NationStates Jolt Archive

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/images/hitlerfrank.jpg

It seems the Arab world wishes to hit back here by responding to attack Europe's on Holy cow. Except there are several flaws

- We arent going out threatening to kill people in response to this outrage. Some of us may be outraged, but we respect their right to publish outrageous material

- Unlike this cartoon, the represneation of Muhammad was a satirisation of an accurate trait. There were times of extreme viloncence in his life, the battle of Badr being the most fameous (I'm not judging all Muslims to be viloent, but it is certianly true that Muhammad was vilonet many times). Where as Hitler and Anne Frank most likely never met. Theres a diffrence between satire as hyperbole and just slander.

It is more funny though than the vast majority of those Danish ones. But then, I really couldn't stand Anne Frank when I had to read her diary. What a bitch!

But really, some neat cartoons are usually made by "Shujaat" from Al-Jazeera. Have a look:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm

Iran is retaliating in the comics war by announcing a "Holocaust Cartoon" contest.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss

You'd think a civilization that old could grow the #### up all already.

Iran is retaliating in the comics war by announcing a "Holocaust Cartoon" contest.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss

You'd think a civilization that old could grow the #### up all already.

excellent!

Eh, at least it's better than killing people, showing signs of a threatening nature, or burning buildings. It's pathetic, but still better than the other things.

Ooooh I am so mad I just want to gather a crowd and burn down an embassy. Unfortunately the ice in my molotov coctail has melted and I have to go protest the PETA protesters.

Shucks. I guess I'm just not up to violence over a cartoon right now. :headbang:

Eh, at least it's better than killing people, showing signs of a threatening nature, or burning buildings. It's pathetic, but still better than the other things.

I agree. If we could just tweak that creative streak... I know! Send "aid" to the middle east in the form of opening up art schools! Sure, they'd start with rediculous portrayals of jews, christians, and the west- but some of them would grow up. We would have a whole lot more graphic novels and comics, and a lot less terrorism.
/cynicism

We would have a whole lot more graphic novels and comics, and a lot less terrorism.
/cynicism
I just can't wait for Captain Saudi Arabia Crushes the Zionist Scum, Part Four.

bump

That Anne Frank thing was kind of charming. I don't get it, though. Is Hitler a good guy or a bad guy from a radical islamist view?

Eh, at least it's better than killing people, showing signs of a threatening nature, or burning buildings. It's pathetic, but still better than the other things.

Sounds like you think nobody's going to be murdered, or at least killed as "accidental" victims of random acts of mindless violence, in this current wave of "righteous" temper tantrums.

Oh wait, people have already started dying, and we haven't even seen the terrorist responses yet.

This is depressing. I wish alien abductions really happened, so I could volunteer to be taken far, far away from this planet full of lunatics.

Funny Denmark is mainly Christian, yet they choose to attack those of Jewish faith. The paper was not run by anyone Jewish. So other than cowardice why attack the Jews?
I say cowardice because they steer clear of insulting the Christian religion in case they get a back lash from the US and other mainly Christian countries. So the Jews are an easy target.

I just can't wait for Captain Saudi Arabia Crushes the Zionist Scum, Part Four.

Is that the one where bin Laden takes over Saudi Arabia, rubs the lamp and makes Robin Williams hand over all Iraq's WMD that he had hidden for them?

That Anne Frank thing was kind of charming. I don't get it, though. Is Hitler a good guy or a bad guy from a radical islamist view?

I'm going to guess he's a good guy to them, based on a saying I've heard quoted (and even sung, unfortunately) in this context, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

No need to guess what they think of Ms Frank...

http://www.reason.com/hod/cartoon.ss.021006.gif

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/images/hitlerfrank.jpg

It seems the Arab world wishes to hit back here by responding to attack Europe's on Holy cow. Except there are several flaws

- We arent going out threatening to kill people in response to this outrage. Some of us may be outraged, but we respect their right to publish outrageous material

- Unlike this cartoon, the represneation of Muhammad was a satirisation of an accurate trait. There were times of extreme viloncence in his life, the battle of Badr being the most fameous (I'm not judging all Muslims to be viloent, but it is certianly true that Muhammad was vilonet many times). Where as Hitler and Anne Frank most likely never met. Theres a diffrence between satire as hyperbole and just slander.


Okay... I have to ask...

Why is it okay to cite 'free speech' to defend the an insulting generalisation of a religion, when it's 'us' that do it...

But, it is somehow inappropriate when 'they' do it?

Okay... I have to ask...

Why is it okay to cite 'free speech' to defend the an insulting generalisation of a religion, when it's 'us' that do it...

But, it is somehow inappropriate when 'they' do it?

Its nothing against freedom of speech. I still think its inapropriate. Its just there are diffrences between the two cartoons as I said. Mohammad was a vilonent person and did engage in battle. Thats what the cartoon is depicting. Satire is only satire when its actually amplifying an accrate trait. It would be stupid to say laugh at Chirac for how millitant he is by his bombing of luxomburg because Chirac isnt a millitant leader. Likewise it is silly to portray Hitler and Anne Frank sleeping together. Thats delibrate insult. The Mohammad cartoons are satire.

Its nothing against freedom of speech. I still think its inapropriate. Its just there are diffrences between the two cartoons as I said. Mohammad was a vilonent person and did engage in battle. Thats what the cartoon is depicting. Satire is only satire when its actually amplifying an accrate trait. It would be stupid to say laugh at Chirac for how millitant he is by his bombing of luxomburg because Chirac isnt a millitant leader. Likewise it is silly to portray Hitler and Anne Frank sleeping together. Thats delibrate insult. The Mohammad cartoons are satire.

Mohammad engaged in battle. He wasn't a suicide bomber. Therefore, it's hardly an "accurate trait".

It would be stupid to say laugh at Chirac for how millitant he is by his bombing of luxomburg because Chirac isnt a millitant leader.

You're talking of the Chirac that lead France into the Côte d'Ivoire debâcle? The Chirac that blew up nuclear bombs in the Pacific? The Chirac that just a few weeks ago touted how France would nuke its enemies?

With such poor knowledge of a contemporary as Chirac, allow me to doubt all your claims of Mohammed.

Okay... I have to ask...

Why is it okay to cite 'free speech' to defend the an insulting generalisation of a religion, when it's 'us' that do it...

But, it is somehow inappropriate when 'they' do it?
It has nothing to do with it being inapropriate. No one is arguing that Muslims have no right to protest depictions of their prophet. Jews can and should protest this absolutely stupid cartoon as well. Somehow I doubt they're going to burn down any embassies, though. I also doubt they're going to threaten to cut people's heads off.

