NationStates Jolt Archive

The main Iranian newspaper is holding a competition for holocaust cartoons. They want to test the West's commitment to free speech. What will they do when Westerners don't burn down anything or threaten to kill artists? Will they finally conceed that our way of life is civilized and theirs is absolutely barbaric? Naw, they'll just ignore it and find something to be angry about.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-07T122008Z_01_L07690305_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-IRAN-HOLOCAUST.xml&archived=False

I already have my "Death to Holocaust Deniers" poster, my gasoline filled bottles, several large rocks, and a few friends to march in protest against the local mosque. I'll show them a protest!

or they will start publishing hate articles, cartoons, pics etc... all in the name of "Free Speech"

Mind you, most of the west doesn't really support free speech anyway. Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the US are the only ones I know that give it more than lip service. Oh, and Japan, depending on whether you see Japan as part of the west.

Still, we might see a few protests over this, though probably not.

World War 3 started by a cartoon...*phew* Did not see that coming.

I better get into the Iranian flag market. I have a feeling they're going to sell like hotcakes.

World War 3 started by a cartoon...*phew* Did not see that coming.

Yes, and everyone on NS thought that the warmongering US would start the war.

Who would have thought that a bunch of hash-smoking Danish cartoonists with a great sense of humor would piss off millions of Moslems?

Yes, and everyone on NS thought that the warmongering US would start the war.

I have a feeling that will play into it somehow.

Bush:"In order to protect the most basic of freedoms, freedom of speech, it will become necessary to silence any naysayers. *pulls out a map of South America* I'm looking your way Middle East."

Yes, and everyone on NS thought that the warmongering US would start the war.

Who would have thought that a bunch of hash-smoking Danish cartoonists with a great sense of humor would piss off millions of Moslems?

I never would have thought it, but I can't hold it against them. Danish are delicious. :D

As My Old Philosophy Goes: "Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger"

I have a feeling that will play into it somehow.

Bush:"In order to protect the most basic of freedoms, freedom of speech, it will become necessary to silence any naysayers. *pulls out a map of South America* I'm looking your way Middle East."

We're going to go second this time.

Because of course, ridiculing the organised massacre on six million people is identical to ridiculing a single person (Well, given the content of the cartoons, an entire religion, but they weren't massacred in quite the same way, now were they?).

I guess that satire featuring Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Benjamin Franklin just doesn't have the same ring to it...

Well, I suppose once we're not burning the Qu'ran - As Saudi-Arabia does with Bibles, but we shall forget this little detail - we'll get labelled as 'Weak' and 'Unfaithful', not worth being considered humans.

Also an opinion.

As My Old Philosophy Goes: "Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger"

Figure that one out all by yourself, did yeah? :rolleyes:

I personally don't care about what Iran puts in their newspapers, it's of no consequence to me. And I don't think that the west should dignify it with a response, we'd only be giving them what they want.

Yes, and everyone on NS thought that the warmongering US would start the war.

Who would have thought that a bunch of hash-smoking Danish cartoonists with a great sense of humor would piss off millions of Moslems?

The warmongering US DID cause this, because if we didnt warmonger against Hitler, Denmark wouldnt HAVE free speech or a free press and these cartoons never would have been published, right? :fluffle:

As My Old Philosophy Goes: "Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger"

Gee, there wasn't worldwide protest and an "International Day of Anger" while the US took over two Islamic countries and bombed and killed and shot and imprisoned Islamic militants.

A few artists draw a few pictures in Denmark and BOOM.

BTW, I've fought a few people in combat before. Fighting fire with fire works really, really well, especially if you have far more fire and far more accurate fire. The people on the other end die, and they stop shooting at you.

It makes the fire grow smaller, if you do it right.

Figure that one out all by yourself, did yeah? :rolleyes:
Well The Philosophy Is Mine, But it Most Definetly Fits This Situation Perfectly.

The warmongering US DID cause this, because if we didnt warmonger against Hitler, Denmark wouldnt HAVE free speech or a free press and these cartoons never would have been published, right? :fluffle:

We were attacked first in that war actually...

BTW, I've fought a few people in combat before. Fighting fire with fire works really, really well, especially if you have far more fire and far more accurate fire. The people on the other end die, and they stop shooting at you.

It makes the fire grow smaller, if you do it right.
Deep, You Know What I Mean. It's A Metaphor Man...

I better get into the Iranian flag market. I have a feeling they're going to sell like hotcakes.

lol, that and the Embassy Construction industry.

Gee, there wasn't worldwide protest and an "International Day of Anger" while the US took over two Islamic countries and bombed and killed and shot and imprisoned Islamic militants.

A few artists draw a few pictures in Denmark and BOOM.

BTW, I've fought a few people in combat before. Fighting fire with fire works really, really well, especially if you have far more fire and far more accurate fire. The people on the other end die, and they stop shooting at you.

It makes the fire grow smaller, if you do it right.

In the context of this situation it will make things worse. On the battlefield the more fire you throw around the better.

Deep, You Know What I Mean. It's A Metaphor Man...
Metaphors are a poor substitute for reality.

When people shoot at me, I'm not going to stand there and wax poetic.

As My Old Philosophy Goes: "Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger"

Learn that from Red Adair did you?

Let me guess; I suppose violence never solves anything either?

Metaphors are a poor substitute for reality.

When people shoot at me, I'm not going to stand there and wax poetic.

If you spend your whole life getting shot at you won't live long enough to wax poetic. The gunfire stops at somepoint.

Gee, there wasn't worldwide protest and an "International Day of Anger" while the US took over two Islamic countries and bombed and killed and shot and imprisoned Islamic militants.

A few artists draw a few pictures in Denmark and BOOM.

BTW, I've fought a few people in combat before. Fighting fire with fire works really, really well, especially if you have far more fire and far more accurate fire. The people on the other end die, and they stop shooting at you.

It makes the fire grow smaller, if you do it right.

this is sort of weird... see if this makes sense (it won't, but it might be right):

Many here get pissed off at war
Many there do not

Many there get pissed off at cartoons making fun of Mohammed
Many here would simply laugh at Jesus cartoons, probably even most Christians


---
It seems like they think war is okay; they respect force. War is a way of life there, perhaps.

They do NOT handle satire very well... an overreaction that might stem from a very non-free press, the inability to think apart from Islam, etc.

Learn that from Red Adair did you?

Let me guess; I suppose violence never solves anything either?
What? I Never Heard Of A "Red Adair". I Made Up That Philosophy By Myself.

If the dipshit childish Islamists want to draw holocaust images let them, lets just laugh at their bad drawings and rip them apart. Man those "People" have nothig but a black heart , if you can call it that.

