NationStates Jolt Archive

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.
Excellent idea! Next we can start fighting fire with gasoline!

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.

And it's people like you we really need.

I'm actually going to have a peace feast with the muslims. Do you think they'll like a wide variety of pork?

Excellent idea! Next we can start fighting fire with gasoline!


and then when we used up all the gasoline, we go back to FIRE!

And it's people like you we really need.

I'm actually going to have a peace feast with the muslims. Do you think they'll like a wide variety of pork?
Don't forget some good beer to wash it down with.

Don't forget some good beer to wash it down with.
And eat with your left hand while you're at it.

and then when we used up all the gasoline, we go back to FIRE!
And then we can throw whatever we want in it!

Good for you.

Now go and post that in one of the million other threads about the cartoons.

And eat with your left hand while you're at it.

And let's quote verses of the Torah!

Thanks to tweedleburg for that one!

And then we can throw whatever we want in it!
BOOK BURNING! I'll bring the literature, you bring the weiners!

Yay! Yet another poster spreading religious hatred and ignorance.

And let's quote verses of the Jewish Holy book (Soz, 4got it's name)
Torah

BOOK BURNING! I'll bring the literature, you bring the weiners!
Hell yeah! Then maybe we could throw in some pro-muslim cartoons?

BOOK BURNING! I'll bring the literature, you bring the weiners!


good well start with religious literature then we'll burn history books, and after history its on to encyclopedias

Yay! Yet another poster spreading religious hatred and ignorance.
I know! Join the club!

Unless you don't want to be with the right majority for once.

good well start with religious literature then we'll burn history books, and after history its on to encyclopedias
After the encyclopaedia we could burn all muslim ok food! and cover it in pork!

Hell yeah! Then maybe we could throw in some pro-muslim cartoons?
Sounds good to me!

If the Muslim world
This is the root of your misunderstanding. There is no Muslim world. Just individual people who are Muslim.

Yay! Yet another poster spreading religious hatred and ignorance.

You can't spread ignorance. You can spread misinformation though.

I'm frankly beyond caring if a Muslim hears this and gets mad at me, but i can't stand Muslims. They ban us from one of their cities because apparently its "holy", they make up the body of suicide bombers claiming their "Fighting for Allah!" and they take their beliefs way too serious. On the radio a man said that the author of the comic should be "Trialled in (Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, or some other country with a court as clean as mud) and possibly executed"! Are you going to listen to people who think somone should be killed over ink?! Plus, the author did two other religious cartoons concerning the Christian and Jewish religion. And did we burn embassies and protest over that? No. So why did Muslims do it? Because they far too stuck up their own God's ass to see commen sense.

NOTE: I apologise to all sensible Muslims out there. I am not referring to the Islamic community as a whole, only the insane fanatics.

After the encyclopaedia we could burn all muslim ok food! and cover it in pork!


and then we burn David Hasselhoff...he had it coming.

good well start with religious literature then we'll burn history books, and after history its on to encyclopedias
Can we please burn the Koran/Qu'ran first? It would leave so much space free in discount stores.

Can we please burn the Koran/Qu'ran first? It would leave so much space free in discount stores.


all religious, and historical texts will be burned equally. I will not have chaos at my book burning thank you;)

good well start with religious literature then we'll burn history books, and after history its on to encyclopedias
don't forget philosophy!

Yay! Yet another poster spreading religious hatred and ignorance.
So any criticism of Islam or the protesters is "spreading religious hatred and ignorance"?

Let's face it. They're (the protesters peaceful or not) being complete arrogant assholes. They're demanding that Western nations abandon free press and free speech. Meanwhile if I demand that Saudi Arabia abandons it's promotion of Sallafiya Islam and repression of other religions, they would condem me. They believe that they have the right to dictate laws to Western nations because Islam is superior. Guess what? I disagree.

Can we please burn the Koran/Qu'ran first? It would leave so much space free in discount stores.
Nah, the Bible goes first.

don't forget philosophy!


damn forgot about philosophy, after that BURN any book on language, because we already know how to speak, who needs it. Also dictionaries, thesaruses, etc.

I'm frankly beyond caring if a Muslim hears this and gets mad at me, but i can't stand Muslims. They ban us from one of their cities because apparently its "holy", they make up the body of suicide bombers claiming their "Fighting for Allah!" and they take their beliefs way too serious. On the radio a man said that the author of the comic should be "Trialled in (Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, or some other country with a court as clean as mud) and possibly executed"! Are you going to listen to people who think somone should be killed over ink?! Plus, the author did two other religious cartoons concerning the Christian and Jewish religion. And did we burn embassies and protest over that? No. So why did Muslims do it? Because they far too stuck up their own God's ass to see commen sense.

NOTE: I apologise to all sensible Muslims out there. I am not referring to the Islamic community as a whole, only the insane fanatics.

Spineless apologising isn't welcome here. Edit it out or be burnt!

Why you shouldn't spinelessly apologise on that subject: Hey. It's not like they see us all the same. It's not like they judge us by the most idiotic man alive. So why judge them.[Sarcasm was included in the sentence above]

I have to agree with that statement, but I think religion in general - that is all religions - are quite silly little things and are simply relics of the age of man when we did not have science to explain the world. `This is the 21st century and the ability to manipulate religious beliefs for self-interest is easier than ever. Let's just say there is one god and he loves us all - the end.

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

You're implying that they are unfairly generalising, whilst unfairly generalising them yourself. Didn't you see the religious leaders calling for peace on the streets on the news? If all Muslims were as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be a Western embassy left in the Islamic world. Do you have any sympathy for the peaceful protesters or the massive amount of Muslims who didn't burn down embasies?

damn forgot about philosophy, after that BURN any book on language, because we already know how to speak, who needs it. Also dictionaries, thesaruses, etc.

Autobiographies. Then world Leaders.
I claim George Bush and Tony Bliar to burn first!

everything gets burned except ignorance, because ignorance is flame retardant.

Autobiographies. Then world Leaders.
I claim George Bush and Tony Bliar to burn first!

ok but they need to sodomize each other with condi's big boots first. then they can be burned

Torah

i do like that 60s film about the israeli bombers sneak attack on Pearl Harbour.

"Torah, Torah, Torah"

:)

Nah, the Bible goes first.
Don't worry, theres plenty of books for everyone!

I don't have sympathy for "The West" because of 9/11 either. I mean, boo-hoo, our giant penis towers were dis-engorged! Where's my Shock-and-Awe Viagra?

everything gets burned except ignorance, because ignorance is flame retardant.

should we burn ourselves?
Then we could burn burning!
Then burn fire!
Then we could try and burn ignorance and only a get an easy to wipe off black mark!
What happens if I burn this RED button?

and then we burn David Hasselhoff...he had it coming.

Can we please leave my God out of this argument. He's done nothing wrong

Don't worry, theres plenty of books for everyone!
Plenty of copies of the Bible too;)

Don't worry, theres plenty of books for everyone!


and we can use jehovahs witnesses pamphlets to kindle the fire. you know to get it going.

I don't have sympathy for "The West" because of 9/11 either. I mean, boo-hoo, our giant penis towers were dis-engorged! Where's my Shock-and-Awe Viagra?
Yeah, but that's because you're a terrorist sympathizer with a bad case of Western guilt, right?

Can we please leave my God out of this argument. He's done nothing wrong

he is a god to some people? more the reason to be BURNED!

you dont understand anything or anyone who can give faith or knowledge must be burned only ignorance can remain. it is the way of life

Yeah, but that's because you're a terrorist sympathizer with a bad case of Western guilt, right?
But the twin towers did look like a giant dildo didn't they?

I call bagsy on burning minoriteeburg's underwear!

I call bagsy on burning minoriteeburg's underwear!


my undie streaks make the flames go purple

I don't have sympathy for "The West" because of 9/11 either. I mean, boo-hoo, our giant penis towers were dis-engorged! Where's my Shock-and-Awe Viagra?
At that rate say goodbye to the Washington Monument :p

and we can use jehovahs witnesses pamphlets to kindle the fire. you know to get it going.
After that can we burn paintings? Especially the one of that goth bitch...the Moany Lisa or whatever.

Yeah, but that's because you're a terrorist sympathizer with a bad case of Western guilt, right?

No, it's cuz I'm sick of the whole whining/justification thing. Boohoo, 9/11, world feel sorry for us! Boohoo, 9/11, elect me! Boohoo, 9/11, invade another country! Boohoo, 9/11, have sex with me I'm loooonely!

But the twin towers did look like a giant dildo didn't they?

I call bagsy on burning minoriteeburg's underwear!
Yeah, if you're into double pronged dildos with square cross-sections

he is a god to some people? more the reason to be BURNED!

you dont understand anything or anyone who can give faith or knowledge must be burned only ignorance can remain. it is the way of life

I would hardly say that he was full of faith and knowledge! Ignorance, yes. He was reported to being upset because he wasn't included in the museum dedicated to the Berlin Wall coming down. He believed that he had been a main thruster in bringing west and east together through his music......<simper> with brains like that, you gotta love the man (and he did have a cool car)

Boohoo, 9/11, have sex with me I'm loooonely!
Jeesh, Laura doesn't put out much does she.

No, it's cuz I'm sick of the whole whining/justification thing. Boohoo, 9/11, world feel sorry for us! Boohoo, 9/11, elect me! Boohoo, 9/11, invade another country! Boohoo, 9/11, have sex with me I'm loooonely!


i never thought about using 9/11 for sex....

i never thought about using 9/11 for sex....
Freud would have a field day.