I don't quite understand why there are so many people that want their countries to be recognized across the world as the place that throws a fit because it doesn't like a cartoon. Eh, they can go and rant and bitch as much as they want, I'm just gonna enjoy a funny cartoon when I see it and just not give a shit when I don't like it.
Of course I know I can't write too much of a rant because I know you'd probably get a similar reaction to what's going on in the middle east up here in and around the Cleveland area if you ever drew a cartoon glorifying Art Modell (spelling?) XD

Face it the only time a muslim actually FEELS anything is when he is Angry, they are all dead in their eyes, their soul, and no love in their heart.

Good Riddance to them all, when we have the final wars!


Next week Hollywood re-invents Islam with the Dallas cowboy cheerleaders!

Rich

Its nothing against freedom of speech. I still think its inapropriate. Its just there are diffrences between the two cartoons as I said. Mohammad was a vilonent person and did engage in battle. Thats what the cartoon is depicting. Satire is only satire when its actually amplifying an accrate trait. It would be stupid to say laugh at Chirac for how millitant he is by his bombing of luxomburg because Chirac isnt a millitant leader. Likewise it is silly to portray Hitler and Anne Frank sleeping together. Thats delibrate insult. The Mohammad cartoons are satire.

"Jesus" was also alleged to be non-violent, but he kicked ass in a temple, one time... and he has allegedly got quite a future ahead of him.

So... was Mohammed a violent person? Well.. he was a soldier, but I'm not sure if that is the same thing... otherwise you have to describe Winston Churchill as 'violent'... and I'm not sure most people would see that as his 'determining' feature. Similarly... JFK was a 'fighting man', and, indeed, brought the world close to the brink of nuclear destruction... but I'm not sure he will be remembered as 'violent'.

Okay - so we shall accept Mohammed as willing to fight for what he believed... we should bear in mind that Mohammed walked the earth something like 1400 years ago, when the religio-political climate was very different. It is hardly appropriate to attempt to define his behaviour THEN, by our standards NOW.

Next point, of course... most Muslims will tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. Mohammed may have warred, but 'suicide bombing' was not the central tenet of his teaching.

The cartoons that have been published, are about on a level with a cartoon of Jesus raping a virgin... that is, you could find Jesus' pronouncements about sex, etc... and you COULD claim to justify the act from the text, but it is not what would be considered a 'true' interpretation.

Also - while you are so far up on your high horse, you might like to bear in mind that the Christian 'high horse' has most of 2000 years of history as a WAR horse. The Spanish Conquistadors hanging, then burning, natives - in groups of thirteen, as a tribute to the Lord and his apostles - in the name of Christ... is just as much of an abberration of that faith, as the 'suicide bomber' is of Islam.

It has nothing to do with it being inapropriate. No one is arguing that Muslims have no right to protest depictions of their prophet. Jews can and should protest this absolutely stupid cartoon as well. Somehow I doubt they're going to burn down any embassies, though. I also doubt they're going to threaten to cut people's heads off.

And, what about if the picture had been 'on a level' with the previous ones, and it had been Jesus that had just raped Anne Frank, rather than Hitler?

Okay... I have to ask...

Why is it okay to cite 'free speech' to defend the an insulting generalisation of a religion, when it's 'us' that do it...

But, it is somehow inappropriate when 'they' do it?
It looks like he is still respecting the Islamists' right to free speech. He's just using his right to criticise.

And, what about if the picture had been 'on a level' with the previous ones, and it had been Jesus that had just raped Anne Frank, rather than Hitler?
That's an easy one! :D

Allowed to publish.

Allowed to protest.

Won't burn embassies.

Won't cut heads off. ;)

Face it the only time a muslim actually FEELS anything is when he is Angry, they are all dead in their eyes, their soul, and no love in their heart.

Good Riddance to them all, when we have the final wars!


Next week Hollywood re-invents Islam with the Dallas cowboy cheerleaders!

Rich

Pure flamebait, or self-confessed troll.

I've had many Muslim friends... none of them match your 'Gospel of Hate'.

Next.

It looks like he is still respecting the Islamists' right to free speech. He's just using his right to criticise.

In which case, if the criticism is based on the wrongness of the ACTION, rather than on the politics or religion of the cartoon artist....

We SHOULD be able to find the SAME poster, making the SAME points in the thread about the ORIGINAL cartoons, no?

I think it's time to make a cartoon of Jesus sodomizing Mohammed with a crucifix while Hitler is watching while being "orally serviced" by Anne Frank and everyone involved is eating pork and drinking wine. That covers all of the major bases I think.

That's an easy one! :D

Allowed to publish.

Allowed to protest.

Won't burn embassies.

Won't cut heads off. ;)

Perhaps you won't... but, my friend, the world is not as rose-coloured as your glasses may have led you to believe.

I'm not saying those actions WOULD be the natural outcome, but I am saying you cannot speak with such authority about what would happen.

Just as a side thought... I lived near the city of Lincoln, in the UK. I don't know how well you know that part of the UK, but it is one of the more 'religious' areas of a relatively un-fanatical nation.

While I was living there, a 'magic' shop opened up. I call it a 'magic' shop, because it sold things like crystals and Tarot cards. It received some 'campaining' from local Christian groups for it's sponsorship of 'Satanism' and 'witchcraft' (i.e. it sold Tarot Cards), but weathered that storm realatively unscathed.

It was burned down three times, within the first few years of opening. In the end, the store relocated elsewhere.

They can publish holocaust cartoons. And people will say how offended they are or aren't. However, I doubt that anyone's going to burn down the Iranian embassy in their country.

As for why they are doing Holocaust cartoons and not Jesus cartoons, that's simple. They know people will be more offended by them mocking the Holocaust then by mocking Jesus. Jesus already gets mocked plenty. For example, the "artwork" that consisted of a crucifix in a jar of piss, spreading shit all over a picture of the virgin Mary, a statuette of the virgin Mary covered in semen, etc.

As far as I know, nobody has burnt down a US embassy over this.

Hindus did not burn down the US embassy after Ganesh (is that how you spell his name?) was mocked in "The Simpsons," either.

I'm not going to say that Iran shouldn't publish Holocaust cartoons, they have every right to. I think the message is offensive, but hey, people are going to say things that offend me, there's really no avoiding it.

Pure flamebait, or self-confessed troll.

I've had many Muslim friends... none of them match your 'Gospel of Hate'.

Next.
He's a pure troll! Don't feed it.

Perhaps you won't... but, my friend, the world is not as rose-coloured as your glasses may have led you to believe.