Stupid punks!

Rich

What? I Never Heard Of A "Red Adair". I Made Up That Philosophy By Myself.

It was a simple philosophy that was very logical. I don't see a problem with it.

this is sort of weird... see if this makes sense (it won't, but it might be right):

Many here get pissed off at war
Many there do not

Many there get pissed off at cartoons making fun of Mohammed
Many here would simply laugh at Jesus cartoons, probably even most Christians


---
It seems like they think war is okay; they respect force. War is a way of life there, perhaps.

They do NOT handle satire very well... an overreaction that might stem from a very non-free press, the inability to think apart from Islam, etc.


Obviously, they're more pissed off at satire than they are at the US bombing them.

Weird, isn't it?

Blasphemy is obviously more important to many of them (not all, of course).

Its a fair sight more extreme, where as the original Danish cartoons may have had the point of all Muslims being terrorists (which isnt true, even if all terrorists were muslims, which isnt true it wouldnt be true) its still not quite as extreme as poking fun at the death of millions of Jews.

Although personally if they draw a good enough cartoon, and its actually funny, Id laugh ragardless of how insensitive it may be or as much as i may dislike the concept of it, everything is open for humour if its funny even in bad taste. (one of those "haha oooh eww harsh" jokes, like for example the baby jokes (of which i have a selection) :P)

If the dipshit childish Islamists want to draw holocaust images let them, lets just laugh at their bad drawings and rip them apart. Man those "People" have nothig but a black heart , if you can call it that.

Stupid punks!

Rich

Oh god you're here

*hides behind a rock*

It was a simple philosophy that was very logical. I don't see a problem with it.

He became slightly famous for, amongst other things, fighting fire with fire.

Absurd. They are acting like a bunch of little brats.

Kinda ironic how vitriolic and condemning everyone here is of a bunch of cartoons (yet to be drawn) making fun of the holocaust yet the same people are going on about how irrational and over-sensitive others are about cartoons mocking their beliefs. Almost smacks of hypocrisy and double-standards.
Naw, I can't believe any US citizen is capable of that.

Also most here are missing the point that perhaps the Iranian newspaper wishes to make about what is deemed acceptable in the West. Would a Danish or German or French editor have accepted a cartoon that ridiculed the holocaust? Considering it's a crime to deny it's existence in 2 of those 3 countries, obviously not. Even ignoring that fact for the moment, I'd say they wouldn't have anyway, out of concern not to offend anyone, jew and non-jew. Yet this same consideration obviously doesn't flow onto muslim.

The offending cartoons were obviously going to deeply offend and anger some people - exactly the same way cartoons ridiculing the holocaust will. Yet they were still published, knowing full well that they would cause great offence to a great number of people. Which calls into the question the motive behind doing so.

Kinda ironic how vitriolic and condemning everyone here is of a bunch of cartoons (yet to be drawn) making fun of the holocaust yet the same people are going on about how irrational and over-sensitive others are about cartoons mocking their beliefs. Almost smacks of hypocrisy and double-standards.
Naw, I can't believe any US citizen is capable of that.

It would be irony if we were upset because the Holocaust cartoons were going to upset us. It's not irony when we're vitrolic about this childish response to being offended. I could care less what the drawings end up being. I'm just amazed that so many Muslims are the mental equivalent of 10 year old only children.

Kinda ironic how vitriolic and condemning everyone here is of a bunch of cartoons (yet to be drawn) making fun of the holocaust yet the same people are going on about how irrational and over-sensitive others are about cartoons mocking their beliefs. Almost smacks of hypocrisy and double-standards.
Naw, I can't believe any US citizen is capable of that.

Also most here are missing the point that perhaps the Iranian newspaper wishes to make about what is deemed acceptable in the West. Would a Danish or German or French editor have accepted a cartoon that ridiculed the holocaust? Considering it's a crime to deny it's existence in 2 of those 3 countries, obviously not. Even ignoring that fact for the moment, I'd say they wouldn't have anyway, out of concern not to offend anyone, jew and non-jew. Yet this same consideration obviously doesn't flow onto muslim.

The offending cartoons were obviously going to deeply offend and anger some people - exactly the same way cartoons ridiculing the holocaust will. Yet they were still published, knowing full well that they would cause great offense to a great number of people. Which calls into the question the motive behind doing so.
You know, if the Danish cartoons had only received vitriolic condemnation by Muslims there would be no issue. Instead the artist and newspaper received death threats and embassies were burned down. There is no double standard here. We're going to behave ourselves as civilized people. Apparently middle eastern "culture" doesn't teach civilized behavior.

It would be irony if we were upset because the Holocaust cartoons were going to upset us. It's not irony when we're vitrolic about this childish response to being offended. I could care less what the drawings end up being. I'm just amazed that so many Muslims are the mental equivalent of 10 year old only children.Actually, watching the footage from the burning of the embassy in Lebanon gave me hope. There were muslim clerics attempting to keep the people from throwing rocks. Protests remained peaceful in Egypt (though tight security might have had a bit to do with that). There is a loud, radical minority that is jumping on the bandwagon and attempting to drown out the moderate voices with their rants.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just finding one more excuse to attack Israel. He is just a blowhard trying to protect his position.

You know, if the Danish cartoons had only received vitriolic condemnation by Muslims there would be no issue. Instead the artist and newspaper received death threats and embassies were burned down. There is no double standard here. We're going to behave ourselves as civilized people. Apparently middle eastern "culture" doesn't teach civilized behavior.
Oh, you mean for example like how right-wing Christians only condemned 'Last temptation of Christ' and didn't send death-threats to the makers, nor threaten cinemas for showing it?
Oh wait, they did. and let's not forget the firebombing of one cinema showing the movie that killed a patron. So far, no-one's died in the current embassy attacks, so I guess that makes it
Right-wing Christians 1 : fundamentalist Muslims 0.

Then there's the attacks by right-wing christians on abortion clinics, doctors, nurses, anyone connected with them. All because it offends their sensitivity and goes against their religious beliefs and convictions.

Yep, we're way more civilised than them dirty muslims.

Also most here are missing the point that perhaps the Iranian newspaper wishes to make about what is deemed acceptable in the West. Would a Danish or German or French editor have accepted a cartoon that ridiculed the holocaust?

Possibly, possibly not. Would they have accepted a cartoon mocking Christ or Abraham, perhaps a cartoon of Christ blowing up a gay bar or Abraham counting money? Most likely, yes.

There's a small difference between laughing at the deaths of millions of people and mocking a religious leader - even one who started the religion in question. Do you think the paper would have accepted a cartoon mocking any genocide?

