This is absolutely disgusting!!!

[Wokawidget]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

:mad:

Woka

[thegreatone]

I agree with you Woka, this is simply too far.

Peaceful protest i agree with, violent ? No way.

[Wokawidget]

Then you have this in London:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676524.stm

"Europe, you'll come crawling when the Mujahideen come roaring" (which we can see in the foto)
and
"7/7 is on its way" (which we can't see in foto, so this is alleged)

Yes, that's right, because I, me personally, deserve to die for this don't I...:mad:

I'm sorry, but I find this offencive. Do you think the people holding those banners would mind if I went round their house and petrol bombed it?! But in their eyes [the people holding the banners] it's OK to do this because they offended me. *sigh*

Gimme 10 minutes in a closed room with a staple gun and the guy holding that banner!

Woka

[mendhak]

BBC apologized for airing the cartoon (not as a still image, but a moving image over the newspaper).

Do you think BBC should have apologized?

[Pino]

religion again. :p

Extreme!

[Wokawidget]

BBC apologized for airing the cartoon (not as a still image, but a moving image over the newspaper).

Do you think BBC should have apologized?
Hmmmmm...I am unaware that the BBC did print it. In fact, I am almost certain they didn't.
Or do you mean on TV, on the news, in the background?

I do not think they should appologise.
Every single day in life people from all walks of life get offended, some at the stupidest things. 99% just tut to themselves and get on with life, because life to to short to worry about things.

I also think that no-one in their right mind can make any judgement on situations like this unless they have actually seen the image themselves.

A few years back Channel 4, an English TV station, aired a satirical comedy written by Chris Morris (comic genius). The subject was peadophilia. The aim of the satire was to take the mick out of the media and how it blew things out of proportion, and not glamorising peadophilia.

Chris Morris aimed to geta reaction out of the media...oh and boy did he!!! People campagned for him never to be allowed to be on TV again. It was brought up in Government and they wanted to propose a move to ban him blah blah. Poo really hit the fan. My own Grandparents were disgusted at it too.

Something daft like 95% of people polled who were sickened and disgusted, including Government miniters who were proposing the ban and my own grandparents, hadn't actually watched the satire or seen any part of it....I'm sorry, but how on earth can you make the comments like they were doing when you have zero idea about what you're talking about.

Chris Morris's task was complete. He succeded :D

If you don't like anything, be it the peadophile satire (Peadogeddon), Friends, Fraiser, Italian food, short skirts or cartoons taking the mick, then it's simple. Stay away from them.

My sister did something similar. My Gran and middle sister were involved in a head on car crash 4 years ago. They bwere in a VERY bad way as they engine pretty much toasted their legs and were in intensive care. Me and my younger sister were the only family members around. We were at the hospital and I was asking the nurse what the damage was, as I couldn't see anything as their legs were under bandages. She said she had photos that the docs took so I asked to see them, just so I have a better understanding of what they are going through, and about how serious the situation was.
I took the fotos and sat on one side of intensive care thumbing through them. I had no idea what I was looking at it was that bad. Anyways, my younger sister kept saying "don't show me. Don't show me", which I wasn't, yet she kept coming over to where I was sitting and looking over my shoulder at them. This was HER choice, I'd deliberatly walked away from her.
She was then sick on the spot as they were than bad. But then I got blamed! Errrr...No...you actively came over and looked knowing full well what was in these fotos, your choice, not mine, but yours...and you're blaming me?!

I am assuming that the vast majority of people campagning about these pictures (the prophet ones, not my grans car crash) haven't actually seen them. Ok, so does this mean that if I get a pen and paper now and draw the prophet doing something daft, in my own home that only me and my GF would see, then I would be subjected to a personal hate campagne? This would then mean that other peoples beliefs are actually being forced upon me. This is 110% unacceptable.
Woka

PS Sister and Gran made full recovery by the way thanks to the absolutely fantastic doctors! And that was NHS ;)

[visualAd]

One has the right to be offended and protest about the offense but I cannot see what good crimnal damage, murder or being offensive back does. Like most things, its just an excuse for phsycos to go an cause a bit of trouble - giving everyone a bad name :(

[Something Else]

Some removed the Danish flag and replaced it with another reading: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God."

Pardon, but isn't the saying supposed to be "There is no god but allah, and muhammad is his prophet"?

Must be a translator issue.

[big blue alien]

if you dont want your prophet to be satierised as a terrorist DONT GO BLOWING PEOPLE UP. I feel sory for the good muslims who get a bad name because of all of this, the day after that protest in London they had their own smaller protest and their was no trouble

[Wokawidget]

if you dont want your prophet to be satierised as a terrorist DONT GO BLOWING PEOPLE UP.
But they arn't blowing stuff up, that's the problem.

It would be like me writing the worlds nastiest virus, then everyone from VBF being accused of being virus writers.

[Pino]

I've got an image on my phone i'll get it on here soon. I saw it in the paper today of a baby with a hat saying I love al'quida (nt sure of spelling) the baby was taken to one of the demo's

Just stupid. I agree a minority causing problems for the majority.