I'm not saying those actions WOULD be the natural outcome, but I am saying you cannot speak with such authority about what would happen.

Just as a side thought... I lived near the city of Lincoln, in the UK. I don't know how well you know that part of the UK, but it is one of the more 'religious' areas of a relatively un-fanatical nation.

While I was living there, a 'magic' shop opened up. I call it a 'magic' shop, because it sold things like crystals and Tarot cards. It received some 'campaining' from local Christian groups for it's sponsorship of 'Satanism' and 'witchcraft' (i.e. it sold Tarot Cards), but weathered that storm realatively unscathed.

It was burned down three times, within the first few years of opening. In the end, the store relocated elsewhere.
Actually, I can speak with some authority. You see, I'm 37 years old and in all my time I've seen hundreds, maybe thousands of cartoons, movies, advertisements, video games, TV shows, etc... that were boycotted or protested by Chritsian groups and only in extremely rare cases have I ever seen them erupt into violence or result in anyone getting killed. In fact, I only use the term "extremely rare" because it must have happened at least once, but I cannot remember it ever happening. On the other hand, when Muslims decide something is offensive it almost always erupts into violence and almost always results in bombings and/or people getting killed. You'll respond to this by pointing out that there are Muslims protesting peacfully about these cartoons. I'll respond by saying the fact that the news has to point out that these protests are peacful is the point. You never see headlines that say:

"Christians protest The Last Temptation of Christ peacfully"

or:

"Bhudists protest Chinese occupation of mangolia peacfully"

or:

"Jews protest holocaust display peacfully"

because peacful is the norm for other religions. When muslims protest peacfully you have to point it out because it's unusual.

Actually, I can speak with some authority. You see, I'm 37 years old and in all my time I've seen hundreds, maybe thousands of cartoons, movies, advertisements, video games, TV shows, etc... that were boycotted or protested by Chritsian groups and only in extremely rare cases have I ever seen them erupt into violence or result in anyone getting killed. In fact, I only use the term "extremely rare" because it must have happened at least once, but I cannot remember it ever happening. On the other hand, when Muslims decide something is offensive it almost always erupts into violence and almost always results in bombings and/or people getting killed. You'll respond to this by pointing out that there are Muslims protesting peacfully about these cartoons. I'll respond by saying the fact that the news has to point out that these protests are peacful is the point. You never see headlines that say:

"Christians protest The Last Temptation of Christ peacfully"

or:

"Bhudists protest Chinese occupation of mangolia peacfully"

or:

"Jews protest holocaust display peacfully"

because peacful is the norm for other religions. When muslims protest peacfully you have to point it out because it's unusual.

One COULD say, that you are only listening to the 'sensationalist' news. I've lived in multi-ethnic societies, and, for the most part, most of the protests I've seen by ANY groups were peaceful. But then, I've also seen violence from pretty much every group, too.

But, big violence in Islam, sells papers in the US... so that's what you read about.

One COULD say, that you are only listening to the 'sensationalist' news. I've lived in multi-ethnic societies, and, for the most part, most of the protests I've seen by ANY groups were peaceful. But then, I've also seen violence from pretty much every group, too.

But, big violence in Islam, sells papers in the US... so that's what you read about.
Sure you could say that except that I sit at a computer all day and read news from about 500 different sources and I'm pretty sure that embassies have been burned, people have been killed and lives have been threatened over a few cartoons. I'm also pretty sure that I've been watching things like that happen in the Muslim world all my life and that I have only seen that level of violence in the Muslim world. If what you're saying is true then the news would be sensationalizing violence in every culture, wouldn't it?

Sure you could say that except that I sit at a computer all day and read news from about 500 different sources and I'm pretty sure that embassies have been burned, people have been killed and lives have been threatened over a few cartoons. I'm also pretty sure that I've been watching things like that happen in the Muslim world all my life and that I have only seen that level of violence in the Muslim world. If what you're saying is true then the news would be sensationalizing violence in every culture, wouldn't it?

I cannot believe what you are saying. You have never seen race-riots in American cities? You've never seen Chinese students stood in front of government tanks? You managed not to hear about Russian school children being killed by government mismanagement and 'separatist' bombs? You have never heard of Pol Pot? Josef Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Pinochet? Castro? You have never heard of the IRA? ETA?

This fixation on Islamic violence is fairly new. It is what sells papers NOW, which is why it is focused on NOW.

I'm sorry, friend... but my opinion is that you are either blinkered, or pretending to be blinkered.

Okay... I have to ask...

Why is it okay to cite 'free speech' to defend the an insulting generalisation of a religion, when it's 'us' that do it...

But, it is somehow inappropriate when 'they' do it?
Anyone can do it. Anyone can play the "Free Speech Game." Only there is a rule to the game: No killing allowed! If you can't take criticism, no one will want to play with you.

I cannot believe what you are saying. You have never seen race-riots in American cities? You've never seen Chinese students stood in front of government tanks? You managed not to hear about Russian school children being killed by government mismanagement and 'separatist' bombs? You have never heard of Pol Pot? Josef Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Pinochet? Castro? You have never heard of the IRA? ETA?

This fixation on Islamic violence is fairly new. It is what sells papers NOW, which is why it is focused on NOW.

I'm sorry, friend... but my opinion is that you are either blinkered, or pretending to be blinkered.
I'm sorry, maybe we're crossing our wires here. I thought I was pretty specific when I said that I had not seen other religions violently protest cartoons, movies or whatever in my lifetime. I didn't think we were debating the history of violence in the world. I didn't study for that test.

I'm sorry, maybe we're crossing our wires here. I thought I was pretty specific when I said that I had not seen other religions violently protest cartoons, movies or whatever in my lifetime. I didn't think we were debating the history of violence in the world. I didn't study for that test.

You confuse 'culture' with 'religion'.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/images/hitlerfrank.jpg

they want to really piss people off, and thats the best they could do?

ive heard jewish make more insulting remarks about the holocaust, hitler, nazis

It's all childish, from all sides. And the topic's getting old.

You confuse 'culture' with 'religion'.
Actually, I don't. I'll try to state my premise more clearly.

From what I have observed in the world, and I observe a lot, when Christians or Jews, or any other religion is insulted in the media they protest. Most protests that are organized by a religion tend to be very peaceful because being peaceful is usually a tenent of their religion. Religious protests that result in violence that are happening because of something in the media - and that point is important as I am not talking about religious protests that are based on government oppression, etc... - are very rare... except when it concerns Islam. Muslims almost always protest violently. Even when it's a matter of a book that someone wrote or a cartoon that someone drew and not about lack of food or occupation or whatever. Even when they are peacful, as is noted in another thread, they still threaten violence.