The offending cartoons were obviously going to deeply offend and anger some people - exactly the same way cartoons ridiculing the holocaust will.

Not *exactly* the same way, considering that mocking a genocide is offensive for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, but offensive nonetheless, of course!

Yet they were still published, knowing full well that they would cause great offence to a great number of people. Which calls into the question the motive behind doing so.

The motive may have been to offend. Thing is, that isn't illegal, and can't be in a country that claims freedom of expression.

Kinda ironic how vitriolic and condemning everyone here is of a bunch of cartoons (yet to be drawn) making fun of the holocaust yet the same people are going on about how irrational and over-sensitive others are about cartoons mocking their beliefs. Almost smacks of hypocrisy and double-standards.
Naw, I can't believe any US citizen is capable of that.

Yet to be drawn bullshit. There's been anti-semetic cartoons circulating in the Dar al Islam for a long, long time. The most notorious one to come out recently was one of Adolf Hitler (with swatika tattoos on his pecs) in bed with a young girl saying "Write that one up in your diary, Anne.", or words near-identical to those.

Mohammed was a terrorist. After being banished from Mecca for his rabble-rousing and iconoclasm he raised an army that, among other things, terrorised caravans bound for Mecca. He's no more exempt from caricature than the much maligned Jesus Christ.

As My Old Philosophy Goes: "Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger"

Wow, That Is A Totally Deep Statement. You Are So Wise. Can I Be Your Young Apprentice And Learn From Your Great Wisdom? You Have So Much To Teach All Of Us, Especially This Incredible Skill Of Capitalizing The First Letter Of Every Sentence. I Bow Down In Reverence Of You.

So far, no-one's died in the current embassy attacks, so I guess that makes it
Right-wing Christians 1 : fundamentalist Muslims 0.

Really?

"But tens of thousands of Muslims around the world continue to stage protests -- some resulting in deaths -- over the cartoons.

Two protesters were killed and 13 others injured, when Afghan police fired Monday on about 2,000 protesters who tried to enter Bagram Airbase, a U.S. base north of Kabul, The Associated Press reported.

In the Afghan city of Mihtarlam, two protesters were killed and three others injured when police fired on a crowd after a man fired shots and others threw stones and knives, according to the AP. (Watch the stones fly and police batons swing -- 2:25)

In the east African nation of Somalia, a stampede during a protest killed a teenager, AP reported. (Full story)"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html

No one has died at all? No protestors who threw rocks and knives at military? No teenager killed in the press of a mob?

The motive may have been to offend. Thing is, that isn't illegal, and can't be in a country that claims freedom of expression.
Well, freedom of speech is all well and good, but responsible media have a social and moral obligation to combat intolerance and to ensure open public debate about matters of public concern.

In this case, these cartoons were obviously not designed to raise serious and informed debate about the issues, only to offend. So they shouldn't have been published.

Really?

"But tens of thousands of Muslims around the world continue to stage protests -- some resulting in deaths -- over the cartoons.

Two protesters were killed and 13 others injured, when Afghan police fired Monday on about 2,000 protesters who tried to enter Bagram Airbase, a U.S. base north of Kabul, The Associated Press reported.

In the Afghan city of Mihtarlam, two protesters were killed and three others injured when police fired on a crowd after a man fired shots and others threw stones and knives, according to the AP. (Watch the stones fly and police batons swing -- 2:25)

In the east African nation of Somalia, a stampede during a protest killed a teenager, AP reported. (Full story)"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html

No one has died at all? No protestors who threw rocks and knives at military? No teenager killed in the press of a mob?
Whoops.
I guess that makes it
Right wing Christians 1 Fundamentalist muslims 2


Good thing for you. Now you can totally ignore my whole post.
Also ignore the fact that it was the fundamentalists who died, not innocent people while you're at it.

It's funny to me that we've gotten to the point where we're not even getting pissed off about WORDS any more...now we just look at the pictures :).

Well, freedom of speech is all well and good, but responsible media have a social and moral obligation to combat intolerance and to ensure open public debate about matters of public concern.

In this case, these cartoons were obviously not designed to raise serious and informed debate about the issues, only to offend. So they shouldn't have been published.

There you go! These newspapers just wanted to stir up trouble.

Oh, you mean for example like how right-wing Christians only condemned 'Last temptation of Christ' and didn't send death-threats to the makers, nor threaten cinemas for showing it?
Oh wait, they did. and let's not forget the firebombing of one cinema showing the movie that killed a patron. So far, no-one's died in the current embassy attacks, so I guess that makes it
Right-wing Christians 1 : fundamentalist Muslims 0.

Then there's the attacks by right-wing christians on abortion clinics, doctors, nurses, anyone connected with them. All because it offends their sensitivity and goes against their religious beliefs and convictions.

Yep, we're way more civilised than them dirty muslims.
Yeah, we are. People who are involved in abortion center bombings and making death threats to film makers in Western countries are actively pursued by law enforcement and locked up. They're violating the rules of our civilized society. In Iran and other middle eastern countries they seem to be getting away with it. Hell, Iran issued the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.

Living in a civilized society doesn't mean individual criminals won't act like barbarians, it means that the society itself condems and punishes their actions.

Yet to be drawn bullshit. There's been anti-semetic cartoons circulating in the Dar al Islam for a long, long time. The most notorious one to come out recently was one of Adolf Hitler (with swatika tattoos on his pecs) in bed with a young girl saying "Write that one up in your diary, Anne.", or words near-identical to those.

Mohammed was a terrorist. After being banished from Mecca for his rabble-rousing and iconoclasm he raised an army that, among other things, terrorised caravans bound for Mecca. He's no more exempt from caricature than the much maligned Jesus Christ.
Ohhh...another person picking one part of a sentence so as to totally ignore my post. I'm doing well here!
Just forget that we were discussing the cartoons that have yet to be published in Iranian newspaper, not any others that have been published.

Possibly, possibly not. Would they have accepted a cartoon mocking Christ or Abraham, perhaps a cartoon of Christ blowing up a gay bar or Abraham counting money? Most likely, yes.

There's a small difference between laughing at the deaths of millions of people and mocking a religious leader - even one who started the religion in question. Do you think the paper would have accepted a cartoon mocking any genocide?


Hmmm why don't you explain the difference?

It would depend on the papers story. If they ran an article about how many Muslims deny the holocaust then yes they would accept the cartoon.

Just like the paper probably wouldn't have run a Prophet cartoon by itself....

Yeah, we are. People who are involved in abortion center bombings and making death threats to film makers in Western countries are actively pursued by law enforcement and locked up. They're violating the rules of our civilized society. In Iran and other middle eastern countries they seem to be getting away with it. Hell, Iran issued the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.

