

You say that like anyone here ever defending people's right to threaten people. I have yet to see that. Can we have some more strawmen, please. The current discussion is too sensible.

There are about 2 million Muslims in the UK. A few hundred (let's say a thousand, for the sake of argument) were at the demonstration in London - that means that 1,999,000 - 99.95% - chose not to take part in it. We have to stop judging whole groups by the actions of a few; otherwise this insane sectarian divide is going to get far worse and far more dangerous.
Why does this argument work for Muslims but not US Gun Owners?

I'm genuinely curious. :confused:

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

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

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

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

Wow, for once, I agree with you! It's about time we stop overlooking Islam's flaws. I think by now even defenders of Islam have to be having doubts about it.

There are about 2 million Muslims in the UK. A few hundred (let's say a thousand, for the sake of argument) were at the demonstration in London - that means that 1,999,000 - 99.95% - chose not to take part in it. We have to stop judging whole groups by the actions of a few; otherwise this insane sectarian divide is going to get far worse and far more dangerous.

Is not the Hizbut Tahrir a banned terrorist organization in UK?

Then how come they were present in the protests? (according to this report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/05/nflag205.xml )

Are there any instances of a single HT member being informed on by a fellow muslim in the UK?

......


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

Not true. They were drawn to break a taboo on illustrating the Prophet and to illustrate the chilling effect on free speech. And, even if they were designed for no other purpose than to offend, so what? They have that right, and as I've explained above, the duty

And they did, but the matter had settled until the press decided to stir the pot.

That's what the press is for in a free country. That and to make cash for /boost the ego of the proprietor

They were wrong to do it.

No they weren't. They were right for the reasons I've explained before

As wrong as a paper that prints an article that says blacks can't read an asians are monkeys.

Not the same. Here you are implying those two racial groups are inferior in some way. Here people are protesting that the Prophet has been depicted in a way that offends them. Secondly, the pics are not implying that Muslims are inferior, the 'worst one' - the Prophet with a bomb in his turban - is pointing out that there is an extremist faction that claims adherance to Islam that uses explosives as a means of political action - a very provable fact.

And if a paper wrote those things, I would absolutely expect the government to be embarassed

I wouldn't. I'd expect the enforcement arm (police, judiciary etc) of the govt to prosecute

and apologize
it's not for the govt to apologise for its citizens. Only the citizens can apologise for their actions

while IN NO WAY sactioning the paper
agreed



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.
You're right. It is vapid. vapid vapid vapid vapid.

Now, mind you, people were saying that the paper is right because they excercised their freedom of speech

yes

so it was a direct and appropriate statement stating that excercising a freedom isn't necessarily a noble act.

Your belief ... but quite wrong based on the circumstances of the case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.
you do and you would

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

OK, fair enough, but it makes no real difference to the analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

Can't say for Denmark, but in the UK most national papers lose circulation. They're kept alive by rich proprietors just to cause trouble.

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.

Doesn't matter if they are. Even if they do it to make cash, they're still entitled to free speech. And, whether you like it or not, newspapers do have a role in society beyond making money. But thanks for humouring me. Do continue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

the 'worst ones' - the Prophet with a bomb in his turban - is pointing out that there is an extremist faction that claims adherance to Islam that uses explosives as a means of political action - a very provable fact. Anyway, I don't think they did suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. That was read into it by the extremists in the Muslim communities around the world. And I suspect their fears probably would have been realised even if they hadn't drawn, as you call it 'insulting' pics just standard pics of the Prophet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.
I'm glad I make you happy :D Pop around sometime and we can have a cup of tea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

Entirely consistent with it's function as a business. Part of the rationale of a good newspaper is to upset people. Causing controversy like this can help a paper make money too. Even if you don't like that particular commercial angle, it in no way takes away from the right of the paper to free speech - even if the paper does profit from the ensuing controversy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
JP therefore had both the legal right and ethical duty to act in the way that it did.

The ethical duty? Amusing.