I love that, too. "Muslims protested peacfully today in teh streets of Paris. There were no acts of violence during the event in which Muslims hung the members of the Danish parliament in effigy and called for the heads to be cut off of the editors of European newspapers that published the cartoons."

That is my point. Violent protests are far more common in the Muslim world even for relatively benign offenses liek drawing a cartoon than they are in other religions.

that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Actually, I don't. I'll try to state my premise more clearly.

From what I have observed in the world, and I observe a lot, when Christians or Jews, or any other religion is insulted in the media they protest. Most protests that are organized by a religion tend to be very peaceful because being peaceful is usually a tenent of their religion. Religious protests that result in violence that are happening because of something in the media - and that point is important as I am not talking about religious protests that are based on government oppression, etc... - are very rare... except when it concerns Islam. Muslims almost always protest violently. Even when it's a matter of a book that someone wrote or a cartoon that someone drew and not about lack of food or occupation or whatever. Even when they are peacful, as is noted in another thread, they still threaten violence.

I love that, too. "Muslims protested peacfully today in teh streets of Paris. There were no acts of violence during the event in which Muslims hung the members of the Danish parliament in effigy and called for the heads to be cut off of the editors of European newspapers that published the cartoons."

That is my point. Violent protests are far more common in the Muslim world even for relatively benign offenses liek drawing a cartoon than they are in other religions.

that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Well, there's a number of reasons for that, but the main one is the Islamic world has never had a period of Enlightenment, so that they've never developed the idea of dissent from religion (except for some very brave - and often very dead - individuals). They are - religiously, in no other way - around 400 years behind the West. That being the case, it kinda matters a shitload more to them, you know?

"Jesus" was also alleged to be non-violent, but he kicked ass in a temple, one time... and he has allegedly got quite a future ahead of him.

So... was Mohammed a violent person? Well.. he was a soldier, but I'm not sure if that is the same thing... otherwise you have to describe Winston Churchill as 'violent'... and I'm not sure most people would see that as his 'determining' feature. Similarly... JFK was a 'fighting man', and, indeed, brought the world close to the brink of nuclear destruction... but I'm not sure he will be remembered as 'violent'.

Okay - so we shall accept Mohammed as willing to fight for what he believed... we should bear in mind that Mohammed walked the earth something like 1400 years ago, when the religio-political climate was very different. It is hardly appropriate to attempt to define his behaviour THEN, by our standards NOW.

Next point, of course... most Muslims will tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. Mohammed may have warred, but 'suicide bombing' was not the central tenet of his teaching.

The cartoons that have been published, are about on a level with a cartoon of Jesus raping a virgin... that is, you could find Jesus' pronouncements about sex, etc... and you COULD claim to justify the act from the text, but it is not what would be considered a 'true' interpretation.

Also - while you are so far up on your high horse, you might like to bear in mind that the Christian 'high horse' has most of 2000 years of history as a WAR horse. The Spanish Conquistadors hanging, then burning, natives - in groups of thirteen, as a tribute to the Lord and his apostles - in the name of Christ... is just as much of an abberration of that faith, as the 'suicide bomber' is of Islam.

Well it is fair given some of the teachings that the Qu'ran includes to intepret him as a viloent and bigoteed man. Granted many Muslims would disagree with that intepretation, but it is one interpretation. For example, the teachings regarding to behead all believers where you find them (Surah 2.191). And also the point I am making is not that Mohammad's being agressive or conquering was bad, but just that it is open to satire, simpley because he was viloent and he did kill many people. However, Anne Frank did not sleep with Hitler and so to make a cartoon about him doing so would be like making a cartoon about Ghandi killing masses of British soldiers in Indea. Its not satire because satire amplifies something accurate and laughs at it.

However, Anne Frank did not sleep with Hitler and so to make a cartoon about him doing so would be like making a cartoon about Ghandi killing masses of British soldiers in Indea. Its not satire because satire amplifies something accurate and laughs at it.The same thing could be said about the Danish drawings. They make a connection between a largely peacefull religion & people fighting in various conflicts.

There are no suicide bombers in Denmark. Why would there be? No demographic in denmark is besieged to the point of skirmishes taking place, so the cartoons have no more root in reality than the Anna Frank cartoon, or vengenza.org's graph of pirates vs. global warming.

Also - while you are so far up on your high horse, you might like to bear in mind that the Christian 'high horse' has most of 2000 years of history as a WAR horse.

This just deserved to be quoted.

not that insulting (2 me at least) i had 2 look up anne frank on wikipedia.then again im not jewish so others probably feel diffrent

While I was living there, a 'magic' shop opened up. I call it a 'magic' shop, because it sold things like crystals and Tarot cards. It received some 'campaining' from local Christian groups for it's sponsorship of 'Satanism' and 'witchcraft' (i.e. it sold Tarot Cards), but weathered that storm realatively unscathed.

It was burned down three times, within the first few years of opening. In the end, the store relocated elsewhere.

Have you considered the (rather more logical) possibility that because they often have insence and various other things burning inside the shop that the fires were of explainable causes, rather than jumping to conclusions.

The same thing could be said about the Danish drawings. They make a connection between a largely peacefull religion & people fighting in various conflicts.

There are no suicide bombers in Denmark. Why would there be? No demographic in denmark is besieged to the point of skirmishes taking place, so the cartoons have no more root in reality than the Anna Frank cartoon, or vengenza.org's graph of pirates vs. global warming.

Except that Mohammad did kill many hundruds of people in his lifetime. Mohammad was someone who was a viloent person. Thus it is not so far removed to portray him as what we would now asscoiate with the viloent side of Islam. I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, nor am I saying that all Christians are innocent. But he was viloent so it is satire to depict him as viloent. It isnt satire to depict Anne Frank sleeping with Hitler because nothing remotely like that ever happend. Satire is just amplifying and mocking an existing trait. For example, the idea on the HIGNFY titles that George Bush throws a dart to see which country to invade next, is an amplification of the level of millitary action his premiership has already seen. And the caricature, is a satirical drawing of someone, which amplifies already existing traits to such an extent to when they become humourous. These cartoons of Anne Frank and Hitler anrt satire because they are not amplification, but perversion, of two disperate elements.

Bump

Well it is fair given some of the teachings that the Qu'ran includes to intepret him as a viloent and bigoteed man. Granted many Muslims would disagree with that intepretation, but it is one interpretation. For example, the teachings regarding to behead all believers where you find them (Surah 2.191). And also the point I am making is not that Mohammad's being agressive or conquering was bad, but just that it is open to satire, simpley because he was viloent and he did kill many people. However, Anne Frank did not sleep with Hitler and so to make a cartoon about him doing so would be like making a cartoon about Ghandi killing masses of British soldiers in Indea. Its not satire because satire amplifies something accurate and laughs at it.