Living in a civilized society doesn't mean individual criminals won't act like barbarians, it means that the society itself condems and punishes their actions.
So no authorities are trying to stop the protests? Funny that, considering someone in an early post said 2 protesters were shot by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...sts/index.html

Well, freedom of speech is all well and good, but responsible media have a social and moral obligation to combat intolerance and to ensure open public debate about matters of public concern.

In this case, these cartoons were obviously not designed to raise serious and informed debate about the issues, only to offend. So they shouldn't have been published.

Oh. So the press needs to have responsibilities which is another way to say restrictions......

So no authorities are trying to stop the protests? Funny that, considering someone in an early post said 2 protesters were shot by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...sts/index.html
Page not found

Are you talking about the "protest" in Afghanistan that involved a mob shooting at and throwing grenades at a Norwegian NATO peacekeeping force?

Well, freedom of speech is all well and good, but responsible media have a social and moral obligation to combat intolerance and to ensure open public debate about matters of public concern.

In this case, these cartoons were obviously not designed to raise serious and informed debate about the issues, only to offend. So they shouldn't have been published.
I don't think the media have any such responsibility, nor do I think they should. Good news, good reporting, and yes, good editorial content will very often provoke very strong feelings and very hostile reactions. Good material is quite often extremely offensive to many people.

That said, I think the media outlets in question only harmed themselves by printing these cartoons. Not because of some moral duty, but because of their low standards...the cartoons were just lousy. Whether or not they were offensive (and it's pretty clear they were), they were also rotten cartoons, without any particular artistic or editorial value. Newspapers need to require a certain level of quality if they want to be taken seriously.

Oh. So the press needs to have responsibilities which is another way to say restrictions......

They have the responsibility to print unbiased stories and not leap into yellow journalism. Printing offensive cartoons may be their right but it doesn't meant that they should have done it.

Whoops.
I guess that makes it
Right wing Christians 1 Fundamentalist muslims 2


Good thing for you. Now you can totally ignore my whole post.
Also ignore the fact that it was the fundamentalists who died, not innocent people while you're at it.

Five. One was a teenager.

Newspaper cartoons are by their very nature offensive. If Tony Blair went around torching things every time a topical satirical cartoon with him depicted as a wasted, giant-eared monstrosity there wouldn't be a building left standing in Britain.

There you go! These newspapers just wanted to stir up trouble.

No, I think you'll find that it was the Islamic Society of Denmark that wanted to stir up trouble. Funny how there were no riots in September, when the cartoons went out, and there are now right after the aforementioned society has completed its tour of the Middle East to raise awareness of the cartoons with the vital addition of three fake cartoons showing Mohammed being sodomized by a labrador while praying, strangling infants as a "paedophile demon", and giving a speech as turbaned pig.

They have the responsibility to print unbiased stories and not leap into yellow journalism. Printing offensive cartoons may be their right but it doesn't meant that they should have done it.

Yet in order to claim freedom of the speech, expression, and the press means you have the abillity to offend.

When you start saying the press shouldn't have done it then you are defining proper speech.

Yet in order to claim freedom of the speech, expression, and the press means you have the abillity to offend.

When you start saying the press shouldn't have done it then you are defining proper speech.

I think the Muslim "protestors" showed pretty clearly what their stance on free press of any kind was when they paraded through London waving placards with "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL" and "JEWISH MEDIA GO TO HELL" scrawled across them.

Apparently the fact that if freedom of expression did go to Hell those of them carrying "KILL THE KAFIR" and "BEHEAD THOSE THAT INSULT ISLAM" placards would have been gunned down in the street was lost on them.

This phrase from the article kinda says it all, don't it? :)

"insulting the holy values of divine religions" HA!

Something Awful had a hilarious "Mr. Muslim Man Complaint Box" the other day. Pretty offensive but true too.

Click here infidel (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565)

Yet in order to claim freedom of the speech, expression, and the press means you have the abillity to offend.

When you start saying the press shouldn't have done it then you are defining proper speech.

Being responsible is being proper isn't it? What are these cartoons trying to say? That Muhammad advocates killing? Muslims are killers? Bigotry does not belong in a newspaper.

As My Old Philosophy Goes: "Fighting Fire With Fire Makes The Fire Grow Bigger"

yes making us all very warm :D

pfff people take their religions too seriously why would you care what people who apparently are going to hell because they dont believe what you do say about your prophet


P.S where did this U.S freedom of speech bollox come out of lol they fukin print what they want you to hear just listen to your new programs i watched 2 or 3 news bullitins about crazy shit such as " carpet virus what you dont know may kill you" telliung me how dangerous americaion carpet are CARPETS! the thing you keep on your floors fuk sake

Being responsible is being proper isn't it? What are these cartoons trying to say? That Muhammad advocates killing? Muslims are killers? Bigotry does not belong in a newspaper.

What causes more bigotry? These cartoons or a suicide bomber going into a wedding in Amann.

If you heard the Dutch editor the cartoonists were told to draw what they think of Islam.

There is a perception problem, just look here at how many comments of Islam = terrorist.

The cartoons are a byproduct of the problem. They are not the cause of the problem.

Being responsible is being proper isn't it? What are these cartoons trying to say? That Muhammad advocates killing?

No, that isn't what the cartoons were trying to say. How a star and crescent with a Mohammed doodle behind it could consitute such a declaration is beyond me.

Mohammed, however, did advocate killing! He did! It's right there, straight from the horse's mouth, in his surahs. What, are we not allowed to point that out? What is with you people, constantly beating the world over the head with the notion that Mohammed did not preach war?

Being responsible is being proper isn't it? What are these cartoons trying to say? That Muhammad advocates killing? Muslims are killers? Bigotry does not belong in a newspaper.

Mohammad DID advocate killing. At least at the battle of Badr anyway. The point is it was a satire of Mohhamad's viloent tendencies.

No, that isn't what the cartoons were trying to say. How a star and crescent with a Mohammed doodle behind it could consitute such a declaration is beyond me.

Mohammed, however, did advocate killing! He did! It's right there, straight from the horse's mouth, in his surahs. What, are we not allowed to point that out? What is with you people, constantly beating the world over the head with the notion that Mohammed did not preach war?

It's called denial. You know, that Islam isn't a religion of totalitarian imperialism, etc.

It's called denial. You know, that Islam isn't a religion of totalitarian imperialism, etc.
It isn't.

It isn't.
Read Naipaul. It's a religion of totalitarian imperialism.

What causes more bigotry? These cartoons or a suicide bomber going into a wedding in Amann.