Only to you. JP et al quite clearly had an ethical duty to expose the chilling effect on free speech

My free speech should not be abridged, either.
Your free speech is not abridged. you can protest about the JP as much as you like, burn as many Danish flags as you like. You just can't go around threatening to kill people because they have said, or drawn something that offends you

I'm going to mall right now

Have fun

to scream out about how I hate niggers.

I suggest you don't. It's very much incitement to racial hatred. Plus, you are drawing false analogies. No-one on JP suggested they hate Muslims. They merely pointed out that there are those extremists in the Islamic community who use terror and bombings as a political weapon. A provable fact. The cartoons also pointed out that there iis the fear of depicting Mohammed for fear of retaliation and violence. Which subsequent events proved true.

It's my ethical duty to do so.

please explain how

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".

He he he he. Very funny. At no point did the JP cartoons say anything bad about Muslims per se. Plus, you are drawing false analogies. No-one on JP suggested they hate Muslims. They merely pointed out that there are those extremists in the Islamic community who use terror and bombings as a political weapon. A provable fact. The cartoons also pointed out that there iis the fear of depicting Mohammed for fear of retaliation and violence. Which subsequent events proved true. As for the 'violent monkeys' point, in that analogy you would be implying in that 'niggers' are inferior. No one on JP said Muslims were inferior in any way. If, say, this was the 60s and there was a large violent black movement that used suicide bombs in an attempt to overturn the oppressive race laws, then cartoonists would be justifed as caricaturing the leader of that hypothetical group with a bomb. Cartoonists do that kind of thing now with Bush and Blair, that doesn't mean that all British and American people are 'violent whiteys'. Admittedly, Bush and Blair don't have the same status within their communities as Mohammed has within the Muslim community, but notheless, it's kind of beside the point. Even if you are gravely offended, as long as no-one is stirring up hatred or injury to you then you have no right to threaten violence against them [b]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
I condemn those that make racist comments too.

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

[B] No-one on the JP made a racist comment. Plus, I never said it was an ethical duty to make a racist comment. I pointed out it was their ethical duty to expose the chilling of speech. It wouldn't matter if it were mohammed, jesus, buddah or any of the other various deities. You are playing the racist card at every opportunity, either through a sincerely held but distorted world view, or alternatively you are deliberately trying to do it to silence anyone who disagrees with you. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

Again, who the hell are 'they'? Vapid

I think what I said was clear.

Only if your reader is telepathic


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.

I guess you must have been just been vapid. Oh well. Nobody is denying Muslims the right to protest against something that they clearly feel is utterly reprehensible. I, and many other posters, are saying that no-one has the right to threaten violence against the cartoonists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
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.

there are, sadly, people on this thread advocating violence against Muslims. They are wrong. Still, there are Muslims who are advocating, and acting out, violence against Scandinavians and EU interests. Those particular Muslims are wrong. It would be nice to read that you condemn those particular extremists too. if you already have, please accept my apologies - this has become a very long thread and I can't recall it all at once.

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.

We've been through this thing about black people as apes. it's not the same and you know it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
... 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.

thank you.

You are insulting

thank you again. but then, I have the right to be

and yet you struggle with understand a clear and plain statement

it wasn't clear or plain. It was vapid :D

that having a right does not make it some kind of heroism every time one excercises it.

Anywho, not only do I understand the difference that not having a right does not make it heroism every time one exercises it, i postively state that, in these given circumstances, it was both a right and a duty to do so. I understand that just because one has a right to act does not always mean that one should in every given case. But this case was different

Should the government sanction these papers? Nope.

I'm glad we agree.

But the papers behaved poorly

I don't agree they behaved poorly for the reasons given elsewhere

and [to] 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.

Unless it is to defend against a threat to your own deeply held social and cultural values, like fending off the chilling effect on free speech

And you were vapid :D

There are about 2 million Muslims in the UK. A few hundred (let's say a thousand, for the sake of argument) were at the demonstration in London - that means that 1,999,000 - 99.95% - chose not to take part in it. We have to stop judging whole groups by the actions of a few; otherwise this insane sectarian divide is going to get far worse and far more dangerous.