[Wokawidget]

And now this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682560.stm

:(

WOka

[Pino]

'Respect our religion'


respect property and life. a complete joke, so gets me annoyed

[Shaggy Hiker]

One thing that puzzles me is the bit about muslims considering any image of Mohammed to be offensive. You aren't supposed to have an image of him, which I suppose has something to do with the 'no graven images' bit that is found in a few religeons.

So my question is: How do they recognize that the cartoon is a picture of him?

Thousands of gaudy pictures of jesus would allow any christian to recognize a caricature of him, but how so for a muslim?

[moeur]

The radical Muslims will have to have to accept being offended by other cultures if they ever want to be accepted into the world community. The problem is that if they start to behave themselves and act responsibly they will not be noticed and hence may lose what power they currently have.

The rest of the world has to stop apologizing to them every time they get upset and start treating them as the thugs that they are.

The peaceful Muslims have to stop supporting the radicals and distance themselves from them by condemning their violent actions. Until we hear a voice from the peaceful Muslims the rest of the world will continue to believe that they all speak with this one violent voice.

[mendhak]

The peaceful Muslims have to stop supporting the radicals and distance themselves from them by condemning their violent actions. Until we hear a voice from the peaceful Muslims the rest of the world will continue to believe that they all speak with this one violent voice.

I don't understand this. They do speak up, everytime something happens, there are always comments by them.

Do you simply choose to ignore them and assume they speak with one voice?

[moeur]

I don't understand this. They do speak up, everytime something happens, there are always comments by them. No they don't.

Maybe I read the wrong papers and see the wrong news, but every time things like this happens the Mullahs are silent.

Please point me to criticism of this latest action by leaders in the Muslim religion and I will concede your point.

[mendhak]

You mentioned peaceful muslims, not mullahs.

Not all mullahs are peaceful, and not all peaceful muslims are mullahs. Also, mullahs are not the representatives of the middle eastern population, just as the pope doesn't represent the entire western world.

[penagate]

Please point me to criticism of this latest action by leaders in the Muslim religion and I will concede your point.

Second link that Woka posted in this thread.

[moeur]

You mentioned peaceful muslims, not mullahs.

Not all mullahs are peaceful, and not all peaceful muslims are mullahs. Also, mullahs are not the representatives of the middle eastern population, just as the pope doesn't represent the entire western world.

The Mullahs are the leaders and representatives of the Muslim religion and there are many who are peaceful but, not one of them steps forward and condems any violence commited in the name of Islam. If they did, a lot of this violence would be stopped immediately. No; the more radical among these Mullahs went so far as to travel to the middle East to bring news of these cartoons with them and to actually incite violence.

The Pope does not represent the entire western world, but he does lead all of his faith.

[Wokawidget]

The radical Muslims will have to have to accept being offended by other cultures if they ever want to be accepted into the world community. The problem is that if they start to behave themselves and act responsibly they will not be noticed and hence may lose what power they currently have.

The rest of the world has to stop apologizing to them every time they get upset and start treating them as the thugs that they are.

The peaceful Muslims have to stop supporting the radicals and distance themselves from them by condemning their violent actions. Until we hear a voice from the peaceful Muslims the rest of the world will continue to believe that they all speak with this one violent voice.
This is completely incorrect on sooo many lvls.

The imagwes have also upset upstanding decent muslims too, who have held peacefull protests, and this I have no problem with what so ever.
And as for them supporting the thugs...err...they don't. They publicly condone what's gone on. They campagne for the release of hostages in the middle east and speak out about those who try to incite violence.

No offence, but are you American? The reason I say this is because I am currently in the US and the media here is very biased, from what I have seen. In the UK we are used to unbiased reporting, and get to see both sides.
This is from what I have seen in the US in the last week, and when I was here 2 years ago. Correct me if I am wrong :( (not having a go at Americans here by the way)

Woka

[Wokawidget]

The Mullahs are the leaders and representatives of the Muslim religion and there are many who are peaceful but, not one of them steps forward and condems any violence commited in the name of Islam. If they did, a lot of this violence would be stopped immediately. No; the more radical among these Mullahs went so far as to travel to the middle East to bring news of these cartoons with them and to actually incite violence.

The Pope does not represent the entire western world, but he does lead all of his faith.
Again....wrong wrong wrong on SOOOOOO many lvls.

What news/media are you getting your "facts" from...yea, maybe one of 2 radicals did that, but the majority certainly dont, and do speak out.

Read news.bbc.co.uk, voted worlds best news service for it's unbiased reporting.

Woka

[moeur]

Again....wrong wrong wrong on SOOOOOO many lvls.Which point is wrong?

That the Imams and Mullahs are the leaders of the Muslim religion?

That there is no condemnation for the violence coming out of the Mosques?

Yes I am American and we do get a different point of view than you do from out news outlets, but it isn’t any more biased that your BBC.

Are you suggesting that the Muslim religious leaders have joined in solidarity to make public statements condemning violence and all our TV and New papers have ignored this? I couldn’t find it on BBC either.

[Wokawidget]

That the Imams and Mullahs are the leaders of the Muslim religion?Nope. This is fine.