I would hardly say that he was full of faith and knowledge! Ignorance, yes. He was reported to being upset because he wasn't included in the museum dedicated to the Berlin Wall coming down. He believed that he had been a main thruster in bringing west and east together through his music......<simper> with brains like that, you gotta love the man (and he did have a cool car)


ok i do have compassion.....the car can stay, Hasselhoff must be burned!!!!


Freud would have a field day.

and i would have had a field day with the ladies a few years ago. Damn! Why? Why do i have a soul?:headbang:

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.
No sympathy, eh? Keep printing the cartoon, eh? Good then you wont mind when someones draws Jesus upside down on the cross. And hey, why dont we make a bunch of cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, afterall it was really funny. Hey have you heard the one about jews and ovens? :rolleyes: Why dont you learn a little about Islam and countries which are mostly Islamic,then come back and post something rational, thanks.

No, it's cuz I'm sick of the whole whining/justification thing. Boohoo, 9/11, world feel sorry for us! Boohoo, 9/11, elect me! Boohoo, 9/11, invade another country! Boohoo, 9/11, have sex with me I'm loooonely!

The only thing that surprised me about 9/11, given the actions of the American Government (often in defiance of their own people and laws) was that it didn't happen sooner, and the perpertrators weren't Cuban, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Bolivian, Libyan, Vietnamese, Indonesian...etc etc etc

That the US Government (and in particular it's chimp featured favoured son of a corrupt political dynasty figurehead) has used it as an excuse to serve up more and more of the same shit is truly sad, both for the victims and the rest of the world.

Slightly offended by your thread title....my cousin's family are all muslim (white, before you start flaming) and have as yet not a) killed anyone, b) burned anything down, and c)not hung me for being christened as a child, and use my charred body as an example to other followers of their faith.

I think we should remember there are Muslims, and Muslim extremists. Same as there are Christian extremists ( The Crusades....). There are dark times for all religions, and this is the darkest chapter of Muslim history. There are muslims who are deeply ashamed of what is happening, and those who consider changing their faith-THEIR WAY OF LIFE-so as not to be victimised.

I think the extremists' over-reaction to the cartoon is simply that-an extremist reaction. A minority are taking it upon themselves to defend Allah to extremes. If a teenager is on the News for stabbing his mother, it doesnt mean ALL teenage boys stab their moms.

The cartoon was made to provoke a reaction-I just wish the cartoonist had been a bit more seneible, and considered that maybe Muslims take themselves more seriously than the majority of non-practising Brits, Danish, etc....we have to understand how much pressure some of the affected people are under. Most of these Eastern muslims have lived through never-ending conflict, have been attacked by wealthier westerners who consider themselves intellectually superior just because they're lucky enough to live in a free system. There have been posts on this forum miq-quoting the Koran as incitement to racial prejudice and murder. That is not true. We non-serious Christians might laugh if someone took the mick out of a passage in the bible, but we have our sense of humour-other people have theirs.

I have little sympathy for people who incite such brutal acts, and feel sorry for those who believe it will actually make a difference. That killing hostages, kidnapping tourists, fire-bombing embassies and pillaging their own cities will bring them equality and freedom. But this is what they have been taught, in their non-free system, and they must be taught otherwise.

*edit* My cousins family do not walk rounf wearing rubans and clothed in black sarongs from head to toe-they love their beliefs, and do not promote sex before marriage, tarty clothing, bad language and ill manners. They pray in their own house and at their local Mosque, and believe if you are kind to others, Allah will be kind to you. Very similar to Christianity....

[QUOTE=Minoriteeburg]ok i do have compassion.....the car can stay, Hasselhoff must be burned!!!!

Damn! There's a guy in our local pub that looks just like Hannibal Smith. Could I do you a swap?

[QUOTE=Minoriteeburg]ok i do have compassion.....the car can stay, Hasselhoff must be burned!!!!

Damn! There's a guy in our local pub that looks just like Hannibal Smith. Could I do you a swap?


ok but all of hasselhoffs belongings and albums will be burned in order to spare his life.

i never thought about using 9/11 for sex....

I have, but I dunno, chloroform tends to work better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

So we can't show a cartoon of a symbol they hold dear (Muhamed) but they can burn a symbol I hold dear? (US flag)
And they've been doing it for years. They chant "death to America" as if ALL Americans deserve to die, yet I have to make sure that whenever I comment, I add "(not ALL Muslims, just the bad ones)"
I love the smell of hypocrites in the morning. :rolleyes:

Fuck the fanatics. I wish I owned a newspaper. I'd make a picture of Muhamed part of my front page permanently. And he'd be making out with Porky Pig!

That's all folks! :D

I have, but I dunno, chloroform tends to work better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
amen;)

I have, but I dunno, chloroform tends to work better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!


LOL ah good old Chloroform, reminds me of senior prom

At the end of the day, what goes around, comes around. People in Arab nations have made a very good job of appearing to be the wounded party, as if Islam is under relentless attack from the West, when the very same people deny Judaism and Israel even exist - Christianity tried the same thing (Catholics and Protestants trying to get rid of each other in the UK, the Crusades) The Jews tried to get rid of Christianity when it was just starting - it goes on and on.

The irony - or to put it a better way, the thing that makes these intolerant people really stupid - is that each of the main religions promote tolerance of those that don't follow the same faith.

When will people learn that you don't get to heaven by killing other people, whatever the cause?

No sympathy, eh? Keep printing the cartoon, eh? Good then you wont mind when someones draws Jesus upside down on the cross. And hey, why dont we make a bunch of cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, afterall it was really funny. Hey have you heard the one about jews and ovens? :rolleyes: Why dont you learn a little about Islam and countries which are mostly Islamic,then come back and post something rational, thanks.
Guess what? People do print images and text that are offensive to Christians and Jews. You know what else? I support their right to do so. It's free speech and it's one of the most important things in Western Civilization. I object to people telling us that we must eliminate our rights in order to keep from offending them and their god. I'm offended by that. So far I haven't burned down the Pakistani embassy though.

So far I haven't burned down the Pakistani embassy though.
Me either dammit. Plane fares are just too expensive nowadays. Maybe I'll just settle for something completely unrelated like a grocery store like the Muslims seem to do.

[QUOTE=Large thumbs]


ok but all of hasselhoffs belongings and albums will be burned in order to spare his life.

After much deliberation, I accept.

Me either dammit. Plane fares are just too expensive nowadays. Maybe I'll just settle for something completely unrelated like a grocery store like the Muslims seem to do.


thats it! after the books are burned, we move on to the embassies!

and then when we used up all the gasoline, we go back to FIRE!
*BLAM* *BLAB* *BLAM*

Oh .. you meant "FIRE" as in flames. Heh! Sorry about that! :D

I agree with you 100%. What they are doing is horrible, and I too don't feel sorry for them. They act like they are hurt, but they are the ones being offensive.

At the end of the day, what goes around, comes around. People in Arab nations have made a very good job of appearing to be the wounded party, as if Islam is under relentless attack from the West, when the very same people deny Judaism and Israel even exist - Christianity tried the same thing (Catholics and Protestants trying to get rid of each other in the UK, the Crusades) The Jews tried to get rid of Christianity when it was just starting - it goes on and on.

The irony - or to put it a better way, the thing that makes these intolerant people really stupid - is that each of the main religions promote tolerance of those that don't follow the same faith.

When will people learn that you don't get to heaven by killing other people, whatever the cause?

I find it funny that whenever there is a discussion re wars and religion, all the americans can come up with in the UK is the crusades. Did u guys study that at school or something? I'm not getting at you, it's just there was a lot more to religious history in the Uk than that. (and sorry for just presuming u were american too!)

*BLAM* *BLAB* *BLAM*

Oh .. you meant "FIRE" as in flames. Heh! Sorry about that! :D


that works too. as long as knowledge is destroyed of course

So far I haven't burned down the Pakistani embassy though.

Why not? Isn't tit-for-tat a viable strategy? What's holding you back - education, a comfortable living, the lack of iminent threat of invading foreigners to "change" your nations "regime?"

thats it! after the books are burned, we move on to the embassies!
Better yet, just put the books in the embassies. Saves on matches.

Better yet, just put the books in the embassies. Saves on matches.


and we can use world leaders as the torches! brilliant!

I find it funny that whenever there is a discussion re wars and religion, all the americans can come up with in the UK is the crusades. Did u guys study that at school or something? I'm not getting at you, it's just there was a lot more to religious history in the Uk than that. (and sorry for just presuming u were american too!)
The UK was barely even involved in the Crusades. It was mostly the French, Germans, and Spaniards.

and we can use world leaders as the torches! brilliant!
I don't know about that. We might actually make improvements that way.

Why not? Isn't tit-for-tat a viable strategy? What's holding you back - education, a comfortable living, the lack of iminent threat of invading foreigners to "change" your nations "regime?"

The fact that I'm a fairly civilized person who doesn't overreact to a bunch of screaming barbarians might be a factor.

I don't know about that. We might actually make improvements that way.

well theres gotta be a couple we can use.....

Guess what? People do print images and text that are offensive to Christians and Jews. You know what else? I support their right to do so. It's free speech and it's one of the most important things in Western Civilization. I object to people telling us that we must eliminate our rights in order to keep from offending them and their god. I'm offended by that. So far I haven't burned down the Pakistani embassy though.