There are 2 million Muslims in the UK, not one person appears to have organized a demonstration against Muslims who are denigrating their faith by burning Embassies all over the world. That means that 0% of them chose to not stand up to the "extremist minority". Why?

There are 2 million Muslims in the UK, not one person appears to have organized a demonstration against Muslims who are denigrating their faith by burning Embassies all over the world. That means that 0% of them chose to not stand up to the "extremist minority". Why?
Because angry mobs are hardly the way to do it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4682262.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2025704,00.html

......
First, you need a thesaurus.

Second, you have no clue what free speech is. Free speech does not mean free from consequences. I can legally call black people niggers, but I better recognize the value of such a term. But you're right, consequences have the chilling effect of keeping people from calling black people niggers. Scary.

The lame part of your argument is that you admit that they set out to stir the pot and you act like intending to offend people is heroic. There pictures were designed to propogate bigotted stereotypes and the fact that you think doing so is praiseworthy says a lot about your values.

Everybody here is claiming that they have no right to threaten violence, so stop pretending like anyone is supporting threats and violence. It just shows that you can't defend your point without logical fallacies. That one is called a strawman.

Funny how everyone else understood. How sad that your defense of being unable to read is to insult people. Perhaps that's why you think bigotry is noble. You know, bigotry and a lack of understanding so often being found together.

Learn to use quote tags.

If you don't recognize that an image of Muhammed with a bomb for a turban is bigotted, I can't help you. In fact, nevermind. I can't help you. But I'll try.

1. Violence and threats of violence are a poor solution whether it's by Muslims or against Muslims. On both sides people who advocate destroying the rights and/or violence are wrong. (I know it's hard to find me condemning the violence. You'd have to read this whole page. Ridiculous.)

2. The cartoons were obviously bigotted and were intended to be. There is nothing clever or noble about offending people to prove you can.

3. The cartoons proved nothing other than it is possible to set out to upset extremists and actually accomplish it.

Finally, you are so full of crap, I can't stop laughing. Apparently, you know something about the cartoons no one else does. Can you please support your claims about the meaning of each of these cartoons? Links?

On a small tangent, Some of the cartoons have been published in two newspapers and shown on one of the state TV channels in New Zealand. Justified as "freedom of the press" and "reporting the full details" respectively. They have caused a bit of trouble including a mainly peaceful protest of 800 on the main street of Auckland yesterday with one little scuffle. And today, according to unconfirmed reports recently on student radio, a bomb threat and subsequent evacuation of the Danish Trade Commission.

All this in what BBC called last night (NZ time) "normally peacefull NZ".

I haven't seen this mentioned, but a report on NPR this morning stated that, after the cartoons were originally printed (with no big hoopla at all), some Muslim clerics within Denmark got upset about it and wrote to the PM, who did not meet with them. At that point, they apparently began actually circulating these cartoons in the Middle East, along with much more offensive cartoons that were never published in the Danish paper, claiming that all of them had been published. Sounds a bit like incitment to riot to me, if it is true.

I haven't seen this mentioned, but a report on NPR this morning stated that, after the cartoons were originally printed (with no big hoopla at all), some Muslim clerics within Denmark got upset about it and wrote to the PM, who did not meet with them. At that point, they apparently began actually circulating these cartoons in the Middle East, along with much more offensive cartoons that were never published in the Danish paper, claiming that all of them had been published. Sounds a bit like incitment to riot to me, if it is true.


Greetings

It is, sadly enough, true.