If you heard the Dutch editor the cartoonists were told to draw what they think of Islam.

There is a perception problem, just look here at how many comments of Islam = terrorist.

The cartoons are a byproduct of the problem. They are not the cause of the problem.

So what, they just continue the problem because they are not the cause? I don't know why people always jump to extreme and think "terrorist" but there should be work to educate that a few extremists do not accompany an entire religion. Cartoons that attack a racial group or a religion are hate and even if you are allowed to say it you should't. Printing these cartoons hurts the newspapers and theri reputation at least in my eyes.

No, that isn't what the cartoons were trying to say. How a star and crescent with a Mohammed doodle behind it could consitute such a declaration is beyond me.

Mohammed, however, did advocate killing! He did! It's right there, straight from the horse's mouth, in his surahs. What, are we not allowed to point that out? What is with you people, constantly beating the world over the head with the notion that Mohammed did not preach war?

Yeah sure for those who are attacking them. That is not any different from many other religous leaders teachings. The Koran certaily doesn't advocate what these extremists are doing.

Yeah sure for those who are attacking them. That is not any different from many other religous leaders teachings. The Koran certaily doesn't advocate what these extremists are doing.
Actually, the punishment for blasphemy (as in the example of drawing a picture of Mohammed) is death, especially in the case of non-Muslims.

Non-Muslims who commit blasphemy are supposed to be killed.

I can understand the Muslim point of view. I was watching CTV news last night, and a Canadian Muslim was talking about how if someone made a cartoon portraying Jews as murderers was created, there would be an uproar about how it's antisemetic. Or if a cartoon was made making African people look like murderers, it would be immediately labeled racist.
The Muslim prophet symbolizes every muslim in the world, whether they actually follow his peaceful beliefs, or if they're radical fundamentalists. All of them will be offended by making their holiest icon into a terrorist.
If the Danish gov't would have handled the situation properly, none of this crap would be going on right now.

And I have to admit I laughed at a post that listed countries that "really care about freedom of speech" and put the US into the list... yeah, cuz wire tapping, demanding Google records, the Patriot Act, and all the censorship on tv... definitely hardcore freedom of speech. Or not.

Yeah sure for those who are attacking them. That is not any different from many other religous leaders teachings. The Koran certaily doesn't advocate what these extremists are doing.

Religious texts are empty vessels into which people pour their own cultural prejudices. I have yet to come across a religion of any significant size where there is not considerable factionalism as to what the sacred texts actually mean. Therefore statements like 'the koran certianly doesn't advocate what these extremists are doing' are disingenuous at best as, obviously, a sizeable number of people believe exactly that.

Actually, the punishment for blasphemy (as in the example of drawing a picture of Mohammed) is death, especially in the case of non-Muslims.

Non-Muslims who commit blasphemy are supposed to be killed.

So I suppose when Jews and Christians were given various status rights in the history of the Islamic world they were supposed to be killed? I have not encountered anything that suggests such extreme measures.

I can understand the Muslim point of view. I was watching CTV news last night, and a Canadian Muslim was talking about how if someone made a cartoon portraying Jews as murderers was created, there would be an uproar about how it's antisemetic. Or if a cartoon was made making African people look like murderers, it would be immediately labeled racist.
The Muslim prophet symbolizes every muslim in the world, whether they actually follow his peaceful beliefs, or if they're radical fundamentalists. All of them will be offended by making their holiest icon into a terrorist.
If the Danish gov't would have handled the situation properly, none of this crap would be going on right now.

And I have to admit I laughed at a post that listed countries that "really care about freedom of speech" and put the US into the list... yeah, cuz wire tapping, demanding Google records, the Patriot Act, and all the censorship on tv... definitely hardcore freedom of speech. Or not.


I doubt that Jews would be burning embassies to the ground.

Yeah sure for those who are attacking them.

NO. The Qu'ran teaches that the Dar al-Harb must be conquered. Mohammed himself, expelled from Mecca for his iconoclastic teaching, raged about cutting off hands and things, raised an army in Medina, and seized Mecca by force.

That is not self-defence. How can you even try to defend it? Do you simply not acknowledge the truth of it? Another piece of history to be sucked down the memory holes at the Ministry of Truth?

Being responsible is being proper isn't it? What are these cartoons trying to say? That Muhammad advocates killing?
Yes. Because he did. He adovcated plenty else as well, but it's the killing which some Muslims have picked up on and which is causing such problems in the World, so it is inevitable that that aspect of Islam will be on people's minds.

Muslims are killers?

No (although a few are - directly inspired by their religion). They are saying that Muhammad was a killer, and that Islam includes killing as part of its message. That does not mean that the cartoons are claiming that all Muslims are killers.

Bigotry does not belong in a newspaper.

Ignoring the truth in order to avoid hurting feelings isn't what newspapers should be doing either. Muslims as individuals deserve the same respect as anyone else (unless they prove otherwise), but in a free society Islam, like all ideas and beliefs, must be open to scrutiny, including humourous and harsh scrutiny.

My care level for this cartoon drama: 0

So I suppose when Jews and Christians were given various status rights in the history of the Islamic world they were supposed to be killed? I have not encountered anything that suggests such extreme measures.
Yeah. If a dhimmi tried to convert a Muslim, death. If a dhimmi got in a fist fight with a Muslim, death.

Dhimmitude's "protected" status is anything but protection. It's a middle point between a true citizen and a slave.

They had "protected" status, but couldn't testify in court against Muslims, so if, for example, a Muslim rapes a Dhimmi's daughters without a Muslim witness willing to help him, the rapist goes unpunished. If the father of the raped daughter decides to beat up the Muslim, the father is executed. Where's the protection there? Well, they weren't actually enslaved, and as long as they lived by the rules they weren't slaughtered. Generous, no?

I doubt that Jews would be burning embassies to the ground.

What about the African people?
It really wasn't an issue at the start. It happened months ago, and was eventually almost forgotten. But then someone republished it elsewhere to stoke the flames and get more press.
Granted, not all people will react the same, but if you characterized a group of people very negatively, and continued to do so, they aren't going to be happy with you, especially when they don't see it as true, and have been recently (supposedly) persecuted (i.e., Iraq and Afganistan, although they weren't targeted BECAUSE they're Muslim... but some don't necessarily believe that). And with more pressure on the Muslim world (Iran) the further alienation caused by Western viewpoints is setting them off. It may seem like a silly little thing, this cartoon, but it could just be the fuse that set off a much larger problem that's been brewing.

I can understand the Muslim point of view. I was watching CTV news last night, and a Canadian Muslim was talking about how if someone made a cartoon portraying Jews as murderers was created, there would be an uproar about how it's antisemetic.