Is there any actual point in publishing cartoons for the sole point of being offensive? Muslims have a right to let us know that they think it is very offensive (although I don't support the voilence and death threats), and we should think "What are we getting from this, apart from hate and causing offense?". Would you call it a dreadful infringement on free speech if an incredibly racist or anti-semetic cartoon was publsihed in a western newspaper? Don't muslims have the same right to not be offended? I think it's especially unfair on muslims who don't burn embassies and threaten, to be told that they deserve this sort of offense because of what some "muslims" did.
(Btw, I'm equally against cartoons like this (against Jews etc) that have been pulished in other parts of the world than the West)

The fact that I'm a fairly civilized person who doesn't overreact to a bunch of screaming barbarians might be a factor.

I think she's kinda hinting that you have the luxury to be a "fairly civilized human being". If she was being really contentious, she might hint that that luxury is mainly engendered by the wealth and resources our governments and corporations leech, and have spent at least the last 200 years doing so, from places with "bunches of screaming barbarians".

You know?

well theres gotta be a couple we can use.....
But think of all the embassies...

The UK was barely even involved in the Crusades. It was mostly the French, Germans, and Spaniards.

Yeah but in Robin Hood Prince of Theives, Richard the whatever, he was on the crusades, that's wot messed england up in the first place and made robin an outlaw!

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.
Except for a handful of loons (on both sides), the Danes have been fairly rational & calm about this. Last I checked, nearly 100% of the Danish Muslims were outraged about the violent reactions to the cartoons. Few Danish Muslims liked the cartoons, but they deal with it in a perfectly normal, legal manner - like peaceful protests, public debates & the like. I must admit I was shocked that anyone even noticed the cartoons, but then.. I'm surprised when people react to my mohawk. Some people think diversity is a bad thing. I disagree, but as long as they're not hurting anyone, I honestly don't give a shit.

And really.. Danes are the ones that matter. That oppressed masses get to vent a bit of steam, is just sad. It's of neglible consequence to anyone but themselves & their oppressors.
Though the boycott's are inane (JP & owners, doesn't export anything to the Muslim countries), I think they teach a valuable lesson. It's beyond hypocritical to cry over lost exports to countries those companies shouldn't have been trading with in the first place. Really, it's lovely. Danish companies are now forced not to do trade with oppressive totalitarian regimes in the ME region. I've been laughing ever since it started happening. The irony of it all :p

But think of all the embassies...

and the senoritas!

The fact that I'm a fairly civilized person who doesn't overreact to a bunch of screaming barbarians might be a factor.

So if screaming barbarians burn down an embassy, burning down their embassy would be an overreaction?

Is there any actual point in publishing cartoons for the sole point of being offensive? Muslims have a right to let us know that they think it is very offensive (although I don't support the voilence and death threats), and we should think "What are we getting from this, apart from hate and causing offense?". Would you call it a dreadful infringement on free speech if an incredibly racist or anti-semetic cartoon was publsihed in a western newspaper? Don't muslims have the same right to not be offended? I think it's especially unfair on muslims who don't burn embassies and threaten, to be told that they deserve this sort of offense because of what some "muslims" did.
(Btw, I'm equally against cartoons like this (against Jews etc) that have been pulished in other parts of the world than the West)
The people who drew and published the cartoons thought that there was.

Who's to decide if a certain viewpoint should be published or not? Who do you put in charge of censoring "pointless" viewpoints? Whoever it is will almost inevitably end up silencing views he or she disagrees with.

Personally I think that the reaction to the cartoons proves that there was a point to them. It shows that many Muslims believe that their religion allows them to dictate to Western governments what freedoms their people can and can't have. It shows us who the enemy is.

Yeah but in Robin Hood Prince of Theives, Richard the whatever, he was on the crusades, that's wot messed england up in the first place and made robin an outlaw!

It's not for another couple of Kings you can even make a claim they were Kings of England...they were more like powerful French potentates with a private estate over the channel to provide funding for their continental Empire building.

and the senoritas!
I know! We can use librarians as torches!

I know! We can use librarians as torches!

yeah because they will try and stop us from burning the books!

I think she's kinda hinting that you have the luxury to be a "fairly civilized human being". If she was being really contentious, she might hint that that luxury is mainly engendered by the wealth and resources our governments and corporations leech, and have spent at least the last 200 years doing so, from places with "bunches of screaming barbarians".

You know?
Ah, I see. If I lived in a poor country I'd be entitled to burn down KFC and some embassies.

The so-called 'Western' concept of 'free speech' is neither free nor impartial or fair!

The Danish paper that published the Mohammed cartoons refused to publish ones about Jesus a few years back. A cartoonist did make Jesus cartoons, but his work was turned down.

If you want to make satire out of religion, fine, but do it across the board and do ones of Moses and Jesus. Hell while were at it, get Vishnu, Shiva and Budda in the comic strips as well.

But no, that won't happen.

Also, I find Europe's talk of free speech nothing short of DISGUSTING!

Austria has sentenced the respected British historian David Irving, to jail for THREE YEARS!

Why, because he claimed that 6 million dead was too high a figure for the Holocaust.

He did NOT deny that Jews were mistreated or killed, just that it the death toll never reached 6 million.

Yet when the Jews are concerned, there is NO free speech in the West.

Actually, lets forget about 'Western' values, as we lost them long ago. Given the global Jewish grip on this worl, given the fact that Jews now control the US government and hold Europe hostage, the 'West' now answers to Tel Aviv.

For the centre of the 'Western' world, Tel Aviv is not very western!

So if screaming barbarians burn down an embassy, burning down their embassy would be an overreaction?
Yep. Looking down upon the culture that accepts such behavior and pitying the people who live in such backward places is the correct reaction. There's no sense in resorting to violence when people burn down buildings in their own countries.

It shows us who the enemy is.

Yes, the JEWS!

It's not for another couple of Kings you can even make a claim they were Kings of England...they were more like powerful French potentates with a private estate over the channel to provide funding for their continental Empire building.

Well then, could we burn that film too for being crap? That king wasn't even english, he was scottish with a crap scottish accent. I think robin should've been king, more realistic, was he french too?

Have americans reverted back to calling french fries french fries again? even though they aren't french? we're getting too inter-multi-national these days, I blame history, can't even decide whether we've got english kings or french

The so-called 'Western' concept of 'free speech' is neither free nor impartial or fair!

The Danish paper that published the Mohammed cartoons refused to publish ones about Jesus a few years back. A cartoonist did make Jesus cartoons, but his work was turned down.

If you want to make satire out of religion, fine, but do it across the board and do ones of Moses and Jesus. Hell while were at it, get Vishnu, Shiva and Budda in the comic strips as well.

But no, that won't happen.

Also, I find Europe's talk of free speech nothing short of DISGUSTING!

Austria has sentenced the respected British historian David Irving, to jail for THREE YEARS!

Why, because he claimed that 6 million dead was too high a figure for the Holocaust.

He did NOT deny that Jews were mistreated or killed, just that it the death toll never reached 6 million.

Yet when the Jews are concerned, there is NO free speech in the West.

Actually, lets forget about 'Western' values, as we lost them long ago. Given the global Jewish grip on this worl, given the fact that Jews now control the US government and hold Europe hostage, the 'West' now answers to Tel Aviv.

For the centre of the 'Western' world, Tel Aviv is not very western!
Sieg Heil! Care to join me for a rendition of Horst Wessel Lied?

Yes, the JEWS!
The Jews have always been kind of nice to me. Many of them are fine American citizens. The crazy fucks who burn down buildings because of a drawing, those assholes are the enemy. I'm pretty sure that burning KFC for a cartoon is heavily correlated with supporting Osama Bin Laden.

The Jews have always been kind of nice to me.


same here

Yep. Looking down upon the culture that accepts such behavior and pitying the people who live in such backward places is the correct reaction. There's no sense in resorting to violence when people burn down buildings in their own countries.

What's so "correct" about that reaction, though? Being an elitist cultural supremacist arrogantly throwing "pity" around doesn't really accomplish anything at all.

Ah, I see. If I lived in a poor country I'd be entitled to burn down KFC and some embassies.

Not at all. In fact, i don't think anyone, even the most vociferous defender of the Muslim right to protest against these cartoons, has claimed so. But i personally think that sitting in high moral judgement in the wealth and privilige of the west, in a society that hasn't been brutalised for at least decades by puppets and proxies of the Western powers (or the puppets and proxies of their erstwhile opponents), in a society built off the wealth of said poor countries, in a society whose moral framework was built at least in part by philosophers and teachers and thinkers who worked for universities and colleges founded or subsidised by the very private industry that was raping and pillaging the fucking globe, sitting THERE in moral judgement and calling people "screaming barbarians" because they come from a culture that hasn't had your chances, your exposure to new ideas, your exposure to change, and the reason they haven't had that exposure is because of the very governments and companies who provide you (and i, and i) with your (relatively) pampered existence...well, it's more than a bit fucking rich if you ask me.

you what else we need to burn? schools. especially public ones.

The Jews have always been kind of nice to me.
It's all part of the damn parasites conspiracy. Just when you think you're safe, they'll get you. :rolleyes:

What's so "correct" about that reaction, though? Being an elitist cultural supremacist arrogantly throwing "pity" around doesn't really accomplish anything at all.
Makes me feel better. Might shame them into behaving themselves instead of throwing tantrums.

It's all part of the damn parasites conspiracy. Just when you think you're safe, they'll get you. :rolleyes:

by suing you!

The people who drew and published the cartoons thought that there was.

