NationStates Jolt Archive

So much for peaceful protest. Burning the Danish Embassy hardly counts as a peaceful demonstration.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183812,00.html

One wonders whether others will soon follow suit, considering the plethora of threats that were made.

It's interesting still that although the US has taken many an Islamic militant "to school", the US still hasn't earned an "International Day of Anger" from Muslims.

Maybe because they know we're not after Muslims - just some scattered idiots here and there.

While a few Europeans with their newspapers have managed to piss off the majority of Muslims.

Considering the fact that this is only going to fuel greater anti-muslim sentiment, and that's going to fuel more Muslim acts of "protest", and so on and so on, maybe we're heading for another world war.

Fil déjà vu.

I don't get it Kimchi, are you defending the muslim extremists, or are you defending European free speech rights? Im confused..

People are offended by a group disrespecting something they believe in.
Everyone does the same.

One pisses of the other, shit happens to Europe, shit happens to Muslims, shit happens to Europe, shit happens to Muslims, and it goes on and on and on.

I don't get it Kimchi, are you defending the muslim extremists, or are you defending European free speech rights? Im confused..
He's saying that America is right and Europe is wrong. It's a common theme in his posts.

One pisses of the other, shit happens to Europe, shit happens to Muslims, shit happens to Europe, shit happens to Muslims, and it goes on and on and on.
"We didn't start the fire...."

Fil déjà vu.
Isn't it la enfilade? I am honestly curious fass, and your french is better than mine by a lot.

It's interesting still that although the US has taken many an Islamic militant "to school", the US still hasn't earned an "International Day of Anger" from Muslims.

The US certainly did take many an Islamic militant to school, a school run by the CIA where they were taught how to fight...

Just To Let Yall Know, They're At The Norwegian Embassy Now. Looks Like The Muslims Are PISSED At Scandinavians.

He's saying that America is right and Europe is wrong. It's a common theme in his posts.

;) Let's not jump into conclusions, he barely speaks of americans! He does seem to be in accord with muslim extremists, which is the point of my question :)

"We didn't start the fire...."

LOL! Hey, the song fits!

One pisses of the other, shit happens to Europe, shit happens to Muslims, shit happens to Europe, shit happens to Muslims, and it goes on and on and on.

Actually I'm picking up an undertone of jealousy in his post.;)

Actually I'm picking up an undertone of jealousy in his post.;)
Me? Jealous? Why I am as modest as Ayn Rand.

Me? Jealous? Why I am as modest as Ayn Rand.

Nah, I meant the OP.

Well, the Europeans should run the cartoons for one extra week for every act of violence, and continue to make new ones for as long as the violence continues. We need to show them that we will not sacrifice our rights to free speech no matter how much violence or protesting is done.

Isn't Anyone Concerned About The Norwegians? Or Do We All Hate Them?

Nah, I meant the OP.
Ahw. Sorry.


*just noticed you're a zombie*

Isn't Anyone Concerned About The Norwegians? Or Do We All Hate Them?
Norway? Who the fuck cares.
Tell me when the Finns are in trouble, then I'll get worried.

Isn't it la enfilade? I am honestly curious fass, and your french is better than mine by a lot.

I usually just use "thread," and really don't know which one is recommended. La Grande Dictionnaire Terminologique (http://w3.granddictionnaire.com/btml/fra/r_motclef/index1024_1.asp) gives "fil de discussion" as a suitable translation and the definition: "Dans un forum, enchaînement des messages qui répondent à un article sur un sujet précis, accompagnés de l'article original."

It is Québécois, though.

Ahw. Sorry.


*just noticed you're a zombie*

Zombies have feelings too you know. :(

Ok So No One Cares About The Norwegians. But If They Go For The Swedes, I'm Heading To Syria And Kicking Some Ass.

Curious how the way to protest the depiction of ones religios founder as a violent extremist seems to be to be violently extremistic.

Maybe because they know we're not after Muslims - just some scattered idiots here and there.

While a few Europeans with their newspapers have managed to piss off the majority of Muslims.

a) You do see the difference between "being after" and "pissing off", no?

b) I find that waging war on two Islamic countries counts more as attacking/being after Muslims per se than cartoons that explicitly criticize the "scattered idiotism" rather than the Muslim faith itself.

Don't people realize that embassies are considered part of that nation's soil?

I usually just use "thread," and really don't know which one is recommended. La Grande Dictionnaire Terminologique (http://w3.granddictionnaire.com/btml/fra/r_motclef/index1024_1.asp) gives "fil de discussion" as a suitable translation and the definition: "Dans un forum, enchaînement des messages qui répondent à un article sur un sujet précis, accompagnés de l'article original."

It is Québécois, though.

Okay, thanks.

Don't people realize that embassies are considered part of that nation's soil?

Yes, they are. Your point?

"We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," said a top group leader, Mahmoud Zahar.

I find this quote hilarious. In essense, he's saying "We should have killed them, but we're too peacefull for that.

WTF does that mean? Is he trying to say that if the general population were in favor of religious slayings, they would have gone ahead and done it? That killing is the preferred option, but to satisfy the intolerant and stupid Europeans, they are going by a slightly subpar method, peaceful protest?

LOL! Hey, the song fits!
When doesn't it these days?! :p

b) I find that waging war on two Islamic countries counts more as attacking/being after Muslims per se than cartoons that explicitly criticize the "scattered idiotism" rather than the Muslim faith itself.
It would seem as though they disagree. And after all, theirs is the only opinion that matters in that regard.

Okay, thanks.

Oh, and it's "l'enfilade." Mind your elision. :)

Yes, they are. Your point?

"We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," said a top group leader, Mahmoud Zahar.

I find this quote hilarious.

Can't it be considered an act of war?

Yes, they are. Your point?

"We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," said a top group leader, Mahmoud Zahar.

I find this quote hilarious.
Hey, it was a peaceful fire, the sort that children rost marshmallows on and fresh bread is baked over.
It just so happens that it was taking place in the same place as a foriegn embassy.

Isn't Anyone Concerned About The Norwegians? Or Do We All Hate Them?
I have to admit I'm less concerned about any certain embassy, but about the fact that fanatical aggression is used as an answer to criticism. I don't care which country gets picked, what I care about is that there are people being infiltrated to chant "death to..." in reaction to a cartoon.
Oh, and I'm concerned about the rational, peaceful Muslims, especially those in the countries under attack right now, as I fear there'll be equally stupid, generalizing und unwarranted attacks on them by equally stupid and irrational non-Muslims.