Are you blind, man? There are a thousand such cartoons circulating in the Arab press. Horrible, hook nosed rabbis with demonic eyes and forked tongues butcher Muslims with swastika-shaped pole-axes all the time in the Arab press.

The Muslim prophet symbolizes every muslim in the world, whether they actually follow his peaceful beliefs,

How can you call the Verse of the Sword peaceful? Do you know anything about Islam from primary research, or are you just another parrot?

If the Danish gov't would have handled the situation properly, none of this crap would be going on right now.

Read: If the Danish government had grovelled on their bellies and thrown the newspaper editors into prison none of this crap would be going on right now.

And I have to admit I laughed at a post that listed countries that "really care about freedom of speech" and blah blah blah stock dig at America

Do you guys roll of a production line, or something?

So I suppose when Jews and Christians were given various status rights in the history of the Islamic world they were supposed to be killed? I have not encountered anything that suggests such extreme measures.

Being a missionary is still punishable by death even today. Some guy with a Bible was arrested and charged with being such only a few years ago. There's your encounter with such an extreme measure.

The Islamic apologists need to stop pointing out where other groups have been offended, or even where nutjobs in other cultures have gone off track in order to excuse their own behaviour.

ALL civilised people need to speak out when they see something offensive to themselves or insensitive to other cultures or faiths.

That does NOT mean we need to silence the offenders.

Additionally, whether it is a Christian Fundamentalist bombing a theatre over The Last Temptation of Christ or Islamic Radicals fire bombing an embassy, we need to ALL speak out against BOTH kinds of activites.

The issue at hand right now, is that it APPEARS that both Islamic clerics and Arabic governments are at best remaining silent and at worst inflamming the issue by touring with the cartoons or withdrawing diplomatic relations over cartoons.

Until the West sees Leadership taking a leadership role AGAINST violence, the perception will continue that Islam is a religion of war not peace and that terrorism is an acceptable part of Arab life.

The fact that there of millions of peaceful Islamic Arabs won't matter until that is reflected at the top.

I'm interested to see the result of this, actually. I hope no europeans make hypocrits of themselves.

As for the cartoons themselves, I already knew that the middle-east was full of anti-semitic racists, so this is hardly anything unprecedented.

Actually, watching the footage from the burning of the embassy in Lebanon gave me hope. There were muslim clerics attempting to keep the people from throwing rocks. Protests remained peaceful in Egypt (though tight security might have had a bit to do with that). There is a loud, radical minority that is jumping on the bandwagon and attempting to drown out the moderate voices with their rants.
Damn skippy. This is the truth the west doesn't want to face -- the very great vast majority of muslims aren't responsible for this. There's a small subset of extremists making the rest look bad. But it's easier to peg it on the whole religion.

I'm interested to see the result of this, actually. I hope no europeans make hypocrits of themselves

Don't count on it.

I am quite sure that both the raving mobs, the violence, and this counter-cartoon nonsense is going to change a lot of minds about Islam and Islamic people - very much to the negative.

A few more overreactions, and more violence, and the West will take a document like this and make a few subtle changes. But the idea will be the same.

http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm

Dhimmitude's "protected" status is anything but protection. It's a middle point between a true citizen and a slave.

Perhaps but from what I've learned there were plenty of examples especially with the Ottomans where Jews and Christians were encouraged to come to Muslim land for they had less persecution there than in Europe. They may not have a Muslim's full rights but it was better then what their experiences often were in Europe.

Because of course, ridiculing the organised massacre on six million people is identical to ridiculing a single person (Well, given the content of the cartoons, an entire religion, but they weren't massacred in quite the same way, now were they?).

well that depends there are in my atic at home pictures of my great grandfather with hundreds of heads of afgani's as kinda grotesque hunting trophies......

its not been as organised but I bet quite a few muslims have been massacared over the years (spain for example springs to mind...)

Perhaps but from what I've learned there were plenty of examples especially with the Ottomans where Jews and Christians were encouraged to come to Muslim land for they had less persecution there than in Europe. They may not have a Muslim's full rights but it was better then what their experiences often were in Europe.

Sources.

Perhaps but from what I've learned there were plenty of examples especially with the Ottomans where Jews and Christians were encouraged to come to Muslim land for they had less persecution there than in Europe. They may not have a Muslim's full rights but it was better then what their experiences often were in Europe.
No doubt about that, but it's a far cry from what we consider decent human rights today. When some segments of Muslim society want to enforce those dhimmi rules today, for example, death to dhimmis who blaspheme, it's totally unacceptable. Those people need to move beyond the social constructs of the 1400s and join us in the modern world.

I'd imagine that this will rile only a very few feathers in the west. No riots, nothing. Welcome to freedom of press and tolerance.

Are you blind, man? There are a thousand such cartoons circulating in the Arab press. Horrible, hook nosed rabbis with demonic eyes and forked tongues butcher Muslims with swastika-shaped pole-axes all the time in the Arab press.

Nope. Hadn't heard that. I just Googled the topic, and it does look like there's a lot of anti-west and anti-jew comics around. Interesting. I wonder if anyone's tried pointing that out to the Muslims... ?

How can you call the Verse of the Sword peaceful? Do you know anything about Islam from primary research, or are you just another parrot?

You're making a mistake if you're going to pick bits and pieces out of a religious text to prove a point, because the same can be done with the Bible. Anyway, in a World Religion's course I took I remember there being an example of non-bloodshed conflict, but I can't remember where... if I have time, I may look it up in my notes.


Read: If the Danish government had grovelled on their bellies and thrown the newspaper editors into prison none of this crap would be going on right now.

There are consequences for everything. Sometimes more extreme than others. If the Danes were really worried about a political mess, they would have done something, rather than ignore the problem. Whether that's grovel, or simply address the issue at the beginning, I don't know what would have worked. That's up to the diplomats to figure out and discuss.


Do you guys roll of a production line, or something?

It may SEEM that way to you, since the whole world seems to ridicule the US... or maybe there's a reason behind it that you're ignoring... like one of those I mentioned... or more.


Being a missionary is still punishable by death even today. Some guy with a Bible was arrested and charged with being such only a few years ago. There's your encounter with such an extreme measure.

Tell me... how do you think it would be if the US didn't make its small attempts at separating Church and State? What if the Bible thumpers had full control of the country, and preached on high, telling everyone that the Bible was right, and anyone who didn't believe was a heathen? Imagine, if you will, every day being filled with religious bombardment of heathens and evil doers. Bad enough it happens one day of the week for some people.
The Muslim world has these very vocal religious leaders bombarding their members with such messages. In some cases, these religious leaders also get political positions. It's a prime example of why Church and State SHOULD be separated. When Bush separated America during the election with religious overtones, he joined that club of mixing religion and politics.
I'm not saying either side is right. I'm not saying either side is wrong. I'm just saying it's understandable where the world is at this point because of religious anger. Sad that institutions created to promote peace and wellbeing are used to insight so many wars.