Who's to decide if a certain viewpoint should be published or not? Who do you put in charge of censoring "pointless" viewpoints? Whoever it is will almost inevitably end up silencing views he or she disagrees with.

Personally I think that the reaction to the cartoons proves that there was a point to them. It shows that many Muslims believe that their religion allows them to dictate to Western governments what freedoms their people can and can't have. It shows us who the enemy is.

I think the people who drew and published those cartoons were aiming for the largest reaction possible - by being outright offensive to muslims who it seems they hate (it might even be a fiendish plot to get more news for the paper to print...:p)

I think that everyone should decide - but ultimately its the victims who what's offensive, whether they be black, Muslim, Jewish, or any other group. In this case the cartoons caused more bad than good (even without the protests and violence) - making it pointless. There must already be someone who censors offensive material - for the reason that it causes offense. I don't see why muslims shouldn't have the same right that racial groups and other minorities (religious) have to not be publicly ridiculed and offended. Western governments already regulate offensive material.

Who is the enemy?

you what else we need to burn? schools. especially public ones.
That's right! After the books are burned, we don't want people learning how to make more. That would be too much work.

That's right! After the books are burned, we don't want people learning how to make more. That would be too much work.

exactly burn the schools and the teachers, but actually now that i think about it burn the private schools first. Kids are actually learning in private school.

Not at all. In fact, i don't think anyone, even the most vociferous defender of the Muslim right to protest against these cartoons, has claimed so. But i personally think that sitting in high moral judgement in the wealth and privilige of the west, in a society that hasn't been brutalised for at least decades by puppets and proxies of the Western powers (or the puppets and proxies of their erstwhile opponents), in a society built off the wealth of said poor countries, in a society whose moral framework was built at least in part by philosophers and teachers and thinkers who worked for universities and colleges founded or subsidised by the very private industry that was raping and pillaging the fucking globe, sitting THERE in moral judgement and calling people "screaming barbarians" because they come from a culture that hasn't had your chances, your exposure to new ideas, your exposure to change, and the reason they haven't had that exposure is because of the very governments and companies who provide you (and i, and i) with your (relatively) pampered existence...well, it's more than a bit fucking rich if you ask me.


I just think that there are certain standards of behavior that people should be expected to maintain. If they don't they have to be shown the error of their ways. Better that it should be through pity and perhaps some ridicule than through force.

The crazy fucks who burn down buildings because of a drawing, those assholes are the enemy. I'm pretty sure that burning KFC for a cartoon is heavily correlated with supporting Osama Bin Laden.

Well, if Muslims burn down a DANISH embassy, they are NOT the enemy of America, as Denmark is not under US sovereignty and the Danish embassies are not the property of the US government.

I think it's stupid to attack US companies like KFC etc... for the US did NOT (according to my knowledge) publish any Mohammed cartoons.

Given that the US press did not publish these cartoons, along with Britain, the portestors should keep to targeting Danish, Swedish, Dutch and French interests and nothing else.

Target those who are guilty is my opinion.

exactly burn the schools and the teachers, but actually now that i think about it burn the private schools first. Kids are actually learning in private school.
:eek:

Makes me feel better. Might shame them into behaving themselves instead of throwing tantrums.

1 I can agree with, but 2 seems like a lost cause, being too subtle a point to convey given the distances, both geographically and socially.

I think the people who drew and published those cartoons were aiming for the largest reaction possible - by being outright offensive to muslims who it seems they hate (it might even be a fiendish plot to get more news for the paper to print...:p)

I think that everyone should decide - but ultimately its the victims who what's offensive, whether they be black, Muslim, Jewish, or any other group. In this case the cartoons caused more bad than good (even without the protests and violence) - making it pointless. There must already be someone who censors offensive material - for the reason that it causes offense. I don't see why muslims shouldn't have the same right that racial groups and other minorities (religious) have to not be publicly ridiculed and offended. Western governments already regulate offensive material.

Who is the enemy?
I can't agree with you. If information and points of view are censored because someone might take offense, we'd have textbooks that refuse to teach about the shape of the earth, http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm, refuse to teach evolution, refuse to teach the holocaust, et cetera.

The enemy are those who believe that their religion makes them superior to non-believers and therefore they have the right to conquer and dictate laws to the unbelievers. The tantrums thrown over the cartoons are a symptom of arrogance. They seek to dictate to non-Muslim people what rights they may or may not exercise. They're as bad as the KKK. 9/11 was just a large-scale lynching. The cartoon panic is like the reaction a gang of backward Southern whites would have had if a black person printed cartoons of black men with white women.

:eek:


:confused: i dont understand your shock.

Given that the US press did not publish these cartoons, along with Britain, the portestors should keep to targeting Danish, Swedish, Dutch and French interests and nothing else.

Target those who are guilty is my opinion.

How would say, a French baguetter company, be guilty of publishing hateful cartoons?

Well, if Muslims burn down a DANISH embassy, they are NOT the enemy of America, as Denmark is not under US sovereignty and the Danish embassies are not the property of the US government.

I think it's stupid to attack US companies like KFC etc... for the US did NOT (according to my knowledge) publish any Mohammed cartoons.

Given that the US press did not publish these cartoons, along with Britain, the portestors should keep to targeting Danish, Swedish, Dutch and French interests and nothing else.

Target those who are guilty is my opinion.
Meanwhile in many cases they made no effort to discriminate between embassies. A Chilean embassy was burned, and American facilities were targeted by protesters.

:confused: i dont understand your shock.
Kids are learning at private school? I thought they were all places where the nuns brainwash the innocent schoolgirls.

they just shouldnt have done the cartoon. it is just provocative, and keep open your perspective wide open. if you were a muslim, what would you do? there is a rule in Islame specifically about portraying Mohammed

Kids are learning at private school? I thought they were all places where the nuns brainwash the innocent schoolgirls.

thats more than what is taught at public school

I just think that there are certain standards of behavior that people should be expected to maintain. If they don't they have to be shown the error of their ways. Better that it should be through pity and perhaps some ridicule than through force.

Really? And do those standards apply to you, your government, your corporations? I will grant you (for i am not being needlessly contentious or indeed ad hoministic) that you may very well live by those standards. Does the Muslim world experience YOUR standards or does it experience the hypocrisy and double standards and double-speak and double-think and sheer downright malignant self aggrandising self interest of Western power and Western wealth? Sure, no doubt the vast majority of Muslims would act the same as the vast majority of Westerners if placed at the head of Shell Oil, or Halliburton, or the US Government...but really, some riots, some deaths, terrible, shocking, horrible things. For many in the Muslim world, that sort of thing is commonplace and every day...and why is it so? Because it suits us that it is so, because - despite all our lofty propaganda - it suits us that their societies are broken and their governmental institutions are corrupt and controlled by brutal self serving men. It suits the power politics of the people we vote into power, it suits our national self interest, it suits our wealth and privilige. And even when it hasn't suited the West specifically, even when that wasn't our direct intention (and often as not, it was the intention of those who rule, and it benefited those - like you, like me - who let them rule), even then, we'd often do it because it was a direct consequence of our states "national interests".

Should they burn down embassies? Should they kill people? Should they riot and burn American flags and chant hateful slogans? No. Should we have spent the past 50 (at the very least) years meddling in the third world for financial gain and geo-political one-upmanship? No.

Which - seriously - do you think is the greater crime?

Excellent idea! Next we can start fighting fire with gasoline!thats right drop a j-dam right down the pipe!:sniper:

they just shouldnt have done the cartoon. it is just provocative, and keep open your perspective wide open. if you were a muslim, what would you do? there is a rule in Islame specifically about portraying Mohammed
So the religious laws of a few should be enforced on all others?

thats more than what is taught at public school
can't deny it unfortunately

I just think that there are certain standards of behavior that people should be expected to maintain. If they don't they have to be shown the error of their ways. Better that it should be through pity and perhaps some ridicule than through force.

Really? And do those standards apply to you, your government, your corporations? I will grant you (for i am not being needlessly contentious or indeed ad hoministic) that you may very well live by those standards. Does the Muslim world experience YOUR standards or does it experience the hypocrisy and double standards and double-speak and double-think and sheer downright malignant self aggrandising self interest of Western power and Western wealth? Sure, no doubt the vast majority of Muslims would act the same as the vast majority of Westerners if placed at the head of Shell Oil, or Halliburton, or the US Government...but really, some riots, some deaths, terrible, shocking, horrible things. For many in the Muslim world, that sort of thing is commonplace and every day...and why is it so? Because it suits us that it is so, because - despite all our lofty propaganda - it suits us that their societies are broken and their governmental institutions are corrupt and controlled by brutal self serving men. It suits the power politics of the people we vote into power, it suits our national self interest, it suits our wealth and privilige. And even when it hasn't suited the West specifically, even when that wasn't our direct intention (and often as not, it was the intention of those who rule, and it benefited those - like you, like me - who let them rule), even then, we'd often do it because it was a direct consequence of our states "national interests".

Should they burn down embassies? Should they kill people? Should they riot and burn American flags and chant hateful slogans? No. Should we have spent the past 50 (at the very least) years meddling in the third world for financial gain and geo-political one-upmanship? No.

Which - seriously - do you think is the greater crime?

It's time we in the west started admitting and owning up properly. Large portions of the blame for the non-functioning of third world countries can be laid at the door of sections and segments of their own populations, granted. But equally, we are as much to blame. And setting ourselves up as supreme moral arbiters when ignorant, ill-educated people who are ignorant and ill-educated at least in part because of our actions as a society, do something foolish is not really the way forward.