Hey, it was a peaceful fire, the sort that children rost marshmallows on and fresh bread is baked over.
It just so happens that it was taking place in the same place as a foriegn embassy.

The fire was there first, anyway.

People are offended by a group disrespecting something they believe in.
Everyone does the same.

Um, not everyone goes fucking nuts and calls for more 9/11's, burns down embassies, and threatens to physically murder anyone who disrespects them. Hell, maybe if the damn Muslims in this case actually read what the article was about (free speech and NOT "Muslims are teh suck!" they'd be better off...but nope, that's what religious fanaticism does. And don't bother bringing up Christianity because the worst we see from them these days are silly protests with signs that say "God hates fags" and everyone hates those douchebags anyway.)

Hey, it was a peaceful fire, the sort that children rost marshmallows on and fresh bread is baked over.
It just so happens that it was taking place in the same place as a foriegn embassy.
The embassy was physically assaulting them and calling them horrible names. It was self-defence.

Oh, and it's "l'enfilade." Mind your elision. :)

doh!!!

People are offended by a group disrespecting something they believe in.
Everyone does the same.

What? Call for more 9/11-type attacks, vandalizes buildings, beat up innocent people and demand the murders of the people they disagree with?
As far as I know, I haven't seen mobs of Christians go on a rampage when a cartoon makes fun of their beliefs...

Ok So No One Cares About The Norwegians. But If They Go For The Swedes, I'm Heading To Syria And Kicking Some Ass.
sorry to tell ya but the Danish embassy shared office with Sweden and Chile so there gone too


Edit: There goes the Norwgian too!

sorry to tell ya but the Danish embassy shared office with Sweden and Chile so there gone too

This is not right :(

What? Call for more 9/11-type attacks, vandalizes buildings, beat up innocent people and demand the murders of the people they disagree with?
As far as I know, I haven't seen mobs of Christians go on a rampage when a cartoon makes fun of their beliefs...

True, not violent mobs, but you have had that little problem with that GAY sponge bob!

edit: which were peaceful, so true, not really the same thing

It would seem as though they disagree. And after all, theirs is the only opinion that matters in that regard.
I'd rather say it seems as though "their" anger is curiously more well-organized, well-fueled and well-incensed this time. Curiously being the key word.

One does not need to set legal limits on the press nor set limits on the essential right of the freedom of speech, to recognize that simply having a right to say something insulting and actually publishing an intolerable provocation toward a single segment of society are two different things.

It doesn’t need to be made illegal to insult someone simply because they insist on an apology after taking offense. Refusing to apologize for the insult makes anyone more and more angry as time goes by and repeating the insult over and over simply to cry out that you have the right to insult, is not going to alleviate the damage being done…

Both sides are wrong. Violent retaliation is as assinine as the original comics themselves.

One does not need to set legal limits on the press nor set limits on the essential right of the freedom of speech, to recognize that simply having a right to say something insulting and actually publishing an intolerable provocation toward a single segment of society are two different things.

It doesn’t need to be made illegal to insult someone simply because they insist on an apology after taking offense. Refusing to apologize for the insult makes anyone more and more angry as time goes by and repeating the insult over and over simply to cry out that you have the right to insult, is not going to alleviate the damage being done…

Both sides are wrong. Violent retaliation is as assinine as the original comics themselves.

An "intolerable provocation"? What a load of nonsense. A crappy picture in a newspaper of a small country /= an "intolerable provocation". If it IS "intolerable" to them, then there IS something wrong w/ the people that are rioting and they should in no way be allowed to infuence public policy.

Burning buildings and calling for executions is exponentially MORE assinine than the original comics.

An "intolerable provocation"? What a load of nonsense. A crappy picture in a newspaper of a small country /= an "intolerable provocation". If it IS "intolerable" to them, then there IS something wrong w/ the people that are rioting and they should in no way be allowed to infuence public policy.

Burning buildings and calling for executions is exponentially MORE assinine than the original comics.

The papers 'knew' they would be pissed. The did it because they would be pissed.

Imagine any city newspaper in America printing a picture of a barefoot African American eating watermelon with the word ****** underneath it and see what kind of reaction you would get. Simply having the right to publish an offensive cartoon is not justification for doing so.

Incidently has anyone noticed that Hamas have condemned violent responses and has offered to use its members to defend Palestinian churches from retaliation? Nobody's mentioned that...

I think the Danes were a bit stupid for having an embassy in such a place.

Yes. Welcome the world, my Muslim brothers! The world is this great place where, in exchange for your presence in it, you get to be mocked like everyone else!

Maybe in future, those amongst our Muslim brothers and sisters who are behaving this way will grow up and learn that they are not special and are open to criticism and a good, old-fashioned barrage of insults and mockery like the rest of us are, and maybe even stop throwing violent temper tantrums when someone hurts their feelings.

Norway? Who the fuck cares.
Tell me when the Finns are in trouble, then I'll get worried.

tell me when the swedes are in trouble.

Imagine any city newspaper in America printing a picture of a barefoot African American eating watermelon with the word ****** underneath it and see what kind of reaction you would get. Simply having the right to publish an offensive cartoon is not justification for doing so.

Yes, but that doesn't justify the Muslim response. No one forced them to look at the cartoon, first of all. Secondly, they could have easily protested peacefully and encouraged boycotting of newspapers that printed the image in their communities. Advocating murder, vandalizing property, and attempting to destroy freedom of speech just because you are offended is never acceptable.

The papers 'knew' they would be pissed. The did it because they would be pissed.
Doing something with the knowledge it will "piss someone off" is not equal to doing something because it'll "piss them off". I'm fairly sure the publisher of these cartoons were trying to get a point across (bearing the possible consequence that someone is offended), and their goal, especially their primary, was not to offend.

Imagine any city newspaper in America printing a picture of a barefoot African American eating watermelon with the word ****** underneath it and see what kind of reaction you would get.
If the abovementioned cartoon were depicted in a series of cartoons under the theme of showing undercurrent ongoing stereotypes and such, I'd have no objections. Please do regard the context.

http://danishcartoons.ytmnd.com/

So much for peaceful protest. Burning the Danish Embassy hardly counts as a peaceful demonstration.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183812,00.html

One wonders whether others will soon follow suit, considering the plethora of threats that were made.

It's interesting still that although the US has taken many an Islamic militant "to school", the US still hasn't earned an "International Day of Anger" from Muslims.