I have to believe that you pulled your source material directly from some Christian-based 'Anti-Islam' site... because I do not believe you have ever actually read the Qu'ran.

If you had, you would have seen the direct context, only one verse BEFORE the Sura you quote:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. Do not fight wars of aggression. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers".

Have you considered the (rather more logical) possibility that because they often have insence and various other things burning inside the shop that the fires were of explainable causes, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Did I say they had incense buring in the store?

Did you ever visit the store?

I visited the store, and did not see anything 'burning' when I was there... not even incense, although they DID sell it. Add to which, of course, the store burned-out each time, AFTER everyone had closed up for the day and gone home.

Is it not more logical to assume that, since they had had action taken against them by Christian fundamentalists, that was thwarted, that the 'fires' were caused by 'less innocent' causes?

Except that Mohammad did kill many hundruds of people in his lifetime. Mohammad was someone who was a viloent person. Thus it is not so far removed to portray him as what we would now asscoiate with the viloent side of Islam. I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, nor am I saying that all Christians are innocent. But he was viloent so it is satire to depict him as viloent. It isnt satire to depict Anne Frank sleeping with Hitler because nothing remotely like that ever happend. Satire is just amplifying and mocking an existing trait. For example, the idea on the HIGNFY titles that George Bush throws a dart to see which country to invade next, is an amplification of the level of millitary action his premiership has already seen. And the caricature, is a satirical drawing of someone, which amplifies already existing traits to such an extent to when they become humourous. These cartoons of Anne Frank and Hitler anrt satire because they are not amplification, but perversion, of two disperate elements.

And Jesus was violent, based on scripture... IF you are selective about WHICH scripture you choose.

Did I say they had incense buring in the store?

Did you ever visit the store?

I visited the store, and did not see anything 'burning' when I was there... not even incense, although they DID sell it. Add to which, of course, the store burned-out each time, AFTER everyone had closed up for the day and gone home.

Is it not more logical to assume that, since they had had action taken against them by Christian fundamentalists, that was thwarted, that the 'fires' were caused by 'less innocent' causes?

Not really. That in fact is rather a large jump. And I have been to many shops of that nature and have indeed seen many things burnt or finished burning. The Christians may have protested outside, but that is no reason to immidately leep to the conclusion that they burnt the place down. While you may not have seen anything burning at the time, there are often insences and joss-sticks lit in those sorts of places.

And Jesus was violent, based on scripture... IF you are selective about WHICH scripture you choose.

Right. You avoid an entire paragraphs arguement and talk about what you want to talk about.

Grow up.

You want to talk about why satire against Jesus is fine, go ahead. But dont do it in response to why this particular cartoon is not satire.

Not really. That in fact is rather a large jump. And I have been to many shops of that nature and have indeed seen many things burnt or finished burning. The Christians may have protested outside, but that is no reason to immidately leep to the conclusion that they burnt the place down. While you may not have seen anything burning at the time, there are often insences and joss-sticks lit in those sorts of places.

You admit, however, that you have not been in the venue I'm discussing?

On the contrary, I visited it several times... since I have a family member that collects Tarot cards. They sold incense... I don't recall ever finding it burning in the store... or even the smell of burned incense.

But, of course, even if they HAD burned incense... incense is not well known for being an effective way of starting fires.... and, it certain beggars belief to assume that they REPEATEDLY managed to accidentally burn down their own store that way.

Add to which, of course, since stores in Lincoln closed around 5 in the evening... and the store was gutted each time in the very small hours of the morning... it seems a stretch to assume incense is the culprit. Honestly... faulty wiring would have been a better argument for you to make... but even THAT is unlikely to serially burn out the same store.

And, of course... neither electrical wiring nor incense would likely have caused the Lincoln police to make statements saying that it looked like arson...

Except that Mohammad did kill many hundruds of people in his lifetime. <Snip>
But that isn't what the drawings are about. Muhammed never bombed anyone, as he didn't have the means. So even if you insist on inventing your own context for the drawings, it won't hold water.

The drawings are a satirical take on the "connection" between Islam & violent Muslim reactionaries. That "connection" only exists, as far as I'm aware, in the minds of intellectually dishonest or ignorant, western reactionaries.

Right. You avoid an entire paragraphs arguement and talk about what you want to talk about.

Grow up.

You want to talk about why satire against Jesus is fine, go ahead. But dont do it in response to why this particular cartoon is not satire.

Grow up, indeed?

The reason I 'avoided' most of the arguments of your paragraph, is because it is either baseless speculation, or it has already been addressed.

1) Show me the physical evidence that Mohammed killed anyone.

2) Show me independent verification of Mohammed's 'violent' temprament.

3) I have already showed that the Sura you quoted was WAY out of context, and, indeed, is an imprecation NOT to engage in aggression.

4) The acts of Islamic extremists have been denounced by many in the Islamic world, because they do not match the wisdom of the Qu'ran... as, for example, the Sura you misquoted.

5) Personally, I do not KNOW who Hitler slept with... OR Anne Frank. I think it unlikely that Hitler was Anne Franks partner... but perhaps that isn't what the cartoon means. PERHAPS, the cartoon means that Judaism has been violated by Christianity. (After all, Frank is imagining blood, so the act was obviously a rape).


I'd advise you not to act too flippant, my friend... I don't generally invoke Moderation, but others might... and when you act as sanctimonious to others, as you have (tried to) act towards me... they may not take it with such good grace.

Grow up, indeed?

The reason I 'avoided' most of the arguments of your paragraph, is because it is either baseless speculation, or it has already been addressed.

So far, you have not once commented on the nature of satire. Which is what I discussed in that paragraph. So yes. Grow up. Stop defending Mohammad and condemming Christianity (which seems to be a large percentage of what you do on these forums) and actually deal with the issue at hand. IE why the Mohammad cartoons are satire and the Anne Frank ones are ridicule.


1) Show me the physical evidence that Mohammed killed anyone.

2) Show me independent verification of Mohammed's 'violent' temprament.

For both, see the battle of Badr.


3) I have already showed that the Sura you quoted was WAY out of context, and, indeed, is an imprecation NOT to engage in aggression.

"Kill them wherever you find them" and "Allah does not love agressors" are contradictions. In the same sentence


4) The acts of Islamic extremists have been denounced by many in the Islamic world, because they do not match the wisdom of the Qu'ran... as, for example, the Sura you misquoted.