The so-called 'Western' concept of 'free speech' is neither free nor impartial or fair!

The Danish paper that published the Mohammed cartoons refused to publish ones about Jesus a few years back. A cartoonist did make Jesus cartoons, but his work was turned down.

If you want to make satire out of religion, fine, but do it across the board and do ones of Moses and Jesus. Hell while were at it, get Vishnu, Shiva and Budda in the comic strips as well.

But no, that won't happen.

Also, I find Europe's talk of free speech nothing short of DISGUSTING!

Austria has sentenced the respected British historian David Irving, to jail for THREE YEARS!

Why, because he claimed that 6 million dead was too high a figure for the Holocaust.

He did NOT deny that Jews were mistreated or killed, just that it the death toll never reached 6 million.

Yet when the Jews are concerned, there is NO free speech in the West.

Actually, lets forget about 'Western' values, as we lost them long ago. Given the global Jewish grip on this worl, given the fact that Jews now control the US government and hold Europe hostage, the 'West' now answers to Tel Aviv.

For the centre of the 'Western' world, Tel Aviv is not very western!

Hah! Irving a respectable historian? The man stated that the Holocaust was a fairytale and that Hitler and his regime protected the Jews in Germany and the occupied lands. He's no respectable historian - well, only to neonazi fanatics.

First off there is a muslim world. i.e. ummah. Learn a little bit about Islam and you will learn about the ummah. Something that unites all muslims together under one banner is the ummah or the community of Islam.
Second off, many of you missed the point. I am not anti-Islam. I am anything but. I just want Islam to reform itself just as all western religions have, because if this happens, war will no longer be necessary. Middle East peace would happen sooner because the moderate voices would not be afraid to speak etc...
Some of you said that clerics urged calm but obviously that wasn't enough to prevent many from getting hurt, embassies from burning and just overall ridiculous events from unfolding. What needs to happen is the voices of moderation need to be louder than the voices of irrationality. I honor those leaders but it wasn't enough.

Really? And do those standards apply to you, your government, your corporations? I will grant you (for i am not being needlessly contentious or indeed ad hoministic) that you may very well live by those standards. Does the Muslim world experience YOUR standards or does it experience the hypocrisy and double standards and double-speak and double-think and sheer downright malignant self aggrandising self interest of Western power and Western wealth? Sure, no doubt the vast majority of Muslims would act the same as the vast majority of Westerners if placed at the head of Shell Oil, or Halliburton, or the US Government...but really, some riots, some deaths, terrible, shocking, horrible things. For many in the Muslim world, that sort of thing is commonplace and every day...and why is it so? Because it suits us that it is so, because - despite all our lofty propaganda - it suits us that their societies are broken and their governmental institutions are corrupt and controlled by brutal self serving men. It suits the power politics of the people we vote into power, it suits our national self interest, it suits our wealth and privilige. And even when it hasn't suited the West specifically, even when that wasn't our direct intention (and often as not, it was the intention of those who rule, and it benefited those - like you, like me - who let them rule), even then, we'd often do it because it was a direct consequence of our states "national interests".

Should they burn down embassies? Should they kill people? Should they riot and burn American flags and chant hateful slogans? No. Should we have spent the past 50 (at the very least) years meddling in the third world for financial gain and geo-political one-upmanship? No.

Which - seriously - do you think is the greater crime?
I'm not sure this is even relevant. It seems to me that some Muslims believe that their religion makes them superior to other people, and that they have the right to dictate laws to the non-believers. The rioters weren't protesting the US' support of dictators in the interests of stability, they were protesting someone in a Western nation using free speech to say something they didn't like.

Excellent idea! Next we can start fighting fire with gasoline!
it is better then surrender or allowing oneself to be consumed by the fire without the sense to do anything

First off there is a muslim world. i.e. ummah. Learn a little bit about Islam and you will learn about the ummah. Something that unites all muslims together under one banner is the ummah or the community of Islam.
Second off, many of you missed the point. I am not anti-Islam. I am anything but. I just want Islam to reform itself just as all western religions have, because if this happens, war will no longer be necessary. Middle East peace would happen sooner because the moderate voices would not be afraid to speak etc...
Some of you said that clerics urged calm but obviously that wasn't enough to prevent many from getting hurt, embassies from burning and just overall ridiculous events from unfolding. What needs to happen is the voices of moderation need to be louder than the voices of irrationality. I honor those leaders but it wasn't enough.
Well said.

I can't agree with you. If information and points of view are censored because someone might take offense, we'd have textbooks that refuse to teach about the shape of the earth, http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm, refuse to teach evolution, refuse to teach the holocaust, et cetera.

The enemy are those who believe that their religion makes them superior to non-believers and therefore they have the right to conquer and dictate laws to the unbelievers. The tantrums thrown over the cartoons are a symptom of arrogance. They seek to dictate to non-Muslim people what rights they may or may not exercise. They're as bad as the KKK. 9/11 was just a large-scale lynching. The cartoon panic is like the reaction a gang of backward Southern whites would have had if a black person printed cartoons of black men with white women.

I don't think people should take offense at other people's beliefs (inevitably someone will disagree with a belief, but that shouldn't cause hate or no-one could say they believed in anything), but I don't think that beliefs should be ridiculed and insulted in the way that Muslim's beliefs have been.
I'm against the violence, but I don't see why normal Muslims should have to be offended when other groups would be protected by attitudes like: OMG! Racist Scum!

I'm not sure this is even relevant. It seems to me that some Muslims believe that their religion makes them superior to other people, and that they have the right to dictate laws to the non-believers. The rioters weren't protesting the US' support of dictators in the interests of stability, they were protesting someone in a Western nation using free speech to say something they didn't like.

See the final element of my post, which my lousy ISP stopped me from posting three times, to see the relevance. We as a society are as complicit in the problem as the most hateful imams, the most blinkered theologians.

they just shouldnt have done the cartoon. it is just provocative, and keep open your perspective wide open. if you were a muslim, what would you do? there is a rule in Islame specifically about portraying Mohammed
I agree muslims should not make images of Mohammed. but for the rest of us...well I am not a muslim.

it is better then surrender or allowing oneself to be consumed by the fire without the sense to do anything
Not when you could use water just as easily

The so-called 'Western' concept of 'free speech' is neither free nor impartial or fair!Perhaps you could show some examples of how the laws aren't impartial or fair - specifically some Danish examples. If you can't, you should probably eat your words.The Danish paper that published the Mohammed cartoons refused to publish ones about Jesus a few years back. A cartoonist did make Jesus cartoons, but his work was turned down.Except that was work offered to them, which they refused to buy.
The newspaper has run satirical cartoons of Jesus before, and around the time they published the cartoons, they had a whole series of articles criticising the Danish Christian clergy & their interfering in politics.

But of course, non sequiturs beats the hell out of examining what's actually been going on.If you want to make satire out of religion, fine, but do it across the board and do ones of Moses and Jesus. Hell while were at it, get Vishnu, Shiva and Budda in the comic strips as well.

But no, that won't happen.Even if that was true, which it isn't, would you mind telling me who died & made you judge of all things newspaper-related?

One of the things about free speech & free press, is that you get to be as biased as you want. IF you were right about this, what would the problem be exactly? That someone dares to think Islam is violent idiocy? What of it mate?
It's perfectly legal to be an ignorant bastard & share your ignorance. Notice how noone's issuing death threats against you.Also, I find Europe's talk of free speech nothing short of DISGUSTING!I'm sure it's mutual.Austria has sentenced the respected British historian David Irving, to jail for THREE YEARS!Respected? The guy is a Neo-Nazi for fuck's sake. He's made non sequiturs a living, which isn't illegal in itself, but some nations happen to have anti-holohoax laws. Denmark isn't one of those, by the way.Why, because he claimed that 6 million dead was too high a figure for the Holocaust.

He did NOT deny that Jews were mistreated or killed, just that it the death toll never reached 6 million.

Yet when the Jews are concerned, there is NO free speech in the West.Yes, we all know and love that little county in Britain called Denmark, don't we? Blithering idiot.Actually, lets forget about 'Western' values, as we lost them long ago. Given the global Jewish grip on this worl, given the fact that Jews now control the US government and hold Europe hostage, the 'West' now answers to Tel Aviv.

For the centre of the 'Western' world, Tel Aviv is not very western!... Things that'll make you go WTF!? are in no short supply, eh?

So tell me, are you a Neo-Nazi, or suffering a more common mental illness?

I don't think people should take offense at other people's beliefs (inevitably someone will disagree with a belief, but that shouldn't cause hate or no-one could say they believed in anything), but I don't think that beliefs should be ridiculed and insulted in the way that Muslim's beliefs have been.
I'm against the violence, but I don't see why normal Muslims should have to be offended when other groups would be protected by attitudes like: OMG! Racist Scum!
You know what? It seems the Muslims are being protected with attitudes like "OMG! Racist Scum!". Plenty of people are saying that it's an unnecessary insult to Islam. Personally though, I believe in free speech. I think it's just as valid to tolerate cartoonists as it is to tolerate holocaust deniers. They can have their say and we can judge them on it. Just as we can judge the protesters on how they handle it.

Sorry for not being able to post but I was watchng Curse of the Were-Rabbit over ordered Pizza.

I've seen a post claiming that there has been a rise in racist posts. No, we're not racist, we're just sick of how islam seems to be corrupting decent people with it's unjustified teachings.