Maybe because they know we're not after Muslims - just some scattered idiots here and there.

While a few Europeans with their newspapers have managed to piss off the majority of Muslims.

So, to be clear on your premise: One small group of upset muslims destroying one building is the firm barometer of how angry ALL muslims are with certain happenings in Europe right now, but the fact that they didn't elect to destroy American property at the same time is indicitive that all Muslims understand and agree with American foreign policy.

So.... how do we put 9/11 into that context?

Or the Iranian hostage taking incident?

Or various embassy bombings, hijackings, barracks bombings, murders, beheadings, etc?


Let me guess... that's all completely different....

:rolleyes:

...
If the abovementioned cartoon were depicted in a series of cartoons under the theme of showing undercurrent ongoing stereotypes and such, I'd have no objections. Please do regard the context.

Yes, the context was... Cartoonist are too afriad to depict Mohammed because muslims will be offended? Okay then, lets go find some cartoonist to offend them, and they did. That was the context.

So, to be clear on your premise: One small group of upset muslims destroying one building is the firm barometer of how angry ALL muslims are with certain happenings in Europe right now, but the fact that they didn't elect to destroy American property at the same time is indicitive that all Muslims understand and agree with American foreign policy.

So.... how do we put 9/11 into that context?

Or the Iranian hostage taking incident?

Or various embassy bombings, hijackings, barracks bombings, murders, beheadings, etc?


Let me guess... that's all completely different....

:rolleyes:

I woud like to know how you got 9/11 out of that post.

3 embassies got burned in one building. Burning an embassy is barbaric over a stupid cartoon.

Yes, but that doesn't justify the Muslim response. No one forced them to look at the cartoon, first of all. Secondly, they could have easily protested peacefully and encouraged boycotting of newspapers that printed the image in their communities. Advocating murder, vandalizing property, and attempting to destroy freedom of speech just because you are offended is never acceptable.

I didn't justify it, I called it assinine.

I didn't justify it, I called it assinine.

Was it a dumb idea to make the cartoons? I think they were nothing more than an attempt to offend, but that doesn't mean anything. Virtually all types of free expression offend somone. The Muslim community needs to come out and condemn this action forcefully and directly, or else they will appear to be condoning the actions of these criminals.

If they don't like it, fight it through the use of peaceful protests and free expression, not violence.

http://danishcartoons.ytmnd.com/

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

I woud like to know how you got 9/11 out of that post.

3 embassies got burned in one building. Burning an embassy is barbaric over a stupid cartoon.


I got that from Kimchi's rediculous assumption that because SOME Muslims are upset with Europe at this moment that this somehow equates to general acceptance and understanding of ongoing US actions. It is a very odd logicel leap to make, although totally in line with his usual partisan whitewashes.

IT is in no way to be taken as any sort of approval of the burning of the Embassy, just to point out that the other conclusion he derived from this story is completely without foundation.

Was it a dumb idea to make the cartoons? I think they were nothing more than an attempt to offend, but that doesn't mean anything. Virtually all types of free expression offend somone. The Muslim community needs to come out and condemn this action forcefully and directly, or else they will appear to be condoning the actions of these criminals.

If they don't like it, fight it through the use of peaceful protests and free expression, not violence.

As you already know, several other newspapers came out 'justifying' the insult for the sake of insult as well. I think there is room for apologies and condemnation all around, both sides should start right away.

As you already know, several other newspapers came out 'justifying' the insult for the sake of insult as well. I think there is room for apologies and condemnation all around, both sides should start right away.

I think it was in response to the violent aspects of the backlash, however. Both sides should apologize, but I feel that the Muslims involved deserve more blame and should give a greater apology and condemnation...their behavior was inexcusable.

I got that from Kimchi's rediculous assumption that because SOME Muslims are upset with Europe at this moment that this somehow equates to general acceptance and understanding of ongoing US actions. It is a very odd logicel leap to make, although totally in line with his usual partisan whitewashes.

IT is in no way to be taken as any sort of approval of the burning of the Embassy, just to point out that the other conclusion he derived from this story is completely without foundation.

And you know what he is thinking how?

Yes, the context was... Cartoonist are too afriad to depict Mohammed because muslims will be offended? Okay then, lets go find some cartoonist to offend them, and they did. That was the context.
No, the context was that the newspaper trying to make the point that the Muslims, if wanting to be an internationally acknowledged, "big" religion, they'll need to accept the consequence of being the target of criticism and yes, offense, too.

Without the right to offend, you can't have free expression. How can you criticise a government's policies without offending them? How can you review a product badly without offending the makers? How can you criticise theocracy without offending the theocrats?

And you know what he is thinking how?
Some people find reading other people's posts to be rather helpful in that regard.

Without the right to offend, you can't have free expression. How can you criticise a government's policies without offending them? How can you review a product badly without offending the makers? How can you criticise theocracy without offending the theocrats?
How do you criticize cartoonists without offending them? How do you send death threats to them without offending them? How do you burn embassies without offending the respective countries?

How do you offend others as a response to offense without offending your own principles?

sorry to tell ya but the Danish embassy shared office with Sweden and Chile so there gone too


Edit: There goes the Norwgian too!
DAMN YOU SYRIA! WHERE'S THAT PLANE TICKET?!?! WHERE'S MY PANCOR JACKHAMMER?!?! (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh10-e.htm)

Incidently has anyone noticed that Hamas have condemned violent responses and has offered to use its members to defend Palestinian churches from retaliation? Nobody's mentioned that...

Bit like the message from all the Palestinian groups jointly asking for the christian peace worker to be released...

While they are deeply offended, its "C'est la vie" really. If you can't take the piss out of one religon, you'd have to leave them all alone, and thats just not on. Theres far too many that take that kind of thing seriously in certain western nations as it is.

How do you criticize cartoonists without offending them? How do you send death threats to them without offending them? How do you burn embassies without offending the respective countries?

How do you offend others as a response to offense without offending your own principles?

:rolleyes: Crimes that do more than just offend are bad because of the other things they do, not their offensiveness.

:rolleyes: Crimes that do more than just offend are bad because of the other things they do, not their offensiveness.
Judge: Have you anything to say in your defence, Mr Murderer?
Murderer: Yeah, sorry for offending this fine young woman by killing her husband.
Wife: Oh... Fine... Your honour, I drop all charges.