One of the cartoons, made by the imams, showed Mohammed with the face of a pig. See the link above


http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/fabricated_cart.html


In Denmark, where I live, it also seems very odd

I haven't seen this mentioned, but a report on NPR this morning stated that, after the cartoons were originally printed (with no big hoopla at all), some Muslim clerics within Denmark got upset about it and wrote to the PM, who did not meet with them. At that point, they apparently began actually circulating these cartoons in the Middle East, along with much more offensive cartoons that were never published in the Danish paper, claiming that all of them had been published. Sounds a bit like incitment to riot to me, if it is true.
Honestly, I would be pretty inclined to believe this. Maybe it's my anti-religion bias, but whenever I see religious individuals engaging in mass stupidity I immediately start looking around for the priest, cleric, or religious leader who is probably drumming up the whole thing.

I think the vast, vast majority of religious individuals aren't the least bit interested in hurting others, but I think there are a lot of jackasses who figure out that becoming a religious leader is a great way to gain personal power and control over vulnerable populations. They can press their own agenda by playing on the heartstrings of people who really believe.

It's horrid to see that kind of manipulation, particularly considering how important religious belief is to many people. If you play around with somebody's core beliefs then that's like kicking somebody in the crotch...you're hitting them in their most vulnerable and tender spot, and it's totally off-sides in my book.

I think few if anyone is really dismissing the outrage that these cartoons are inspiring, however, the measure of that outrage itself is so dramatic and sever.. that it in fact is overshadowing the cartoons themselves posing as even more outragous.. responding to something distasteful in a violent manner cross the line between what is civil and appropriate, and what cannot be tolerated.

And I think these cartoonists (and papers) tried to make a point with these images.. one which is being played out before our eyes.. that violence in the islamic world is out of hand.

I certainly agree that the violence is unacceptable but I still believe these newspapers should get themselves some better sense. They are probably enjoying the response the cartoons brought. Sells papers.

There are 2 million Muslims in the UK, not one person appears to have organized a demonstration against Muslims who are denigrating their faith by burning Embassies all over the world. That means that 0% of them chose to not stand up to the "extremist minority". Why?
Except for the link posted before, the jordanian paper that published an editorial basically saying "get a hold of yourself", the mullah that were inside the riots trying to keep the calm or the Syrian minister that resigned over the riots you mean?

I'm sorry - I really have a problem with the letter after 't' and before 'v'.
Be aware that my beliefs dictate writing this letter is immoral - please refrain or I may get angry towards those who write it. Thanks :D

Greetings

It is, sadly enough, true.

One of the cartoons, made by the imams, showed Mohammed with the face of a pig. See the link above


http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/fabricated_cart.html


In Denmark, where I live, it also seems very odd


Well for the record I have been arguing for the freedom of the press(in case you haven't read all this thread).

I raise the leary eye on the drawings since the press isn't picking up on it.

It would really aid their arguement if the Muslims did make the those drawings......

Working backwards....

"IN Europe nothing bad happens to you"
Really?

I imagine there are some Serbs who beg to differ.



You fool! The Serbs did all the killing! You berk, you wilderbeast, you Richard Simmons! I cannot believe this! The Serbs led by Milosevic, Karadizc etc slaughtered Muslim Albanians....get your facts right your imboslic imbosile! you are more wrong than a really wrong fox who has just been made proffesor of wrong at the university of wrong, as Blackadder would say. Lets heed the 'Adders words and denounce this moron for what he is....WRONG!

Well for the record I have been arguing for the freedom of the press(in case you haven't read all this thread).

I raise the leary eye on the drawings since the press isn't picking up on it.

It would really aid their arguement if the Muslims did make the those drawings......

Like I said before, they reported it on NPR this morning. They didn't state that the Muslim clerics created the drawings (they might have been from some other source), but did point out that some of the drawings that were circulated in Middle Eastern countries as having been published in the Danish newspaper were not, and in fact were not published in any newspaper that they were aware of.

I heard on CNN that muslims in response will be making holocaust cartoons. Its kinda sad really.

at the end of the day....the Muslim Middle Eastern press is riddled with cartoons containing anti-jewish, anti-israel, anti-American, anti-western, anti-everything-not-muslim you can imagine.