Just because we're against a bad thing that a major minority dosn't like, dosn't mean we're racist. Response seems to be you're racist, xenophobic, bigot, etc.

Countless people have told me to grow up. I'm not the one they should give it to.

You know what? It seems the Muslims are being protected with attitudes like "OMG! Racist Scum!". Plenty of people are saying that it's an unnecessary insult to Islam. Personally though, I believe in free speech. I think it's just as valid to tolerate cartoonists as it is to tolerate holocaust deniers.They can have their say and we can judge them on it. Just as we can judge the protesters on how they handle it.

Would you tolerate extemely rascist cartoons being mass published saying that everyone who isn't white is backwards? Or Neo-Nazi cartoons saying that Jews are evil?
Imo, the right to free speech shouldn't sacrifice the right to not be publicly insulted, ridiculed, and offended.

Would you tolerate extemely rascist cartoons being mass published saying that everyone who isn't white is backwards? Or Neo-Nazi cartoons saying that Jews are evil?
Imo, the right to free speech shouldn't sacrifice the right to not be publicly insulted, ridiculed, and offended.
(Double post. We don't need twice the boredom)

Hmmm. Maybe he's a member of the majority. Branded a racist because he points out truth about the corruption of islam.
And so what if you don't disgree. We don't brand you an pro-islamist.

Would you tolerate extemely rascist cartoons being mass published saying that everyone who isn't white is backwards? Or Neo-Nazi cartoons saying that Jews are evil?
Imo, the right to free speech shouldn't sacrifice the right to not be publicly insulted, ridiculed, and offended.
I would defend the right to publish them, I would consider the people who published them racist morons. That's one of the funny things about free speech. In order to defend ideas you like you need to be able to tolerate ideas you hate. If you establish the precedent that certain ideas can be censored it's only a matter of time before some of your own ideas become illegal.

I've never heard of a right not to be insulted, ridiculed or offended. In fact, in the USA, the Supereme Court upheld the right of a pornographer to publish an advertisement parody that claimed a popular televangelist had his first sexual experience in an outhouse with his mother.

(Double post. We don't need twice the boredom)
That's unnecessary

Hmmm. Maybe he's a member of the majority. Branded a racist because he points out truth about the corruption of islam.
And so what if you don't disgree. We don't brand you an pro-islamist.

I never branded him a rascist. You are also suggesting that all muslims are corrupt.

That's unnecessary
Okay. It is.



I never branded him a rascist. You are also suggesting that all muslims are corrupt.

1.Not verbally through speech.

2.And?

Okay. It is.





1.Not verbally through speech.

2.And?

Well, the fact that they aren't would be the main point he's trying to make.

So if screaming barbarians burn down an embassy, burning down their embassy would be an overreaction?

The idea of barbarians having an embassy makes me smile :P

Well, the fact that they aren't would be the main point he's trying to make.

Misinterpretation still seems to be a big problem here...

Misinterpretation still seems to be a big problem here...

Perhaps, but the fact that you think all Muslims are corrupt seems to be a bigger problem.

The idea of barbarians having an embassy makes me smile :P

Shit, they even have *cities*!

Does kind of remind one that barbarians are supposed to be nomadic, hence why they're not "civil" (city) -ized.

I would defend the right to publish them, I would consider the people who published them racist morons. That's one of the funny things about free speech. In order to defend ideas you like you need to be able to tolerate ideas you hate. If you establish the precedent that certain ideas can be censored it's only a matter of time before some of your own ideas become illegal.

Fair enough, but publishing unnecessary offensive and hateful material can only cause rifts between groups in society and more hate, I see no advantage of it - but that's just something of opinion.

I've never heard of a right not to be insulted, ridiculed or offended.

That doesn't mean people don't have the right not to be publicly ridiculed or offended.

It's not for another couple of Kings you can even make a claim they were Kings of England...they were more like powerful French potentates with a private estate over the channel to provide funding for their continental Empire building.

Indeed. I've no studied History for a *long* time. Wasn't it the Plantagenets who were the first true English kings?

Richard the First was cool, but not as cool as the Richard with his own fan club :)

Shit, they even have *cities*!

Does kind of remind one that barbarians are supposed to be nomadic, hence why they're not "civil" (city) -ized.
So I'm using the connotation rather than the exact dictionary definition of the word. Sue me. You all know what I'm getting at.

Have americans reverted back to calling french fries french fries again? even though they aren't french? we're getting too inter-multi-national these days, I blame history, can't even decide whether we've got english kings or french

Did the Americans actually start calling them Freedom Fries?

I thought that was just a joke....

Fair enough, but publishing unnecessary offensive and hateful material can only cause rifts between groups in society and more hate, I see no advantage of it - but that's just something of opinion.



That doesn't mean people don't have the right not to be publicly ridiculed or offended.
It establishes the idea that liberty is so valuable that it should be protected at whatever cost. If we follow your suggestion and ban any offensive speech then the precedent is set for government officials to silence personal criticism because it offends them. This means that the "offensive" criticism used to effect political change is outlawed. It means that creationists who are offended by the teaching of evolution can ban the central unifying theory of biology from being taught. It has tremendous and dire consequences for the future of our society.

It certainly doesn't support your assertion that such a right to be free from ridicule exists.

I personally found the cartoons insightful and amusing. And they were, in the main, not about mohammad but a satire about the insane reaction the cartoons themselves would provoke. Perhaps if the muslim world had reacted in a civilized manner then the cartoonists would have been condemned. instead the violent protests and death threats proved the cartoonists right and further tarnished the image of islam.

Its rude to insult anyone, but if you call someone a wanker and they react by wanking in your face then the insult was perfectly justified.

Did the Americans actually start calling them Freedom Fries?

I thought that was just a joke....
Some did. We've got some morons running around here.

It's all part of the damn parasites conspiracy. Just when you think you're safe, they'll get you.

Didn't our good chum Adolf have something like this to say??

I know by now this may no longer be related to the current topic at hand. But do the words 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' mean anything to anyone anymore? Certian favors shouldn't be given to certian people. If they don't like the Mo' cartoons then all they have to do is TURN THE PAGE. Life goes on, believe me!

Also, I have seen the cartoons and they weren't even 'all that'. Basically, people need to grow up and stop rioting over pictures and get the <insert four letter word> over it already. Again, certian people shouldn't get certian privilages and that's that!

If anyone would like to see the cartoons and hasn't just leave me a telegram and I can 'hook you up'.

<sings> 'LET FREEDOM < of speech> RING"!

Denmark is not under US sovereignty and the Danish embassies are not the property of the US government.

Give it a few years...

:-)

Didn't our good chum Adolf have something like this to say??
indeed he did

Perhaps, but the fact that you think all Muslims are corrupt seems to be a bigger problem.
Well Glad to be so significant.

Good then you wont mind when someones draws Jesus upside down on the cross. And hey, why dont we make a bunch of cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, afterall it was really funny.

Um, dood, they already have. You can poke fun at Christianity and ban that, but heaven help us all if someone HAPPENS to offend a jew or Muslim. You can show the star and cresent and the minora where you want, but God forbid a cross.

Wasn't the UN reserved for the liberals? They're having a vegetarian barbecue! Oh no. Fire. Even more liberalism, eh?

What happened to (not a small enough font so...)

It establishes the idea that liberty is so valuable that it should be protected at whatever cost. If we follow your suggestion and ban any offensive speech then the precedent is set for government officials to silence personal criticism because it offends them. This means that the "offensive" criticism used to effect political change is outlawed. It means that creationists who are offended by the teaching of evolution can ban the central unifying theory of biology from being taught. It has tremendous and dire consequences for the future of our society.

It certainly doesn't support your assertion that such a right to be free from ridicule exists.

Offensive publication is already banned...to a degree - without any noticable corruption, but I'm saying that if rascist and offensive material is banned (because it causes offense) - why can't it ban material offensive to a massive amount of Muslims, is it because they're Muslims? It seems that they're being left out in the rain exposed to such deeply personal slander (on their very faith) - which would be unacceptable were it aimed at other groups.
Not everybody can take offensive material so well, because they have different beliefs. I wouldn't go up to somebody spout some ridiculous offensive garble because I wouldn't want to make them feel bad. The same principal should apply everywhere - something purely to offend is immoral.

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.


Then print it even more for the history books?:D

something purely to offend is immoral.
Who says that the sole purpose of the cartoons was to offend? To some, they could be thought-provoking.

Who says that the sole purpose of the cartoons was to offend? To some, they could be thought-provoking.

I'm sure there are other ways to be thought-provoking without offending people, but the cartoons showed that the cartoonist had a complete lack of respect for the muslim faith.

hey if you really dont care baout all of this, send me a dollar, i will count up all the dollars and tell you how many people dont care;)

btw if you send me $100 that counts as 100 votes, so if you want to rig the poll;)

Offensive publication is already banned...to a degree - without any noticable corruption, but I'm saying that if rascist and offensive material is banned (because it causes offense) - why can't it ban material offensive to a massive amount of Muslims, is it because they're Muslims? It seems that they're being left out in the rain exposed to such deeply personal slander (on their very faith) - which would be unacceptable were it aimed at other groups.
Not everybody can take offensive material so well, because they have different beliefs. I wouldn't go up to somebody spout some ridiculous offensive garble because I wouldn't want to make them feel bad. The same principal should apply everywhere - something purely to offend is immoral.
My point is this. Who decides that some speech is "purely to offend"? In the US you have to endanger people's lives or national security in order to be censored. Offense is permitted because if you allow people to decide what's offensive and what's not legitimate speech could be banned.