I am quite sure that both the raving mobs, the violence, and this counter-cartoon nonsense is going to change a lot of minds about Islam and Islamic people - very much to the negative.

A few more overreactions, and more violence, and the West will take a document like this and make a few subtle changes. But the idea will be the same.

http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm


I REALLY don't think we are going to apply a "Final Solution" to Europes Muslims.

PS Nostradamus was right you know

I REALLY don't think we are going to apply a "Final Solution" to Europes Muslims.

PS Nostradamus was right you know

I am not sure that the typical German of 1890 would have believed the events that took place later in the 1940s would be possible.

Muslims have tinfoil hats, just like everyone else...

By Associated Press

February 7, 2006, 6:38 AM EST

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's supreme leader on Tuesday accused Western newspapers of an Israeli conspiracy for publishing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iranian air force personnel the drawings were particularly scandalous as they came "from those who champion civilization and free expression."

The caricatures amounted to a "conspiracy by Zionists who were angry because of the victory of Hamas," he said, referring to the Palestinian militant group that won a surprise landslide victory in last month's elections.

Well, freedom of speech is all well and good, but responsible media have a social and moral obligation to combat intolerance and to ensure open public debate about matters of public concern.

In this case, these cartoons were obviously not designed to raise serious and informed debate about the issues, only to offend. So they shouldn't have been published.
They have no such responsibility. They have a responsibility to print the news they see fit to print and opinions they see fit to print. Not cater to some abstract concept of "social good." That's a one way street to uniform opinions all across all news media.

In this case they are expressing their opinion, even though it is incorrect and worthy of condemnation, they should not be hindered in printing this. If I was the editor of the Danish paper involved in this controversy, I would not have printed the cartoon, but that's my opinion, ain't it?

Iran's been testing the West's commitment to Free Speech for years by saying things like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America", but not actually acting on it.

The West's response? Economic sanctions, refusal to allow nuclear development, and a host of other things.

Free Speech my left nut.

A bit late from the Ayotullah Khameini, but still entertaining..

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060207/ap/d8fk8db80.html
ran Leader Denounces Prophet Cartoons

Iran's supreme leader on Tuesday accused Western newspapers of an Israeli conspiracy :) for publishing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iranian air force personnel the drawings were particularly scandalous as they came "from those who champion civilization and free expression."

The caricatures have roiled the Muslim world, touching off demonstrations, boycotts and attacks on European embassies.

They were first published in Denmark in September and then reprinted recently by numerous European newspapers in the name of free speech.

"The West condemns any denial of the Jewish holocaust, but it permits the insult of Islamic sanctities," Khamenei said.

The cartoons have offended many Muslims because Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustration of the prophet and because several drawings depict Muhammad as a man of violence.


The caricatures amounted to a "conspiracy by Zionists who were angry because of the victory of Hamas," he said, referring to the Palestinian militant group that won a surprise landslide victory in last month's elections.

The only problem is that the cartoons came out in september and Hamas's election victory came later. Oh well, all is fair in bashing joos.

I can see this spiralling upwards. Now it has become a "who is the guardian of islam" thing.

Every muslim country and muslim leader is going to try and outdo the other in protesting.

Iran's been testing the West's commitment to Free Speech for years by saying things like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America", but not actually acting on it.

The West's response? Economic sanctions, refusal to allow nuclear development, and a host of other things.

Free Speech my left nut.
Free Speech must have limits. I can't, for example, start yelling Death to Keruvalia's family. I'd be imprisoned for making terroristic threats, and rightly so. Death threats have never been covered under free speech.

...attempting to give a f*ck....
...failing....

Yes, and everyone on NS thought that the warmongering US would start the war.

Who would have thought that a bunch of hash-smoking Danish cartoonists with a great sense of humor would piss off millions of Moslems?
They werent funny, at least nothing to say that they had a great sense of humour.

Free Speech must have limits.

Then it isn't really free.

I doubt that Jews would be burning embassies to the ground.

I see you're not familiar with Menachem Begin and the Irgun Zvai Leumi.

I'm a Jew and I've never been in denial about our guerilla terrorism in the 1940s against Arab villages and British troop trains. What's your excuse?

Then it isn't really free.
Not necessarily. Some speech can be regulated without removing freedom of expression; the whole thing about yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is the most obvious example. But you can also add in things like sending death threats to somebody, or slander/libel.

All that being said, however, in this case I'm with you. Protestors should be free to carry signs that say "Death to Whoeverthefuck is Pissing Us Off!" Newspapers should be free to print racist, sexist, or otherwise bigotted cartoons.

Then it isn't really free.
without limits you have anarchy. no order. yes, even with Freedom of Speech.

but even with limits, one must be prepared to face the consiquences of excercising such freedoms.

Buring and rioting is wrong, but a crippling boycott of the paper would be a good start.

support of the paper's rivals would also be another step.

Then it isn't really free.

The freedom of speech takes a backseat to the freedom of protection. Life before liberty and property.

Then it isn't really free.
Whatever. Government should balance one person's freedom against another's. For example, saying something offensive doesn't take other people's freedom away. Saying "I will kill you" does. People are forced to alter their lifestyles to keep from getting killed.

Reasonable limits on individual freedoms maximize the ammount of freedom for everyone.

I already have my "Death to Holocaust Deniers" poster, my gasoline filled bottles, several large rocks, and a few friends to march in protest against the local mosque. I'll show them a protest!

I'll join you, I have my "Iran, prepare for Operation Iranian Freedom" sign all ready to go.

Something Awful had a hilarious "Mr. Muslim Man Complaint Box" the other day. Pretty offensive but true too.

Click here infidel (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565)


that was too funny...i needed a laugh..thanks!;)

Then it isn't really free.

You understand the difference between a time, manner and place restriction and a content restriction don't you?

Free speach means the content of your speech is not censorsed or restricted by the government. It does not mean that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want in whatever fashion you want. You are free to hold and publish whatever opinions you like, no matter how offensive, but you are not always free to force others to listen, or demonstrate wherever you want to.

It's restrictions like that which prevent mormons from going into your mosque and recruiting.

Mohammed was a terrorist. After being banished from Mecca for his rabble-rousing and iconoclasm he raised an army that, among other things, terrorised caravans bound for Mecca.
King James Bible
The Book of Joshua
Chapter 10

10:7 So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour.