Judge: Have you anything to say in your defence, Mr Murderer?
Murderer: Yeah, sorry for offending this fine young woman by killing her husband.
Wife: Oh... Fine... Your honour, I drop all charges.

Exactly. The crime is not the offense, its the murder. Or burning of embassy, depending on the case at hand.

Exactly. The crime is not the offense, its the murder. Or burning of embassy, depending on the case at hand.
He does have a point though. Burning down an Embassy is offensive; burning it down to make a statement that nobody should be allowed to offend is ridiculous.

He does have a point though. Burning down an Embassy is offensive; burning it down to make a statement that nobody should be allowed to offend is ridiculous.

Indeed. So what exactly are we disagreeing about?

I just wish we all can just get along. Alas, that will never happen :(

Indeed. So what exactly are we disagreeing about?
I don't know. What are you disagreeing about?

Misplaced vandalism, if anything.

The objective of the cartoon was to mock the resistance (in Iraq and Palestine) and to paint "muslims" as "terrorists", comparing their faith with the acts of a handful of suicide bombers.

The actual context (occupation of Iraq and Palestine by sovereign imperialistic powers, unjust threats against Iran, etc., etc.) implied such a reaction would occur. I'm totally in favor of freedom of speech. It was their right to publish it and still is. But it was fuckin' irresponsible of the editor to allow it to be published.

"Redaction choices" should have been made and weren't. So, the newspaper either anticipated the possible reaction(s) (rather dangerous) or are fuckin' incompetent who didn't think it would have any impact.

I don't know. What are you disagreeing about?

:confused:

Misplaced vandalism, if anything.

The objective of the cartoon was to mock the resistance (in Iraq and Palestine) and to paint "muslims" as "terrorists", comparing their faith with the acts of a handful of suicide bombers.

The actual context (occupation of Iraq and Palestine by sovereign imperialistic powers, unjust threats against Iran, etc., etc.) implied such a reaction would occur. I'm totally in favor of freedom of speech. It was their right to publish it and still is. But it was fuckin' irresponsible of the editor to allow it to be published.

"Redaction choices" should have been made and weren't. So, the newspaper either anticipated the possible reaction(s) (rather dangerous) or are fuckin' incompetent who didn't think it would have any impact.
I think you're mistaken about the reasons for the cartoons' being published. From what I've read the cartoons came as an atempt to protest the way that the media were in effect being forced to censor themselves and compromise their commitment to free speech out of fear of violent Islamic retaliation.
Which is exactly what has happened, hence the copying of the cartoons in other European papers.

I think what Kimchi was getting at is that it is well known that attacking a US embassy would have practical consequences. Its not out of the question that it could still happen, but there is far less risk in targetting Euro institutions. To be a little less blunt; if angry rioters/arsonists show up at an america embassy, they will likely be shot at, especially considering their past actions.

As far as apologies go, you cannot apologize for someone elses actions. The Danish government made it quite clear how democratic governments stand in regards to freedom of speech, and the Islamic arsonists and Protesters made it quite clear that an apology is not enough.

It might be argued that the Islamic authorities should apologize for the burnings, but they cannot do this, because a refutation of the rioters actions would be a blow against the teachings of islam, and would be a defacto admission that the average islamic is expected to think about the wisdom of his leaders words.

On the other hand silence or support for the burnings will continue to damage the reputation of islam worldwide as more people begin to view them as violent demogogues.

Which do you think they will choose?

So much for peaceful protest. Burning the Danish Embassy hardly counts as a peaceful demonstration.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183812,00.html

One wonders whether others will soon follow suit, considering the plethora of threats that were made.

It's interesting still that although the US has taken many an Islamic militant "to school", the US still hasn't earned an "International Day of Anger" from Muslims.

Maybe because they know we're not after Muslims - just some scattered idiots here and there.

While a few Europeans with their newspapers have managed to piss off the majority of Muslims.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Bush admin. has sided with the muslim world on this one.

"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1577286

Not that we should be suprised. Christian fundies are just as eager to curb free speech as muslim fundies are. This may prove to be their excuse to do just that.

I've read a LOT of debate on what is going on with the the comics and the protests.
First off, I am a fundie Christian, but I'm going to take that mindset off a bit and look at this with a more..progressive mindset. Where all religions originate from man and and the Bible, Koran, and such are just watered down myths and so forth.

First, I think it is agreed that the the Muslim world needs to change. How? The peaceful group of Muslims that we never hear about needs to stand up and smack their extremist brother's in the face. Yes! So when you debate about how you used to live with hundreds of peaceful Muslim neighbors and they hate terrorism, well .. they obviously do not hate terrorism enough if they are not doing anything.

Next, dealing with the comics and the reactions, I believe that the European nations who have been "offend via violent reactions" should lay down a harsh law that will let all Muslims know that they are not going to tolerate this childish behavior anymore.

I am a fundie Christian and I have a responisibilty to love God and my neighbor as myself. I have a responsibility to turn of my friends tv when Pat Robertson is spewing lies and tell the truth. I have a responsibility to influence the extremist Christians (if there are any) to calm down, and to encourage the passive ones (there are many) to step up.

As I am, so should all peaceful moderate terror-ism hating Muslims should be.

Unless, they really do believe all non-muslims are inferior and deserve to be treated as slaves and cattle.

How can any group possibly be so reactionary? It's just a cartoon. Not even Israelis burn Iranian flags every time that leader calls Jews evil and denies the Holocaust.

And people still don't support Israel...Islam is stuck in the 17th century...maybe 18th.

I don't get it Kimchi, are you defending the muslim extremists, or are you defending European free speech rights? Im confused..
Free speech. I'm no dhimmi.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Bush admin. has sided with the muslim world on this one.

"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1577286

Not that we should be suprised. Christian fundies are just as eager to curb free speech as muslim fundies are. This may prove to be their excuse to do just that.

Some of you don't seem to get the difference between the right to free speech and the right not to have one's speech criticized.

Obviously, violence in response to the images should be condemned. But protests are also free speech.

One need not agree with the cartoons to believe they are protected by free speech.

One need not agree that the cartoons should have been printed to believe in free speech.

I don't get it Kimchi, are you defending the muslim extremists, or are you defending European free speech rights? Im confused..
Neither.

I don't get it Kimchi, are you defending the muslim extremists, or are you defending European free speech rights? Im confused..

Neither. He's basically trolling. Taking a cheap shot at Islam and Europe at the same time.