The cartoons weren't slander. (Except maybe the bomb/turban one) That's not the main reason for the uproar. The uproar was because in Islam it's not permitted to make any images of the prophet whatsoever. You could show him picking flowers or raping a slave woman captured in battle and both would be considered offensive just because they depict Muhammad.

Even if you go ahead and say offense is a reason for limiting speech, don't you think that a group that takes offense so easily would cause unjustifiable limits to speech? By making any depiction of the prophet off limits you severely limit the ability to criticize the religion.

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.Uh, oh...

Here we go...

You don't know the power of the Dark Side young Skywalker...

Pretty soon you might even start to admit that stoning is a bad thing...

can't deny it unfortunately

so then it must burn

so then it must burn
:D

I'm sure there are other ways to be thought-provoking without offending people, but the cartoons showed that the cartoonist had a complete lack of respect for the muslim faith.Point being?

The thing you fail to comprehend, is that non-Muslims don't have to abide by the creeds of Islam.

The freedom to criticise & make fun of religion, is paramount to secular society. If one cannot, or dare not, make fun of or critique a religion, one no longer lives in a secular society. It is that bloody simple.

Muslims have every right to feel offended about whatever they damn well please. The rest of us have every right to make fun of them, criticise them & whatever else we wish to do.

The only other choices, are to turn the world into a united sharia society, or to ban all religion, philosophy, political ideology, critical thinking, all forms of expression & probably breathing, just for the hell of it.

I thought the drawings were idiotic. I criticised them. I didn't kill, burn or maim anything, nor did I stoop to spreading lies & slander about the paper or its Cultural Editor. And though I'm of the opinion that 99% of what comes out of the paper in question, is shit, I will defend their right to print shit, no matter the cost.

Bowing down to riots orchestrated by totalitarian regimes, is elevating hypocrisy & double-talk to a fucking art. Some times the left wing is as retarded as the right... You're supposed to promote freedom & equality, not spineless double-talk.

:D


so this thread took the obvious flaming turn


oh and love the sig....;) You will be spared when minoriteeburg gains control.

Offensive publication is already banned...to a degree - without any noticable corruption, but I'm saying that if rascist and offensive material is banned (because it causes offense) - why can't it ban material offensive to a massive amount of Muslims, is it because they're Muslims? It seems that they're being left out in the rain exposed to such deeply personal slander (on their very faith) - which would be unacceptable were it aimed at other groups.
Not everybody can take offensive material so well, because they have different beliefs. I wouldn't go up to somebody spout some ridiculous offensive garble because I wouldn't want to make them feel bad. The same principal should apply everywhere - something purely to offend is immoral.
Banned where? Offensive and racist material is not banned here in the US, thank God! ;)

Here we're allowed to express our opinionjs no matter how repugnant and the rest of society is allowed to answer with a hardy FUCK YOU! :) That's just teh way I like it. :p

I'm sure there are other ways to be thought-provoking without offending people, but the cartoons showed that the cartoonist had a complete lack of respect for the muslim faith.

You fail to realise that you can't please everyone.

My point is this. Who decides that some speech is "purely to offend"? In the US you have to endanger people's lives or national security in order to be censored. Offense is permitted because if you allow people to decide what's offensive and what's not legitimate speech could be banned.

The cartoons weren't slander. (Except maybe the bomb/turban one) That's not the main reason for the uproar. The uproar was because in Islam it's not permitted to make any images of the prophet whatsoever. You could show him picking flowers or raping a slave woman captured in battle and both would be considered offensive just because they depict Muhammad.

Even if you go ahead and say offense is a reason for limiting speech, don't you think that a group that takes offense so easily would cause unjustifiable limits to speech? By making any depiction of the prophet off limits you severely limit the ability to criticize the religion.

If it can be decided wether rascist material is purely to offend - and be censored, why can't it apply to material offensive to Islam? It is important to respect other people's faith, and the whole of Western free speech and media won't collapse if pictures of the prophet aren't published, criticizing the religion has been, and will still be able to be done without showing the prophet as a terrorist, or even showing him at all. 1300,000,000 people is a lot of people to offend.

If it can be decided wether rascist material is purely to offend - and be censored, why can't it apply to material offensive to Islam? It is important to respect other people's faith, and the whole of Western free speech and media won't collapse if pictures of the prophet aren't published, criticizing the religion has been, and will still be able to be done without showing the prophet as a terrorist, or even showing him at all. 1300,000,000 people is a lot of people to offend.
I gotta ask again, where is racist speech banned? Its not banned here in the US...

I'm sure there are other ways to be thought-provoking without offending people, but the cartoons showed that the cartoonist had a complete lack of respect for the muslim faith.
Admit it. You haven't seen them, hve you? Not all of them anyway.

1. "The cartoonist" is 12 different people.
2. At least two of the cartoons were sent calling the paper a reactionary bunch of biggots and did not depict The Prophet at all.

If it can be decided wether rascist material is purely to offend - and be censored, why can't it apply to material offensive to Islam? It is important to respect other people's faith, and the whole of Western free speech and media won't collapse if pictures of the prophet aren't published, criticizing the religion has been, and will still be able to be done without showing the prophet as a terrorist, or even showing him at all. 1300,000,000 people is a lot of people to offend.
How does one decide if racist material is purely to offend? Look at that moron who got arrested in Austria for denying the holocaust. He wasn't trying to offend, he was trying to convince people of something his idiotic mind thought to be true. His speech should have been protected, but because racist speech is punished, he got locked up.

It's important to allow people to practice their faith, but respecting their faith is completely unneccesary. When Christians say that Jesus is "The way the truth and the light, nobody gets to the father except through me" they're certainly not respecting Judaism or Islam, basically saying they're false doctrines, but they have the right to say it.

It's bullshit to allow a group of people to make drawing a certain person a criminal offense. What happens when other groups make similar demands? Do the limits of legal speech get tighter and tighter until one can hardly say "good morning" without risking prison time?

Fuck All Humanity. You're all a bunch of worthless, incestuous fucktards. That goes for all of your assorted fake deities too.

I just insulted some six billion. Come and get me.

Point being?

The thing you fail to comprehend, is that non-Muslims don't have to abide by the creeds of Islam.

The freedom to criticise & make fun of religion, is paramount to secular society. If one cannot, or dare not, make fun of or critique a religion, one no longer lives in a secular society. It is that bloody simple.

Muslims have every right to feel offended about whatever they damn well please. The rest of us have every right to make fun of them, criticise them & whatever else we wish to do.

The only other choices, are to turn the world into a united sharia society, or to ban all religion, philosophy, political ideology, critical thinking, all forms of expression & probably breathing, just for the hell of it.

I thought the drawings were idiotic. I criticised them. I didn't kill, burn or maim anything, nor did I stoop to spreading lies & slander about the paper or its Cultural Editor. And though I'm of the opinion that 99% of what comes out of the paper in question, is shit, I will defend their right to print shit, no matter the cost.

Bowing down to riots orchestrated by totalitarian regimes, is elevating hypocrisy & double-talk to a fucking art. Some times the left wing is as retarded as the right... You're supposed to promote freedom & equality, not spineless double-talk.

There is a line between criticizing a religion, and outright insulting it. What backed-up political view does showing the prophet with a bomb turban present?
It's one thing to annoy 500 or so fanatical people that believe the world is flat, but when something with little or no political point offends 1300,000,000 people, it simply isn't worth it.
Even if they do present a backed-up point of view, critizism does not need material that causes unnecessary offense.
I think that bowing in to violent protests is pathetic, I would be against the publication of the cartoons even if the violent protests hadn't happened out of sheer principle.

You fail to realise that you can't please everyone.

I think everyone should try their best though :)

There is a line between criticizing a religion, and outright insulting it. What backed-up political view does showing the prophet with a bomb turban present?
It's one thing to annoy 500 or so fanatical people that believe the world is flat, but when something with little or no political point offends 1300,000,000 people, it simply isn't worth it.
Even if they do present a backed-up point of view, critizism does not need material that causes unnecessary offense.
I think that bowing in to violent protests is pathetic, I would be against the publication of the cartoons even if the violent protests hadn't happened out of sheer principle.



I think everyone should try their best though :)
1) The prophet with a bomb on his head may be interpreted as saying that the terrorists are placing a burden upon Islam. That's valid criticism. Unfortunately you might be murdered for making that valid point.

2) There is no difference between insulting billions and insulting a handful of people as far as the law is concerned. Ever hear of equal protection under the law?

3) Define "unnecessary" offense.

How does one decide if racist material is purely to offend? Look at that moron who got arrested in Austria for denying the holocaust. He wasn't trying to offend, he was trying to convince people of something his idiotic mind thought to be true. His speech should have been protected, but because racist speech is punished, he got locked up.

It's important to allow people to practice their faith, but respecting their faith is completely unneccesary. When Christians say that Jesus is "The way the truth and the light, nobody gets to the father except through me" they're certainly not respecting Judaism or Islam, basically saying they're false doctrines, but they have the right to say it.

It's bullshit to allow a group of people to make drawing a certain person a criminal offense. What happens when other groups make similar demands? Do the limits of legal speech get tighter and tighter until one can hardly say "good morning" without risking prison time?

Fuck All Humanity. You're all a bunch of worthless, incestuous fucktards. That goes for all of your assorted fake deities too.

I just insulted some six billion. Come and get me.