I did not dispute that.


5) Personally, I do not KNOW who Hitler slept with... OR Anne Frank. I think it unlikely that Hitler was Anne Franks partner... but perhaps that isn't what the cartoon means. PERHAPS, the cartoon means that Judaism has been violated by Christianity. (After all, Frank is imagining blood, so the act was obviously a rape)..

The point is that the cartoon is just a reaction to another cartoon. Its not in anyway a piece of intelectual satire. I'll just quote what I said before on that so you can actually respond to it this time, instead of ignoring what I said.

Except that Mohammad did kill many hundruds of people in his lifetime (see the Battle of Badr). Mohammad was someone who was a viloent person. Thus it is not so far removed to portray him as what we would now asscoiate with the viloent side of Islam. I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, nor am I saying that all Christians are innocent. But he was viloent so it is satire to depict him as viloent. It isnt satire to depict Anne Frank sleeping with Hitler because nothing remotely like that ever happend. Satire is just amplifying and mocking an existing trait. For example, the idea on the HIGNFY titles that George Bush throws a dart to see which country to invade next, is an amplification of the level of millitary action his premiership has already seen. And the caricature, is a satirical drawing of someone, which amplifies already existing traits to such an extent to when they become humourous. These cartoons of Anne Frank and Hitler anrt satire because they are not amplification, but perversion, of two disperate elements.

But, of course, even if they HAD burned incense... incense is not well known for being an effective way of starting fires.... and, it certain beggars belief to assume that they REPEATEDLY managed to accidentally burn down their own store that way.

Actually, it is rather common. My Aunt in her teenage years did burn Joss sticks and inscence on many an occation and on one occation her room set alight, almost burning down the house, had not the fire brigade been further away.

Candles and burning incense cause 12,000 residential fires every year, according to the NFPA


Add to which, of course, since stores in Lincoln closed around 5 in the evening... and the store was gutted each time in the very small hours of the morning... it seems a stretch to assume incense is the culprit. Honestly... faulty wiring would have been a better argument for you to make... but even THAT is unlikely to serially burn out the same store.

Ciggerete fires are also in the early hours. Because the cigeretes are left burning and the ashes catch onto other things, much later


And, of course... neither electrical wiring nor incense would likely have caused the Lincoln police to make statements saying that it looked like arson...

In much the same way that mistakes regarding fires can be made to seem to be arson when the people in question intentionally light the object that start the fire. My father is a barrister so he often deals with arson cases and such mistakes are reasonably commonplace. Espically before more advanced chemical breakdown equipment was made available.

2) Show me independent verification of Mohammed's 'violent' temprament.
...

That one seems a bit too easy.

Here’s an excerpt from a nice little summary article on OmniNerd covering the rise of Islam.

In Medina Mohammed found a mixed polity of Jews and Arabs. This diversity most likely facilitated his introduction into the city as the population believed they could look to Mohammed to serve as an arbitrator in their local disputes. His rule in Medina was not without contention though. Various political factions opposed his growing religious power and the Jewish community was not as receptive as Mohammed had hoped they would be. Mohammed’s adoption of several Jewish practices, including the fast of Kippur and ritual prayer towards Jerusalem, failed to convert the Jewish community. In his agitation Mohammed abandoned the Jewish rites and altered the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. Furthermore, Mohammed and his followers forcibly dislocated the Jewish community in Medina after which they seized and redistributed the former Jewish property. Expansion of the Muslim faithful followed and left Mohammed searching for new areas of enrichment. He found this room in another Jewish settlement located north of Medina. The Muslims captured and subdued this oasis without much difficulty, but chose now tax rather than forced expulsion as their modus vivendi with the unconverted.
http://www.omninerd.com/2004/10/11/articles/18

Actually, it is rather common. My Aunt in her teenage years did burn Joss sticks and inscence on many an occation and on one occation her room set alight, almost burning down the house, had not the fire brigade been further away.


So... you have anecdotal evidence of one occassion... not even close, I assume, to Lincoln, yes?

As I asked... are you familiar with the store in question?

Even if there HAD been incense burning (as I said, I never encountered such a thing there), that might explain once... but probably not repeated.


Ciggerete fires are also in the early hours. Because the cigeretes are left burning and the ashes catch onto other things, much later


Cigarette fires are usually quite different to incense fires. For one - incense is usually burned in a protective containment, or on some kind of platform. For another, cigarette fires are usually caused because someone falls asleep WHILE smoking, and the still-burning cigarette comes in contact with soft/flammable material. Unless you are trying to imply that one of the shopkeepers had a habit of holding lit incense in the store, at about 2 in the morning, your speculation is showing.


In much the same way that mistakes regarding fires can be made to seem to be arson when the people in question intentionally light the object that start the fire. My father is a barrister so he often deals with arson cases and such mistakes are reasonably commonplace. Espically before more advanced chemical breakdown equipment was made available.

I'm not sure how advanced you chemical equipment needs to be to spot an ignition agent. As a chemist, myself, I could probably conduct any of half a dozen tests that MIGHT highlight agents indicative of arson...


I have to ask... since you are most likely NOT from Lincoln, and thus, have likely NEVER MET any of the individuals who would most likely be implicated if it WERE arson-by-Christians... why are you so adamant that NO christian could possibly have been involved?

So far, you have not once commented on the nature of satire. Which is what I discussed in that paragraph. So yes. Grow up. Stop defending Mohammad and condemming Christianity (which seems to be a large percentage of what you do on these forums) and actually deal with the issue at hand. IE why the Mohammad cartoons are satire and the Anne Frank ones are ridicule.


I am not defending Mohammed any more than I would defend Jesus. It just so happens, that you are 'attacking' Mohammed... with little evidentiary support. A weak argument is weak no matter WHO it is about.

Condemning Christianity seems to be a large percentage of what I do?... I'd say I debate it... and I certainly condemn ORGANISED religion, because I perceive it to be contrary to scripture... but I don't know that I spend THAT MUCH time 'condemning' Christianity...

Which is kind of unimportant, anyway... because your 'ad hominem' attack has NO BEARING on THIS topic.


For both, see the battle of Badr.


What is your source?


"Kill them wherever you find them" and "Allah does not love agressors" are contradictions. In the same sentence


And, I have already shown (in this thread) why it is so dishonest of you to cite that verse, in that fashion. I can make Jesus say anything I want, if I ONLY pick the words i want, out of context.


The point is that the cartoon is just a reaction to another cartoon. Its not in anyway a piece of intelectual satire. I'll just quote what I said before on that so you can actually respond to it this time, instead of ignoring what I said.