Neither. He's basically trolling. Taking a cheap shot at Islam and Europe at the same time.
I'm not the one burning down embassies over a cartoon.

I'm not the one burning down embassies over a cartoon.

Neither are all Muslims. But you tar with a broad brush.

Game shows are all evil --in fact, TV is evil -- because of the 73 people killed in Manila. Hang Bob Barker!!

Neither are all Muslims.
All the more important that the violence actually occured in Syria and Gaza, those most reasonable and representative places.

Neither are all Muslims. But you tar with a broad brush.

Game shows are all evil --in fact, TV is evil -- because of the 73 people killed in Manila. Hang Bob Barker!!

If you'll notice, I'm not tarring all of them.

Just the violent ones, and any that sympathize with them.

You'll find that I'm against restrictions on free speech, especially those imposed by Muslims who believe that we should be dhimmi.

Okay, I ask everyone, really everyone, to read these links I found. Please do.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399175,00.html
http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/06/Neukoelln - although this one is in German...talks about the reaction from the Muslim immigrants in Germany. Did you notice how there wasn't any violence there? Or in France? And that even those protests with the posters in London went ahead peaceful?

Oh, and this one is about how they are trying to help with the integration of Turkish kids in Germany.

If you'll notice, I'm not tarring all of them.

Just the violent ones, and any that sympathize with them.

You'll find that I'm against restrictions on free speech, especially those imposed by Muslims who believe that we should be dhimmi.

You are especially for free speech against Muslims.

And seem to lean against free speech and free assembly on behalf of Muslims.

I know your positions aren't that simple. Muslims=Bad. But you're sounding like it.

You are especially for free speech against Muslims.

And seem to lean against free speech and free assembly on behalf of Muslims.

I know your positions aren't that simple. Muslims=Bad. But you're sounding like it.

You need to go back in the thread and read my posts.

Sure, they can get mad and protest. Sure, they can assemble.

But they should have NO expectation that Muhammed will receive any more respect in Western publications or art than any other religious figure - note that Christ has been depicted floating in a jar of urine, and there weren't Christian riots.

I feel that anyone, regardless of their religion, who offers violence at such a perceived offense deserves to be shot down in the street by the police.

Okay, I ask everyone, really everyone, to read these links I found. Please do.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399175,00.html
http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/06/Neukoelln - although this one is in German...talks about the reaction from the Muslim immigrants in Germany. Did you notice how there wasn't any violence there? Or in France? And that even those protests with the posters in London went ahead peaceful?

Oh, and this one is about how they are trying to help with the integration of Turkish kids in Germany.

Don't you get it?

It doesn't matter how many thousands of Muslims peacefully protest. If just one is violent, then we can dismiss the entire Islamic world as violent.

What these "freedom go to hell" (actual sign) idiots need to know is that the only reason they are alive is because the west is just too nice to kill them. If America and Europe wanted to wipe them out, they could, it's just fortunate that it isn't wanted.

Norway? Who the fuck cares.Tell me when the Finns are in trouble, then I'll get worried. No need to get worried. It seem like they torched our embassy in Indonesia as well (well, the same building), but that's OK... Our mistake. Shouldn't be too close to them filthy Danes/Norwegians.

If the push comes to shove, we have our Cartoonist Suicide Brigades (CSB) ready, though. Bring it on!

You need to go back in the thread and read my posts.

Sure, they can get mad and protest. Sure, they can assemble.

But they should have NO expectation that Muhammed will receive any more respect in Western publications or art than any other religious figure - note that Christ has been depicted floating in a jar of urine, and there weren't Christian riots.

Um. There was merely the attempt by the government to shut down the museum in question. And there were protests. I can't say no violence ever occurred. Are you sure you can?


I feel that anyone, regardless of their religion, who offers violence at such a perceived offense deserves to be shot down in the street by the police.

Again, the irony is overwhelming.

I'll love to see the snipers at the next abortion clinic protest.

What these "freedom go to hell" (actual sign) idiots need to know is that the only reason they are alive is because the west is just too nice to kill them. If America and Europe wanted to wipe them out, they could, it's just fortunate that it isn't wanted.

They exist purely out of our Grace?

I still can't see why we all can't get along.

Um. There was merely the attempt by the government to shut down the museum in question. And there were protests. I can't say no violence ever occurred. Are you sure you can?
Again, the irony is overwhelming.

Protests, sure. As I said, protests are OK in my book for anyone.

But no one declared an "International Day of Anger". No scenes of millions marching in the street all around the world. No burning of buildings at all.

No death threats to ambassadors.

What's ironic about killing people who seek to destroy civilization by violence?

If it were up to me, anyone convicted of any felony would be sentenced to death, and anyone who offered violence during a protest could be shot by the police.

Protests would be quiet, orderly things then. Because the people who constitute a very tiny majority within those crowds would be too fearful to act up.

They exist purely out of our Grace?

They didn't start existing because of it, obviously. But they continue to. Personally, I'm against any kind of unnecessary bloodshed, but the way they're so confident and think they can threaten the murder of civilians over cartoons.

That's what separates us. They will give their lives to kill a bunch of random people over cartoons they didn't draw, where as western soldiers give their lives in an attempt to only fight the ones responsible.

Protests, sure. As I said, protests are OK in my book for anyone.

But no one declared an "International Day of Anger". No scenes of millions marching in the street all around the world. No burning of buildings at all.

No death threats to ambassadors.

Apparently Christians were not as offended. At least not as many of them.

What does that prove?

What's ironic about killing people who seek to destroy civilization by violence?.

Protesting cartoons = seeking to destroy civilization?

If it were up to me, anyone convicted of any felony would be sentenced to death, and anyone who offered violence during a protest could be shot by the police.

We'd be pretty busy executing people. There are millions of felonies each year.

Protests would be quiet, orderly things then. Because the people who constitute a very tiny majority within those crowds would be too fearful to act up.

Ever heard of the "chilling effect"

You aren't for free speech and free assembly at all.

They didn't start existing because of it, obviously. But they continue to. Personally, I'm against any kind of unnecessary bloodshed, but the way they're so confident and think they can threaten the murder of civilians over cartoons.

That's what separates us. They will give their lives to kill a bunch of random people over cartoons they didn't draw, where as western soldiers give their lives in an attempt to only fight the ones responsible.

Well, your world is very neat and tidy. Us v. Them.

This debate is going to get out of hand fast if people on both sides continue to move the words upward.