I think you've convinced me with this, but I think respecting people's faith is necessary so long as it doesn't infringe on your own beliefs. Maybe muslims shouln't read that paper(and others) if they know it's going to offend them.
Anyway I've got to get some sleep now...

Indeed. I've no studied History for a *long* time. Wasn't it the Plantagenets who were the first true English kings?

Richard the First was cool, but not as cool as the Richard with his own fan club :)

Yeah, whereas your Angevins were basically stuck in the middle, half in one camp, half in the other, i mean, how did Richard die? Not setting England to rights, besieging an uppity vassal in Northern France...

I know by now this may no longer be related to the current topic at hand. But do the words 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' mean anything to anyone anymore? Certian favors shouldn't be given to certian people. If they don't like the Mo' cartoons then all they have to do is TURN THE PAGE. Life goes on, believe me!

Also, I have seen the cartoons and they weren't even 'all that'. Basically, people need to grow up and stop rioting over pictures and get the <insert four letter word> over it already. Again, certian people shouldn't get certian privilages and that's that!

If anyone would like to see the cartoons and hasn't just leave me a telegram and I can 'hook you up'.

<sings> 'LET FREEDOM < of speech> RING"!


Freedom of speech?

Ok, stand up and say you want to shoot the president. See how free you feel when the FBI come round a-knocking on your door.

The western world makes this big hoo-hah about freedom of speech but every single country in it has some element of curtailing of that right.

Freedom of speech?

Ok, stand up and say you want to shoot the president. See how free you feel when the FBI come round a-knocking on your door.

The western world makes this big hoo-hah about freedom of speech but every single country in it has some element of curtailing of that right.

Yeah man, totally. Critisizing Islam, declaring you want to assassinate the President...what's the diff?

/sarc

Yeah man, totally. Critisizing Islam, declaring you want to assassinate the President...what's the diff?

/sarc

Whats that got to do with anything? I said there are limits curtailing freedom of speech in every western country. I didn't say the two were equivalent.

I don't really have a complaint about islam so much as about the far-far right in the first place. I have never had a problem with the religiously minded. I am such myself. But they can go too far. I have seen religion use as an excuse to justify child abuse, murder, starvation and social injustice.

I think the real problem here is two fold. One is that the secular world(of which I am part) needs to respect the religious world. I'll say in my defence I haven't always been perfect (Pat Robinson gets me from time to time) but I try. At the same time religion is not an all time use excuse for doing whatever the hell you want. I don't care who you are.

The extreme muslam world and the extreme hindu world and the extreme secular world and and the extreme christian world (see, I don't play favorites) and all the other extremes, need to grow up.

Were the danish correct to print those cartoons? maybe not. We have both sides here. Were the protesters correct to cause the murder and destruction? Absolutly not. I haven't seen anyone claim that. The response simply didn't fit the problem. And frankly acting like three year olds, throwing "stones" at each other like this isn't a good idea. When we were 3 the worst we could do was, I dunno, pour juice on each other? Now we have chamical wapons, terrorism and bombs that could destroy small countries.

The stakes are simply too high for such childishness to be tolerated. Wether in provoking or overreacting. To quote my mother "I don't care who started it - end it this second." I hated hearing it, but I'm old enough now to know she was right. I would think we should expect at least that much maturity from our national and religious leaders. At some point things just need to be dropped.

A previous writer(can't rememeber your name sorry!) also had a point.

Non-muslams are not required to follow muslam dogma. Just like muslams are not required to follow christain dogma or pagans, such as myself, are not required to follow another's dogma either. It's called freedom of religion and is actually a timely point to make. I know that Jerry Farwell sent missionaries when the US invaded(not going there, it's another argument and one at a time) Iraq. I can tell you, from my experance in the deep south, that people are praised for replacing anothers religion with thier own. And I'll admit that it's a common feeling in the western world. This, I'm told, is why alot of muslam countries don't allow christain missionaries in thier borders. It makes sence to me, I've had enough of them knock on my door to more then understand.

But it's a two way street. Muslams also need to understand that not everyone is like, or will one day will be, like them. I'm not surprised it's a problem, but still. I'm an archaeology student with an intrest in babylon and egypt and such, and several of my teachers have told me to avoid those parts of the world. As a female, I would not be taken seiously and I would not be safe. Not for anything I've done or not done, but for what gender I was born as. That's all.

It didn't exactly help me respect that part of the world at the time and I still have to consider that issue when I do research with information gathered in the region, which is often. The numbers just cannot be trusted.


The boycotting of danish goods, I applauded. I knew that protraying Mohammed wasn't allowed. The chanting, wonderfull. This is the stuff that non-violent action is made of. But it got too far. And when it comes to giving respect, there is too much for all of us to learn for us to be so willing to use force.

There is a line between criticizing a religion, and outright insulting it. What backed-up political view does showing the prophet with a bomb turban present? See DCDs post. I wonder, did you actually look at the cartoons before your brain started screaming "Racist blasphemers!!"
It's one thing to annoy 500 or so fanatical people that believe the world is flat, but when something with little or no political point offends 1,300,000,000 people, it simply isn't worth it.Little or no political point? Know what? Somehow it must have hit home, when entire countries erupt in violence & demands that a forign nation, half-way across the globe change their laws to fit religious creeds.

The insane hysteria that has ensued, was in no way warrented or anticipated. But if something this insignificant can have such a massive impact, I think there's about 1,300,000,000 damn good reasons for doing it.
Even if they do present a backed-up point of view, critizism does not need material that causes unnecessary offense.
I think that bowing in to violent protests is pathetic, I would be against the publication of the cartoons even if the violent protests hadn't happened out of sheer principle.It's funny, because I never really thought JP had a valid point, until I saw the reactions on here.

To offend unnessecarily must remain a sacred right for all. The alternative is no right to free expression, religion & probably breathing.

And on that note: quit stealing my air. You don't deserve it & I didn't allow it.

JP didn't invade places of worship & mock people's faith. They ran a critical, satirical article in their own newspaper, one you have to BUY to read, in which they intentionally broke a religious taboo to test if people really would descend into a religious frenzy.

I wish to thank all my Muslim friends for not proving them right, and all my left-wing friends for backing up the paper's right to do such things. I'm sorry most of the Muslims of the world, and most of the lefties of the world, have completely abandoned their senses.

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.
To be fair, this would be targetted at extremist Muslims and many of those in the Middle East. I agree so far. With those who are moderate in their beliefs and do not espouse the doctrine of Dhimmitude I have no qualms.

With those who are moderate in their beliefs and do not espouse the doctrine of Dhimmitude I have no qualms.
What if I told you that there are countries (Malaysia I think is one) where you actually do have to pay an extra dhimmi tax if you're not Muslim?

What if you moved there - would the government not be right to do what the people want?

What if I told you that there are countries (Malaysia I think is one) where you actually do have to pay an extra dhimmi tax if you're not Muslim?

What if you moved there - would the government not be right to do what the people want?
I meant those in the West.

Whats that got to do with anything? I said there are limits curtailing freedom of speech in every western country. I didn't say the two were equivalent.Yes.. Because just like people should have the right not to be killed by random loons, people should also have the right to kill people they dislike.

You were dropped as a child, weren't you?

What if I told you that there are countries (Malaysia I think is one) where you actually do have to pay an extra dhimmi tax if you're not Muslim?

What if you moved there - would the government not be right to do what the people want?
I say no. For example, the majority of whites in the 1700s were in favor of black slavery. Was that right?

I say no. For example, the majority of whites in the 1700s were in favor of black slavery. Was that right?
Objectively or subjectively? :D

Point is that these nations on some level have a right to settle their own affairs. It's not compatible with our values regarding freedom of religion, so much is true though.

Objectively or subjectively? :D

Point is that these nations on some level have a right to settle their own affairs. It's not compatible with our values regarding freedom of religion, so much is true though.
Agreed. Yet I was referring to those who would like to establish hardcore Islamic law in the West.

For the Past few weeks we have listened to the gripe of the Muslim world over the depiction of Mohammed in a cartoon. I have no sympathy for them. I am generally left leaning and very sympathetic person but for some reason they want more sympathy after burning embassies down, blaming the entire western world... Why? And somehow Iran has linked it all to holocaust denial, Jews, and Israel. The US is not responsible but US companies in Pakistan are torched.
If the Muslim world wanted to protest in a rational productive way that was going after the people who did attack their prophet I would be more inclined to listen to their complaints, but yet, they couldn't. Their idea of rational was burn the embassies down of the countries. There were legitimate protests of not carrying danish food products and the such but not many were decrying embassy torching of Denmark and Norway. Rational and not rational.

Frankly, I say print the cartoon until the Muslim world comes to their senses.

Shut up about it already.


People forgot about Katrina and the Tsunami faster than people are forgetting about those fucking cartoons.

Yes.. Because just like people should have the right not to be killed by random loons, people should also have the right to kill people they dislike.

You were dropped as a child, weren't you?

If i was, it was obviously on your skull. The stated wish to kill someone is not the same as the act. How many times have you said "why i oughta kill you for that?" or the like?

For Example, if i ever were in a small room with President Bush and a knife, then thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and the like means that i would want to kill him.

Am i actively gonna do it? Unlikely, i don't even live on the same continent and i'm not going to seek him out even if i did live on the same continent.

FBI would be round my house in a shot if i lived in the states for the second paragraph.

There are, as i say, limits on what we can say in the west. I'm not saying thats a bad thing at all. I'm just saying we should stop getting so high and mighty about freedom of speech when no such thing exists, in any country, ever.