Except that Mohammad did kill many hundruds of people in his lifetime (see the Battle of Badr). Mohammad was someone who was a viloent person. Thus it is not so far removed to portray him as what we would now asscoiate with the viloent side of Islam. I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, nor am I saying that all Christians are innocent. But he was viloent so it is satire to depict him as viloent. It isnt satire to depict Anne Frank sleeping with Hitler because nothing remotely like that ever happend. Satire is just amplifying and mocking an existing trait. For example, the idea on the HIGNFY titles that George Bush throws a dart to see which country to invade next, is an amplification of the level of millitary action his premiership has already seen. And the caricature, is a satirical drawing of someone, which amplifies already existing traits to such an extent to when they become humourous. These cartoons of Anne Frank and Hitler anrt satire because they are not amplification, but perversion, of two disperate elements.

I've already responded to most of the points here. You have yet to prove Mohammed violent, or that his word in ANY way suggests the actions of a few extremists.

I see nothing contained herein, that warrants further expansion.

If you feel different, what is it, specifically, that you feel remains unaddressed?

Also - I note you didn't respond in any way, to my suggestion that you (and, apparently, MOST people seeing the cartoon) may be missing what the message MIGHT be.

That one seems a bit too easy.

Here’s an excerpt from a nice little summary article on OmniNerd covering the rise of Islam.

In Medina Mohammed found a mixed polity of Jews and Arabs. This diversity most likely facilitated his introduction into the city as the population believed they could look to Mohammed to serve as an arbitrator in their local disputes. His rule in Medina was not without contention though. Various political factions opposed his growing religious power and the Jewish community was not as receptive as Mohammed had hoped they would be. Mohammed’s adoption of several Jewish practices, including the fast of Kippur and ritual prayer towards Jerusalem, failed to convert the Jewish community. In his agitation Mohammed abandoned the Jewish rites and altered the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. Furthermore, Mohammed and his followers forcibly dislocated the Jewish community in Medina after which they seized and redistributed the former Jewish property. Expansion of the Muslim faithful followed and left Mohammed searching for new areas of enrichment. He found this room in another Jewish settlement located north of Medina. The Muslims captured and subdued this oasis without much difficulty, but chose now tax rather than forced expulsion as their modus vivendi with the unconverted.
http://www.omninerd.com/2004/10/11/articles/18

Unless I am very much mistaken, this source "OmniNerd: A Concise History of Islam"... is far from contemporary... indeed, I see a 'published date' of 11th October 2004.

Also - Unless I am mistaken, again... the source 'cited' for the material described here, is "The Arabs in History"... which has a 'published date' of 23rd May, 2002.


Perhaps I wasn't being clear.... I would like to see 'independent' evidence to support claims.... and, obviously, contemporary evidence would be greatly preferred. At least... a little more contemporary than a text written one-and-a-half-THOUSAND-years later...?

I'm siding with the non-black&white thinkers here.
Anyone who says, "No X would burn down an embassy" obviously has no idea that every group has extremists... not to mention that it doesn't take many of those extremists to influence mob mentality when people are already angry.

Believe it or not, there have been peaceful protests to the cartoon by Islamic people.

And believe it or not, some people are protesting the fact that Mohammad was portrayed AT ALL, rather than just in a negative light. I've heard that they don't like ANY religious icon to be drawn/sculpted/etc. Not just their prophet, but also Jesus, Moses, etc. It's something they just DON'T DO and think cheapens it. They just have a VERY different way of viewing it than the western churches, who plaster Jesus' face all over everything.
Now, coming from that viewpoint, would they draw a cartoon of Jesus raping Anne Frank? I doubt it... that would go against their religious beliefs as well, and be counter productive. Cartoons of Hitler, however, are not against that religious tenet, so that's going to be the way they show their "freedom of speech."

some people are protesting the fact that Mohammad was portrayed AT ALL, rather than just in a negative light. I've heard that they don't like ANY religious icon to be drawn/sculpted/etc. Not just their prophet, but also Jesus, Moses, etc. It's something they just DON'T DO and think cheapens it.Depicting Muhammed (PBUH) is taboo in Islam. Depicting other holy figures isn't.

Regardless, these drawings were published in a country where religious taboo is optional. There are no laws against publishing pictures of the Prophet in Denmark. JP was investigated by the police, who dropped the case. The Danish courts have ruled the newspaper was well within their rights.

We can debate the wisdom of depicting Muhammed (PBUH) wearing a bomb-hat - I wouldn't have done it - but the legalities are crystal clear. And it is equally crystal clear that neither religious representatives, nor forign heads of State's have any right to attempt to force Denmark to change it's free speech laws.

Continued demands that Denmark change its legislation, or face 'consequences' isn't that far from being an outright declaration of war.

I'm as liberal as they come, but these media PC cunts are seriously starting to piss me off.

Unless I am very much mistaken, this source "OmniNerd: A Concise History of Islam"... is far from contemporary... indeed, I see a 'published date' of 11th October 2004.

Also - Unless I am mistaken, again... the source 'cited' for the material described here, is "The Arabs in History"... which has a 'published date' of 23rd May, 2002.


Perhaps I wasn't being clear.... I would like to see 'independent' evidence to support claims.... and, obviously, contemporary evidence would be greatly preferred. At least... a little more contemporary than a text written one-and-a-half-THOUSAND-years later...?


I'm sorry, I didn't see you quantify the question with a stipulation of requiring it to be from a source that is contemporary of Mohammed.

I'll look at your question again:

Grow up, indeed?

The reason I 'avoided' most of the arguments of your paragraph, is because it is either baseless speculation, or it has already been addressed.

1) Show me the physical evidence that Mohammed killed anyone.

2) Show me independent verification of Mohammed's 'violent' temprament.

3) I have already showed that the Sura you quoted was WAY out of context, and, indeed, is an imprecation NOT to engage in aggression.

4) The acts of Islamic extremists have been denounced by many in the Islamic world, because they do not match the wisdom of the Qu'ran... as, for example, the Sura you misquoted.

5) Personally, I do not KNOW who Hitler slept with... OR Anne Frank. I think it unlikely that Hitler was Anne Franks partner... but perhaps that isn't what the cartoon means. PERHAPS, the cartoon means that Judaism has been violated by Christianity. (After all, Frank is imagining blood, so the act was obviously a rape).

I'd advise you not to act too flippant, my friend... I don't generally invoke Moderation, but others might... and when you act as sanctimonious to others, as you have (tried to) act towards me... they may not take it with such good grace.

Nope, I still don't see it. I saw then, and see now that you asked for independent verification of Mohammed's 'violent' temprament. and I assumed you meant an outside source. I provided one, and thankfully, I didn't have to write it myself.