If it were up to me, anyone convicted of any felony would be sentenced to death, and anyone who offered violence during a protest could be shot by the police.

Well it would cut down on littering I guess.

But you didn't answer the Cat Tribes' point, should we have snipers to watch the protestors at abortion clinics and shoot anyone who 'offers violence'?

Well it would cut down on littering I guess.

But you didn't answer the Cat Tribes' point, should we have snipers to watch the protestors at abortion clinics and shoot anyone who 'offers violence'?

I would be all for that.

Well, your world is very neat and tidy. Us v. Them.

I am only simplifying matters for the sake of some posts. I understand that the real world are more complex than the human mind can contemplate. Also, I know my posts aren't actually of any importance in the grand scale of things, so I feel able to let myself make mistakes.

I would be all for that.

I am tempted but I'm afraid I'll have to turn the offer down. Damn you principles! Damn you!

Freedom of speech, what a terrible thing it is, it actually tempts people to think that their opinion really means something significant...

Since the Jordanian government was unwilling to restrain the local scum from burning down the Danish and Norwegian embassies, I think the west should respond in exactly the same way. See how Jordan likes to have their embassies in Europe torched or bombed. It would be easy to do, just send in some guys to do it 'unofficially'.

Since the Jordanian government was unwilling to restrain the local scum from burning down the Danish and Norwegian embassies, I think the west should respond in exactly the same way. See how Jordan likes to have their embassies in Europe torched or bombed. It would be easy to do, just send in some guys to do it 'unofficially'.

You do realise that a state employing people to bomb another countries embassy would be an act of war don't you?

Asking for respect when treating someone's holy figures in our public space is OK. Telling us what is OK to be portrayed in our public space is imposing taboo codes on us. That's not asking for respect, it's asking for submission. I'm not sure I'm ready to submit to any religious/dogmatic rule.

Since the Jordanian government was unwilling to restrain the local scum from burning down the Danish and Norwegian embassies, I think the west should respond in exactly the same way. See how Jordan likes to have their embassies in Europe torched or bombed. It would be easy to do, just send in some guys to do it 'unofficially'.

Bloodthirsty little bastard, ain't ya?

With no sense of irony.

You do realise that a state employing people to bomb another countries embassy would be an act of war don't you?
Firstly, I think Jordan's unwillingness to protect foreign embassies could be construed as an act of war. Though even if it isn't strictly war under the legal definition, I'm sure you could twist it that way. As for it being an act of war, I'd like to see what Jordan would be able to do about it. If it was done professionally enough, they wouldn't find out who did it. Even if they did find out, they're hardly going to land an invading force on Europe. If they tried causing trouble then we could just bomb them back to the stone age, though they probably wouldn't notice.

In responce to the OP title, yes, there are many many more Muslims protesting/expressing their outrage non-violently, they just don't make as good headlines.

I think the creater of the cartoon is dispicable and deserves a sound beating. That's not to say that I support the burring of the Danish embasy. The embasy workers had nothing to do with it.

As to the suggestion that we have snipers out to kill anyone who "offers violence" at a protest: Yes, summery executions and state murder is really ganna calm everyone down ::rollseyes::

Firstly, I think Jordan's unwillingness to protect foreign embassies could be construed as an act of war. Though even if it isn't strictly war under the legal definition, I'm sure you could twist it that way. As for it being an act of war, I'd like to see what Jordan would be able to do about it. If it was done professionally enough, they wouldn't find out who did it. Even if they did find out, they're hardly going to land an invading force on Europe. If they tried causing trouble then we could just bomb them back to the stone age, though they probably wouldn't notice.

Wow, I'd like to meet you in real life. You talk big when it's someone else. You're nothing but a twat and a terrorist.

I think the creater of the cartoon is dispicable and deserves a sound beating.

So you believe that sharia law is superior to Western law and should supercede it everywhere?

So you believe that sharia law is superior to Western law and should supercede it everywhere?
:rolleyes:

Firstly, I think Jordan's unwillingness to protect foreign embassies could be construed as an act of war. Though even if it isn't strictly war under the legal definition, I'm sure you could twist it that way. As for it being an act of war, I'd like to see what Jordan would be able to do about it. If it was done professionally enough, they wouldn't find out who did it. Even if they did find out, they're hardly going to land an invading force on Europe. If they tried causing trouble then we could just bomb them back to the stone age, though they probably wouldn't notice.
Whoops, replace Jordan with Syria. I was getting my backward desert countries mixed up.

QUOTE=Kievan-Prussia]So you believe that sharia law is superior to Western law and should supercede it everywhere?[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

Thank you, NL.

To K-P, can you please tell me where, o where, did I say that? Am I calling for the police to show up at his door and hand him over the the Jordanians? No. I'm simply saything that he's an ass, and a sound beating is what I think he deserves. No relation to Sharia or Western or Hamurabi's or any other code of law. Just Katzistanza's opinion.

Thank you, NL.

To K-P, can you please tell me where, o where, did I say that? Am I calling for the police to show up at his door and hand him over the the Jordanians? No. I'm simply saything that he's an ass, and a sound beating is what I think he deserves. No relation to Sharia or Western or Hamurabi's or any other code of law. Just Katzistanza's opinion.

Well, your opinion is muslim. If you're against Western law, you should... you know, fuck yourself off to the desert.

Whoops, replace Jordan with Syria. I was getting my backward desert countries mixed up.

Why must you be a bitch? Really, what is the point? To get more people to think less of you? To prime us for ignoring you latter?

Well, your opinion is muslim. If you're against Western law, you should... you know, fuck yourself off to the desert.

No, my opinion is not Muslim. My opinion does not pray to Allah or veberate the Prophet Mohammed. My opinion is the same one held by many Muslims, and it is also the same one held by many Westerners. But it is mine, no one elses, nothing more, nothing less.

As for the second part, when did I ever say this? You infer an aweful lot. Careful, you might throw out a shoulder striking at your imaginary foes.

No, my opinion is not Muslim. My opinion does not pray to Allah or veberate the Prophet Mohammed. My opinion is the same one held by many Muslims, and it is also the same one held by many Westerners. But it is mine, no one elses, nothing more, nothing less.

As for the second part, when did I ever say this? You infer an aweful lot. Careful, you might throw out a shoulder striking at your imaginary foes.

Mate, you're clearly living in the West (assuming you do live in the West, if not, my point is m00t) because of the lifestyle benefits. You're not here because you share ideological or political beliefs with us.