10:8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.

10:19 And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand.

10:20 And it came to pass, when Joshua and the children of Israel had made an end of slaying them with a very great slaughter, till they were consumed, that the rest which remained of them entered into fenced cities.

10:24 And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.

10:25 And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.

10:26 And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.

10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

10:41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.

10:42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.

and so on and so forth.


But of course, only Mohammed was a terrorist.

Pssh, let them run the cartoons. It will only re-enforce the double-standard in their society; that we won't/can't riot over stuff like this but they can!

From the Times (http://nytimes.com/2006/02/08/international/europe/08islam.html?hp&ex=1139374800&en=102c025d3704270c&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

LONDON, Feb. 7 — As Islamic protests grew against the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, a small but vocal Muslim immigrant organization responded with a drawing on its Web site of Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. "Write this one in your diary, Anne," Hitler was shown as saying.

We were attacked first in that war actually...

Not by Germany though. ;)

Although, they did declare war on the US first.

King James Bible
The Book of Joshua
Chapter 10

10:7 So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, blah blah deflect the problem away from Islam and onto someone else.

But of course, only Mohammed was a terrorist.

"But of course, only Mohammed was a terrorist."

Hmm. So you're still admitting that he was a terrorist, right?

Several things:

#1. Did I say Mohammed was the only terrorist, ever? Did anyone? No. No, no and no again.

#2. Does that passage from the Bible excuse Mohammed?

"Hey, check it out, al-Qaeda killed thousands."

"Whatever, man. The Irish Republican Army blew up a train or something one time. Thus, since more than one group has blown shit up, blowing shit up is okay, and insulting those that blow shit up warrants rioting."

It dosen't make any sense.

#3. This is being italicized, because I think it's important: the Bible is incorporated into the Qu'ran. If Joshua slaughtered people in the Old Testament, then he slaughtered people in the Qu'ran. All you are doing is add to the crimes of Allah and his followers.

#4. I'm not Christian. What does the bad stuff that ideology's deity endorses have to do with me and/or the issue at hand?

What's that? Do I hear a "nothing"?

#5. Joshua lived (supposedly) thousands of years ago. Insults to the terrorist Mohammed are causing violence on a huge scale now. Christians proved they are above such bullshit when they didn't riot and burn things when Jerry Springer: the Opera came out.

A Question

What's your point, man? A guy called Joshua did bad things in the Bible (and also the Qu'ran), so Mohammed's murders and banditry are okay? You think, because Joshua slaughtered some people it cancels out Mohammed's crimes (which were on a grander scale), somehow? Maybe this "cancelling out" process makes him a pure and noble man who should not be called a terrorist? Meaning that people who riot and threaten death over people calling him one anyway is okay?

You were what, dropped on your head at birth?

and the winner goes to this fine drawing

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











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


some people just have no respect.
Why not stick to things that you think arn't sentient, of course everything is but not everything works up to our level of intelligence.

when rocks attack. the classic aspect of making fun of YOURSELF is generally a safety zone.

then your fists start flying... oww! ow! I'm gonna get you you.

so stupid.

Peace in our time.

Yes, and everyone on NS thought that the warmongering US would start the war.

Who would have thought that a bunch of hash-smoking Danish cartoonists with a great sense of humor would piss off millions of Moslems?

*raises hand* I never did trust those guys.

Whoops.
I guess that makes it
Right wing Christians 1 Fundamentalist muslims 2


Good thing for you. Now you can totally ignore my whole post.

The rest of your post was useless. It was, "Other people do stupid shit, so I guess we can't talk about the stupid shit that people are currently doing." I don't care who else has rioted and thrown firebombs at buildings, they are all idiots who deserve to be prosecuted for their crimes. All of them.

Also ignore the fact that it was the fundamentalists who died, not innocent people while you're at it.

The teenager was not stated to be a fundamentalist or even a protestor - simply someone who got trampled in the process. Meanwhile, two Norwegian soldiers had to be airlifted out of Afghanistan yesterday - I wonder if they're both still alive.

And it doesn't really matter who is dying. The fact that anyone is dying, (while you said that no one had), is a tragedy. The fact that human beings are being violent at all, over a few cartoons, is depressing.

I can understand the Muslim point of view. I was watching CTV news last night, and a Canadian Muslim was talking about how if someone made a cartoon portraying Jews as murderers was created, there would be an uproar about how it's antisemetic. Or if a cartoon was made making African people look like murderers, it would be immediately labeled racist.

Of course there would be uproar, and complaints to the newspaper, and even perhaps boycotting of the paper or those who advertise in it. But violence or a bigotted view against the entirety of a nation (or a wider culture) wouldn't be any more appropriate in those cases than in this one.

If the Danish gov't would have handled the situation properly, none of this crap would be going on right now.

What does the government have to do with it? They didn't publish the cartoons, and are in no way responsible for them.

And I have to admit I laughed at a post that listed countries that "really care about freedom of speech" and put the US into the list... yeah, cuz wire tapping, demanding Google records, the Patriot Act, and all the censorship on tv... definitely hardcore freedom of speech. Or not.

No country seems to truly value absolute freedom of speech. In Germany, it is illegal to display (even for humorous purposes) a swastika. In some countries, calling someone "Nazi" is an offense punishable by prosecution. But I'm not going to complain when freedom of expression is being upheld.

Then it isn't really free.

It is just as free as anything else. One person's rights always end where another's begins.

The warmongering US DID cause this, because if we didnt warmonger against Hitler, Denmark wouldnt HAVE free speech or a free press and these cartoons never would have been published, right? :fluffle:

spare me.

the USA did as much as it could to avoid entering the second world war. granted, FDR was aware of the necessesity and covertly orchastrated an involvement (US navy escorts for muntions convoys, restrictions on good sold to axis powers, etc.).

the only reason the USA entered the war was because of the japanese attack on hawaii. even then, it is not inconceivable that the USA would have restricted itself to the pacific theatre. hitler negated this debate when he declared war on the USA a few days later. FDR must have thought he'd won the lottery as now he could proceed with the battle he felt (along with churchill) had to be fought.

Iran's been testing the West's commitment to Free Speech for years by saying things like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America", but not actually acting on it.

The West's response? Economic sanctions, refusal to allow nuclear development, and a host of other things.

Free Speech my left nut.

Well if you can prove that those sanctions, refusal to allow nuclear development , and the host of other things comes directly from those people shouting that you have a case. Otherwise you fall flat on your face there.

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











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

That polar bear in a snow storm has a bomb! What did they ever do to you?! They are *victims* of global warming. I demand an appology or I'm going to kill a baby sea otter!!