The article credited this book as it’s source: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HOUHIR.html and unless you are suggesting that we can’t trust Albert Hourani or Malise Ruthven to have produced a book from reputable research, I fail to see how you can justify your implication that it is ‘untrustworthy’ at this point.

That Anne Frank thing was kind of charming. I don't get it, though. Is Hitler a good guy or a bad guy from a radical islamist view?

I think it's just to be offensive.

Honestly, it made me laugh. :D

I'm sorry, I didn't see you quantify the question with a stipulation of requiring it to be from a source that is contemporary of Mohammed.

I'll look at your question again:

Nope, I still don't see it. I saw then, and see now that you asked for independent verification of Mohammed's 'violent' temprament. and I assumed you meant an outside source. I provided one, and thankfully, I didn't have to write it myself.

The article credited this book as it’s source: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HOUHIR.html and unless you are suggesting that we can’t trust Albert Hourani or Malise Ruthven to have produced a book from reputable research, I fail to see how you can justify your implication that it is ‘untrustworthy’ at this point.

I really thought it was kind of implicit, I'm afraid.

What use is anyone's opinion TODAY, of what happened more than a thousand years ago? After all, I've read books that suggest Jesus existed, but was never crucified, and went to live in Egypt with his wife and kids.

Do you accept such a source as valid... or would you be more concerned with the justification for, and evidentiary support for, such assertions?

Originally Posted by PsychoticDan
It has nothing to do with it being inapropriate. No one is arguing that Muslims have no right to protest depictions of their prophet. Jews can and should protest this absolutely stupid cartoon as well. Somehow I doubt they're going to burn down any embassies, though. I also doubt they're going to threaten to cut people's heads off.

And, what about if the picture had been 'on a level' with the previous ones, and it had been Jesus that had just raped Anne Frank, rather than Hitler?[/QUOTE]

Grave, that's the point Psychotic is making. Even if it had been Jesus raping Anne Frank, the person who publishd the cartoon had the right to publish it. Ok - many Christians and Jews may be gravely offended, but neither the Jews nor the Christians would be in the right for threatening to behead people, for burning embassies or trying to restrict freedom of speech in other nations.

You may not like it but it was acceptable for the JPosten to publish those original cartoons for the reasons that it did. You may not like the Hitler & Anne Frank cartoon, but it is acceptable for that cartoonist to publish that pic - to test the European claim to free speech. And it would be acceptable to publish a pic of Jesus raping Anne Frank for the same reason. Grievous offence is not a sufficient reason for censorship

I think it's time to make a cartoon of Jesus sodomizing Mohammed with a crucifix while Hitler is watching while being "orally serviced" by Anne Frank and everyone involved is eating pork and drinking wine. That covers all of the major bases I think.

And something to do with Ghandi.

I think it's time to make a cartoon of Jesus sodomizing Mohammed with a crucifix while Hitler is watching while being "orally serviced" by Anne Frank and everyone involved is eating pork and drinking wine. That covers all of the major bases I think.

You forgot Hinduism. I suppose some Hindu god gorging on beef would suffice.

I'm as liberal as they come, but these media PC cunts are seriously starting to piss me off.

I just wanted to quote that - it's a great phrase :D You have a subtle touch with words :p

You may not like it but it was acceptable for the JPosten to publish those original cartoons for the reasons that it did. You may not like the Hitler & Anne Frank cartoon, but it is acceptable for that cartoonist to publish that pic - to test the European claim to free speech. And it would be acceptable to publish a pic of Jesus raping Anne Frank for the same reason. Grievous offence is not a sufficient reason for censorship

Indeed. I agree with the right to publish this, but its not satire, its just ridicule. So there is no point in trying to label it as satire. Satire amplifies something that is true. Mohammad did engage in various battles and conflicts. The battle of Badr is part of the Quran, as are various other battles that Mohammad particpated in.

Funny thing is, that in spite of the fatwahs, death threats, attacks on foreign workers, burning of embassies, burning of flags, insidious hate-speech, riots and now these reciprocating cartoons, many aspects of the media will still cast the muslims as victims in this chapter of history.

That Anne Frank thing was kind of charming. I don't get it, though. Is Hitler a good guy or a bad guy from a radical islamist view?

The radical Isalmist view of Hitler is an interesting one since it tempers Holocaust denial with the conviction that Hitler was sent from God to be a scourge of Judaism. Fairly paradoxical concepts one would think.

Try again Mohammed... ;) (I don't feel upset about the cartoon)

It is more funny though than the vast majority of those Danish ones. But then, I really couldn't stand Anne Frank when I had to read her diary. What a bitch!

But really, some neat cartoons are usually made by "Shujaat" from Al-Jazeera. Have a look:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm
The above cartoon is not funny?? What moron wrote this crap... Oh yeah stupid Aljazeera humor from terrorists go figure

Grave, that's the point Psychotic is making. Even if it had been Jesus raping Anne Frank, the person who publishd the cartoon had the right to publish it. Ok - many Christians and Jews may be gravely offended, but neither the Jews nor the Christians would be in the right for threatening to behead people, for burning embassies or trying to restrict freedom of speech in other nations.

You may not like it but it was acceptable for the JPosten to publish those original cartoons for the reasons that it did. You may not like the Hitler & Anne Frank cartoon, but it is acceptable for that cartoonist to publish that pic - to test the European claim to free speech. And it would be acceptable to publish a pic of Jesus raping Anne Frank for the same reason. Grievous offence is not a sufficient reason for censorship

No - I don't think that was the point Psychotic was making... the implication seems to be that, cartoon or otherwise, Muslims are inherently some kind of 'evil'... and that it was OKAY for Christian nations to mock Islam, but somehow NOT okay the other way around... and that the only difference is that ALL Christians would 'turn the other cheek', while ALL Muslims would try to kill someone.

I don't particularly care for either cartoon, and I support the rights of both groups to distribute whichever images they feel their rights to free speech allow.

However, I also think it might be a good idea sometimes, to temper your free speech, with thoughts about the possible ramifications of your actions. And, I think it might be another good idea, for people to TRY to see both sides of a debate.

In this case, the common argument is that it is okay to ridicule Mohammed, but Muslims were wrong to make an oblique response. I don't buy that... it is just as right or wrong, either way.

That Anne Frank thing was kind of charming. I don't get it, though. Is Hitler a good guy or a bad guy from a radical islamist view?


The extremist muslims in the middle east don't believe the holocaust happened, so I think they just would have viewed hitler as just another war general. Maybe they would like him for screwing with the US, England, and France and such so much.