If the 'people' who protest against the Danish Cartoons, want those responsible for it beheaded and indeed anyone westernised (whether the liked the cartooon or not) maybe they shouldnt like here in the west where freedom of speech is tolertated. Move to Saudi Arabia where you can shut the fuck up all you like and get beheaded if you say something wrong.
Its only the Muslim faith and its extreme followers who seem to me to be incapable of being compatible with our liberal western culture, where freedom, democracy and free speech are the order of the day. Dont like it? Move elsewhere!

I think the vast, vast majority of religious individuals aren't the least bit interested in hurting others, but I think there are a lot of jackasses who figure out that becoming a religious leader is a great way to gain personal power and control over vulnerable populations. They can press their own agenda by playing on the heartstrings of people who really believe.

It's horrid to see that kind of manipulation, particularly considering how important religious belief is to many people. If you play around with somebody's core beliefs then that's like kicking somebody in the crotch...you're hitting them in their most vulnerable and tender spot, and it's totally off-sides in my book.
Moses, Jesus, St.Paul and Muhammad played around with people's core beliefs, didn't they? And in doing so they gained power and influence over their followers (even if it sometimes went wrong in the end). And that is the problem - religious belief, or credulity, creates the vulnerable and tender spot, which is ripe for manipulation and exploitation.

You fool! The Serbs did all the killing!

All the killing? I think not. Check your facts, Holmes.

Moses, Jesus, St.Paul and Muhammad played around with people's core beliefs, didn't they? And in doing so they gained power and influence over their followers (even if it sometimes went wrong in the end). And that is the problem - religious belief, or credulity, creates the vulnerable and tender spot, which is ripe for manipulation and exploitation.
I'm certainly not going to argue that point with you, since I happen to agree. However, if an individual chooses to weaken themselves then that is their own business...when another individual preys upon others and exploits their weaknesses, then I start having a problem with it. It's like how a lot of abused girls grow up into very vulnerable women, and there are certain men who got off on exploiting their vulnerability. Yes, it would be better for all if the original vulnerability were never created, but that doesn't mean we should take our eyes off the abusive jerks that are doing the exploiting right now.

Well for the record I have been arguing for the freedom of the press(in case you haven't read all this thread).

I raise the leary eye on the drawings since the press isn't picking up on it.

It would really aid their arguement if the Muslims did make the those drawings......



Greetings TBF

Theres allready been a great deal of fuss about in the press, here in Denmark, and the Imams admitted it too. Both too the Press and too the tv.

Their cartoons were much more offensive to the Prophpet, one actually showed him with the face of a pig.

They say the reason was to underline their statement about blasphemy, which it most suddently did.

The Imams went on the journey to create a worldwide protest against the 12 original drawings, made by 12 diff. cartoonist, in JP.

I, for one, hope that the result scares them.( It kinda scares me)

They most suddently created a nice situation for the right wing parties and a greater polarising of our society, and thats a sad day when some drawings can do that.

Sorry for the spelling

Please start your own thread for Serb/Muslim debate. It never ends otherwise.

EDIT: This is a typical case were zealous dedication for something ends up hurting that something. Here, we have muslims who doesn't give a shit about these cartoons who now are considered murderous maniacs. Good work, imams! The same thing happened in Sweden some time ago. A group of feminists started a Feminist Party, which managed to move equality work a few years back.

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

You vapid slackjawwed yank, go back to Kansas.


No need to bring us Kansas boys into it. I will say though the day I see mass protest against beheadings and murder in the name Allah i will show some respect to them, until then, screw em all!!!

Please start your own thread for Serb/Muslim debate. It never ends otherwise.

EDIT: This is a typical case were zealous dedication for something ends up hurting that something. Here, we have muslims who doesn't give a shit about these cartoons who now are considered murderous maniacs. Good work, imams! The same thing happened in Sweden some time ago. A group of feminists started a Feminist Party, which managed to move equality work a few years back.