Mate, you're clearly living in the West (assuming you do live in the West, if not, my point is m00t) because of the lifestyle benefits. You're not here because you share ideological or political beliefs with us.
Because he doesn't think that being disrespectful to something people value a lot, just to prove a point, is a good thing? Because he thinks being rude like this warrants a bit of a slapping about? My grandfather has more extreme views than that!

Tell me, you weren't at Cronulla Beach a while ago, were you?

So you believe that sharia law is superior to Western law and should supercede it everywhere?

False premise.

One can despise the cartoons and not believe in sharia law. One believe in a free press and still think the cartoons were irresponsible and childish -- the equivalent of trolling.

Mate, you're clearly living in the West (assuming you do live in the West, if not, my point is m00t) because of the lifestyle benefits. You're not here because you share ideological or political beliefs with us.

One has to hate Islam to be a good citizen of the West now?

Because he doesn't think that being disrespectful to something people value a lot, just to prove a point, is a good thing? Because he thinks being rude like this warrants a bit of a slapping about? My grandfather has more extreme views than that!

Newspaper posts some cartoons. muslims go rampant and destroy stuff. West should punish newspapers. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! iran hangs rape victims!

SHARIA ALERT!

Tell me, you weren't at Cronulla Beach a while ago, were you?

I wish I was. They were doing a lot more to defend the Western way of life than anyone else here.

Mate, you're clearly living in the West (assuming you do live in the West, if not, my point is m00t) because of the lifestyle benefits. You're not here because you share ideological or political beliefs with us.


Accully, I live here because I was born here, and my whole family lives right here.

Like I said, you infer an aweful lot.

1) Since when did everyone in the West have the exact same ideological or political beliefs?

2) How do you know anything about my political beliefs? I have not made one political statement on this thread, to my knowledge.


I don't know about you, but I don't let my region of residence decide my politics or beliefs, nor vice-versa.

I wish I was. They were doing a lot more to defend the Western way of life than anyone else here.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/11/12cronulla_wideweb__470x415,0.jpg
Yep, that'll be it.

One has to hate Islam to be a good citizen of the West now?

Yes, because islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/11/12cronulla_wideweb__470x415,0.jpg
Yep, that'll be it.

Hey, when muslims keep attacking us, we hit back. We're not all as docile as Denmark.

Newspaper posts some cartoons. muslims go rampant and destroy stuff. West should punish newspapers. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! iran hangs rape victims!

SHARIA ALERT!



I wish I was. They were doing a lot more to defend the Western way of life than anyone else here.


Again, the irony overflows. Too bad its so filled with bile.

Newspaper posts some cartoons. muslims go rampant and destroy stuff. West should punish newspapers. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! iran hangs rape victims!

SHARIA ALERT!

Once again, where did I say that "the west" should punish newspapers? Never, that's where. Is false accusations the only thing in your quiver?

As for the second part, it warrents nothing more then "fuck you". I'm sure Cat-Tribes and LN will come up with more intelligent responces.


As for Cronulla Beach, I don't know to what that refers, so I can't respond at this time.

Yes, because islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

No, it is not.

There are millions of Muslims that live in the West. Many have a clearer understanding of freedom than you do.

You would go on an ideological junta. A witch-hunt. That is counter to freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

Hey, when muslims keep attacking us, we hit back. We're not all as docile as Denmark.
I'm sure I'm going to regret this... but how exactly is Denmark being docile?

Once again, where did I say that "the west" should punish newspapers? Never, that's where. Is false accusations the only thing in your quiver?

I think the creater of the cartoon is dispicable and deserves a sound beating.

Sound like public flogging. I think that's the next step down from sharia hanging.

As for the second part, it warrents nothing more then "fuck you". I'm sure Cat-Tribes and LN will come up with more intelligent responces.

Resorting to insults because you can't defend your good friend islam at it's core values?

I wish I was. They were doing a lot more to defend the Western way of life than anyone else here.

Only if you consider beating up people because they are different to be "the Western way of life."

I'm sure I'm going to regret this... but how exactly is Denmark being docile?

Apologising to the muslims. Not demanding that their embassies be protect. Generally, doing jack shit.

Yes, because islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

What about all the Muslims I know who are living perfetly peaceful and harmonious lives in the West? Isn't one of the tennets of "western enlightenment" that you treat each person on their indevidual merits and flaws? You, my friend, are the biggest threat to western civilization right now.

Hey, when muslims keep attacking us, we hit back. We're not all as docile as Denmark.

You might not know this, with your 5 year old brain, apparently, but not all Muslims are the same person.

AllI see in that picture is violence against a helpless human being by a group comsumed by hate and anger. That is your precious "western civilization"?

Sound like public flogging. I think that's the next step down from sharia hanging.

Resorting to insults because you can't defend your good friend islam at it's core values?

You jumped to a whole host of conclusions.

Again, freedom of speech includes the right to condemn some speech. One can fully support freedom of the press and still think these cartoons were despicable and shouldn't have been published.

Or is freedom not a value to you?

Only if you consider beating up people because they are different to be "the Western way of life."

The Western way of life is freedom and justice. If the government does not protect these values, the people will. There will be collateral damage.

You might not know this, with your 5 year old brain, apparently, but not all Muslims are the same person.

Too many muslims have already done too much. We've taken less in the past, but we let them persist. Why?

AllI see in that picture is violence against a helpless human being by a group comsumed by hate and anger. That is your precious "western civilization"?

There will be collateral damage.

Sound like public flogging. I think that's the next step down from sharia hanging.

My God, it's like talking to a child! Once again, putting words into my mouth.

Did I say "the government should publicly flog the cartoonist"? No. If fact, I would be against any government punishment for the guy. That doesn't change what I think he deserves.

And how is your precious mob and better?



Resorting to insults because you can't defend your good friend islam at it's core values?

I have repeatedly and consistantly defeted your bullshit logic (hate), as have Cat-Tribes and LN.

You jumped to a whole host of conclusions.

Again, freedom of speech includes the right to condemn some speech. One can fully support freedom of the press and still think these cartoons were despicable and shouldn't have been published.

But one cannot call for the publishers to be punished.

The Western way of life is freedom and justice. If the government does not protect these values, the people will. There will be collateral damage.

How did a couple of muslims at the beach violate freedom and justice and deserve to become "collateral damage"?

You pay lip-service to freedom and justice while violating those principles in the same breath.