So right, so right

I haven't seen this mentioned, but a report on NPR this morning stated that, after the cartoons were originally printed (with no big hoopla at all), some Muslim clerics within Denmark got upset about it and wrote to the PM, who did not meet with them. At that point, they apparently began actually circulating these cartoons in the Middle East, along with much more offensive cartoons that were never published in the Danish paper, claiming that all of them had been published. Sounds a bit like incitment to riot to me, if it is true.

Yes. Abu Ladan, Mullah-in-chief of Denmark is the guy.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/fabricated_cart.html
The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/more_lies_from_.html

http://www.neandernews.com/wp-content/themes/images/bogusmohammedcartoon.jpg
http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54
As Gateway Pundit, Counter Terrorism Blog and others have reported Danish Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan, leader of The Islamic Society of Denmark, toured the middle east to create awareness of supposed anti-Islamic cartoons and included the above black and white photo as well as two other undocumented examples. Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to “give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims.”

Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. BBC World aired a story on 1-30-2006 showing the three non-published images and claimed they had been published in Denmarks Jyllands-Posten, these images however had never been published in Jyllands-Posten.


Meanwhile, protests are increasing in muslim countries with around 5000 people attending this one

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/web.0207pakistan.php#
5,000 people gather for Pakistan's biggest protest

The demonstrators - many of them bearded religious students wearing white prayer caps - yelled "Hang the man who insulted the prophet!"
..
Under Pakistani laws, insulting the prophet or Islam's holy book, the Quran, can be punished with the death sentence.
..
Chief Minister Akram Durrani, the province's top elected official, led the rally, joined by other members of his Cabinet.

"We demand that whoever made the cartoons should be punished like a terrorist," Durrani told the crowd.

"Islam is a religion of peace. It insists that all other religions and faiths should be respected," he added. "Nobody has the right to insult Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims."

All the killing? I think not. Check your facts, Holmes.

Sorry your quite right. They were the instagatory group though and were responsible for inflaming and inciteing the whole conflict. I do concede that upon Serbian surrender Croats and Muslim Bosnians did indulge in some attrocities of their own.

No comments.

http://www.businessrecorder.com/index.php?id=385214&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate=
PMA and APCDA to boycott various European drugs
RECORDER REPORT
MULTAN (February 07 2006): Pakistan Medical Association (PMA) has decided not to prescribe medicines of Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Germany, France based multinational companies and complete boycott would be observed as a protest against the publication of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

Briefing about the decision of PMA, Professor Dr Salman Waris (President), Dr Shahid Rao (General Secretary) told, "we have appealed to all medical practitioners, professors, specialists, and doctors not to prescribe the medicines of such countries which had published the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and boycott multinational companies based in these states."

They said that we would prescribe and use alternate medicines in future till the public apology from the sinners.

All Pakistan Chemists and Druggists Association (APCDA) has announced to boycott the medicines of "Novo-Nordisk" (A pharmaceutical company of Denmark) and other medicines of such countries who had reproduced these caricatures and appealed to all the member to remove these medicines from their medical stores, shops and warehouses and asked the medical practitioners not to subscribe these medicines.

It has been decided at a meeting chaired by Zahid Bakhtawari, Vice President. Later he told newsmen, "we have decided unanimously in our Rawalpindi meeting chaired by Central President Tariq Saeed to boycott the drugs of such countries, which had published the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)."

He further said, "we would bear financial loss but we cannot afford to do our business at the cost of blasphemy. "The All Pakistan Chemist and Druggist Association (APCDA) demanded the doctors and chemist community from across the country to boycott the Denmark-made medicines as a protest against the sacrilegious caricatures published in the Denmark newspaper.

At a hurriedly called press conference here, the APCDA demanded the doctors not to prescribe the medicines made by Novo Nordisk and also asked the chemist and druggist community to boycott these medicines. The press conference was headed by vice-president of PCDA Zahid Bakhtawri and attended by members of Central Executive Committee Kashif Riaz, Noor Waris Khattak. A resolution was also passed during the press conference asking government to lodge protest against the Denmark government for publishing sacrilegious cartoons and press it to apologise the Muslim Ummah.