You may not take the law into your own hands.

You may not attack muslims for being muslim.

Freedom and justice. Think about it.

Too many muslims have already done too much. We've taken less in the past, but we let them persist. Why?

Because millions more have live decent peaceful productive lives.



There will be collateral damage.

No, there will be ignorant people driven by hate and anger taking it out on innocent people.

You are the opposite of the valuse you claim to support!

But one cannot call for the publishers to be punished.

One can. That would be exercising freedom of speech. :headbang:

But one cannot call for the publishers to be punished.

I never did. You're the only one calling for violence here

How did a couple of muslims at the beach violate freedom and justice and deserve to become "collateral damage"?

I don't understand the mob. Just believe in it.

You may not take the law into your own hands.

When the government does nothing, the people will do something.

You may not attack muslims for being muslim.

Yes we can. The same way we put Germans and Japanese into concentration camps in WWII. This is war. You just don't know it yet.

Apologising to the muslims. Not demanding that their embassies be protect. Generally, doing jack shit.Stating Denmark isn't apologizing anything more than poor tact of one of their newspapers..? What were you waiting for? Should the Danish Prime Minister have been calling for a crusade? What? An apology was bad?

Too many muslims have already done too much. We've taken less in the past, but we let them persist. Why?

There will be collateral damage.

You really don't know the first thing about freedom or justice.

A free and just society protects freedom of religion.

A free and just society protects the innocent from beatings.

A free and just society does not pursue guilt by association.

What you advocate is simple bigotry and oppression. The opposite of freedom and justice.

I don't understand the mob. Just believe in it.

You are worse than those you seek to oppose. Mobs burned down those embassies today. Did you believe in those mobs?



Yes we can. The same way we put Germans and Japanese into concentration camps in WWII. This is war. You just don't know it yet.

We should repeat one of the greatest crimes in our nation's history?

And this time, to make it worse, target a religion?

Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? Do you believe in it at all?

Looks like Cat-Tribes and LN have it tied up here (plus the fact that the guy basicly defeats himself), I'm ganna go watch Grizzly Man and be with my girl. If I don't accudently start a jihad with my wicked, anti-western ideas of respect, freedom, peace, and justice along the way, I'll jump back in the ring latter.

You may not attack muslims for being muslim

Yes we can. The same way we put Germans and Japanese into concentration camps in WWII. This is war. You just don't know it yet.
Yes
*slowly backs away*

Ok, so what I'm basically hearing here is "The majority must suffer because of the minority's rights".

And now it has gotten out of hand.

So depressing :(

Yes we can. The same way we put Germans and Japanese into concentration camps in WWII. This is war. You just don't know it yet.

I don't want to Godwin this, but surely you remember what happened the last time a nation put people in camps according to their religious beliefs?

The purpose of a free society is to maintain that freedom for everyone during both war and peace. Anything less is an affront to the values that society was founded on, and can lead to the destruction of the very values for which these measures were implemented to protect.

The riots are being whipped up (as I understand it) by imams who are generally regarded by much of the Islamic community as right-wing lunatics. If Kievan-Prussia were a Muslim, I'm sure he/she'd be part of the mob.

Ok, so what I'm basically hearing here is "The majority must suffer because of the minority's rights".

You aren't listening very well if that is all you hear.

I don't want to Godwin this, but surely you remember what happened the last time a nation put people in camps according to their religious beliefs?

The purpose of a free society is to maintain that freedom for everyone during both war and peace. Anything less is an affront to the values that society was founded on, and can lead to the destruction of the very values for which these measures were implemented to protect.

Exactically!

So much for peaceful protest. Burning the Danish Embassy hardly counts as a peaceful demonstration.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183812,00.html

One wonders whether others will soon follow suit, considering the plethora of threats that were made.

It's interesting still that although the US has taken many an Islamic militant "to school", the US still hasn't earned an "International Day of Anger" from Muslims.

Maybe because they know we're not after Muslims - just some scattered idiots here and there.

While a few Europeans with their newspapers have managed to piss off the majority of Muslims.

Americans have angered Muslims way more than Europeans. Ever heard of Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran vowing to destroy our ally Israel, and terrorist fringe groups vowing Jihad on America?

But we both have to acknowledge the majority of Muslims who don't really care.

Exactically!
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/pepper.jpg

Americans have angered Muslims way more than Europeans. Ever heard of Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran vowing to destroy our ally Israel, and terrorist fringe groups vowing Jihad on America?

But we both have to acknowledge the majority of Muslims who don't really care.

Actually I would think the majority does care. I have 5 muslims at work and each one of them is upset over the cartoons. As they argue it will create or add to prejudice against Muslims.

On the matters if Afghanistan, the same ones at work didn't care much about the war as they felt it was an appropriate response(I suspect many Muslims think the same).

Now Iraq is a different matter.....

Actually I would think the majority does care. I have 5 muslims at work and each one of them is upset over the cartoons. As they argue it will create or add to prejudice against Muslims.

On the matters if Afghanistan, the same ones at work didn't care much about the war as they felt it was an appropriate response(I suspect many Muslims think the same).

Now Iraq is a different matter.....


Which makes my point:

American response to Muslim violence has been pointed and directed at those who are actually violent, or who rattle the saber a little too much. You know, actual insurgents, actual particular governments, actual armies.

Yes, we may go overboard and include Iraq.

But we don't do the stupid thing and piss off ALL Muslims by doing something as indiscriminate as making fun of Muhammed.

Which makes my point:

American response to Muslim violence has been pointed and directed at those who are actually violent, or who rattle the saber a little too much. You know, actual insurgents, actual particular governments, actual armies..

The Iranians couldn't have given a rats arse about the US in the 50's...but then the US got in bed with the Shah...

The Palestinians couldnt hae given another rats arse about the US, until it started backing Israel (unilaterally)....

You see the pattern there, I trust?


Yes, we may go overboard and include Iraq.
..

30,000 dead isn't overboard so much as overkill


But we don't do the stupid thing and piss off ALL Muslims by doing something as indiscriminate as making fun of Muhammed.

Kicking around the Koran, wrapping detainees in an Israeli flag and kicking crap out of them, that incident with the Psi-ops and the burning bodies...its fluke you havent hit a nerve that deep yet...

Why has this thread degenerated into a US-Europe bitchfest? This doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the US.

Why has this thread degenerated into a US-Europe bitchfest? This doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the US.
Blasphemy!!! Everything is about the US!