That there is no condemnation for the violence coming out of the Mosques?
Absoluely 110% incorrect. That statement is just gibberish. Sorry.


Yes I am American and we do get a different point of view than you do from out news outlets, but it isn’t any more biased that your BBC.
HAHAHAHAHA :D You have got to be joking right?! :confused:


Are you suggesting that the Muslim religious leaders have joined in solidarity to make public statements condemning violence and all our TV and New papers have ignored this? I couldn’t find it on BBC either.
Ok...I am saying that muslim leaders have spoken out and condemed the attacks. I don't know what your source of info is, but it clearly isn't realiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684250.stm

Lebanon's leading Sunni politician Saad Hariri, said the violence was a "black day" for Lebanon's Muslims.


Muslim clerics had spoken out against the protests

Security officials said at least 18 people were injured, AP news agency reported. The government said several dozen Lebanese and Syrians had been arrested.

'Inexcusable' actions

Some Muslim clerics helped to persuade the crowd to disperse as the violence died down, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from the scene.

Lebanon's most prominent Sunni leader, Saad al-Hariri, vowed to track down and prosecute those involved in the attacks.

"We tell our Christian brothers that any stone thrown against a house or a car was an insult to Muslims," he said from Paris.


and...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4683002.stm


Meanwhile, Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said that Muslims would be in favour of arresting those who waved offensive placards or banners.

He told Channel 4 News: "I think the police were right to have taken footage of the event and identified the ringleaders, because although several hundred people were there, the actual placards were being held by a tiny group of extremists."

He added: "Those extremists who were inciting violence were trying to hijack genuine feelings amongst Muslims for a more violent agenda.

"There will be no sympathy for them when they are charged by the police."


I'll let you find the rest ;)

Woka

[moeur]

I also think it is funny that you on that side of the pond think your news is unbiased. It certainly spends more time on international affairs, but it is biased toward the liberal end of the spectrum.

As far as Muslim religious leaders condeming the violence.
Muslim clerics had spoken out against the protestsThis is the only line in both articles that said anything about the subject. All other references were from political leaders which do not have anywhere near the power of the religious leaders.

There is no out cry from the religious community to stop the violence and until there is it will continue.

[visualAd]

The radical Muslims will have to have to accept being offended by other cultures if they ever want to be accepted into the world community. The problem is that if they start to behave themselves and act responsibly they will not be noticed and hence may lose what power they currently have.

The rest of the world has to stop apologizing to them every time they get upset and start treating them as the thugs that they are.

The peaceful Muslims have to stop supporting the radicals and distance themselves from them by condemning their violent actions. Until we hear a voice from the peaceful Muslims the rest of the world will continue to believe that they all speak with this one violent voice.
With people who hold attitudes like yours; they wonder where terrorists come from!! :mad: :sick:

[dglienna]

You should ban yourself for that, Adam. Seems against the AUP amongst other things.
Haven't you guys ever heard of CNN? They aren't any network that may be biased one way or another. Might be like your bbc network, or even the same thing.

[Andrew G]

I'm just wondering if there are any Muslims on VBF and what's their view on this.

[Wokawidget]

There is no out cry from the religious community to stop the violence and until there is it will continue.
And because you personally haven't seen this then all muslims are terrorists? :confused:

Hmmmmm.

I live just round the corner, under 400m away, from where the 7/7 UK suicide bombers lived in Leeds...and believe me, there was a huge outcry from muslim leaders and the whole community. In fact, sod the community that's small fry, muslims across the world went nuts at what had happened.

Are you religeous out of interest?

Woka

[Wally Pipp]

Don't start on that path Woka. Religion is what started all this. And don't bother to argue with the likes of moeur. It's just not worth it.

I agree with shaggy though. If depiction of the prophet is banned then how do they know it is the prophet? Because it was written next to it?
I could draw a pumpkin and write a caption saying "This is a spoon" and everyone would laugh at it/me (or look puzzled as the case may be). No-one would believe it for one minute.

[Shuja Ali]

I'm just wondering if there are any Muslims on VBF and what's their view on this.There are :D .
My view of all this is that offending others (can be anyone not only Muslims) is the worst thing that anyone can do. Why do we have to target Muslims and there beliefs? Being a Muslim I also condemn the printing of something that abuses our prophet(peace be upon him) or our religion. And protesting against it in a peaceful manner is what people are supposed to do. Having "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that I will go and stand outside my neighbour's house and start using abusive language or make a cartoon of his Grandfather which is abusive and paste it outside his house. In the West even if I have Freedom of Speech, I can't go and start using abusive language against anyone. This what the Press in some of the European countries has done. Abused all the Muslims across the world. Then why are the Governments saying that we have Freedom of speech in our country and we can't do anything about this. When you can arrest a person holding a banner in his hand saying something against the government then why can't you stop your press from printing all that stuff. This is my perception of all this and I don't represent anyone or any community here.

Also there has been some increase in the incidents that have raised the anger of Muslim community across world. And this needs to be addressed by everyone. This way we the people of world are going nowhere. If we have to live and enjoy our life on this planet then we need look into this seriously and start respecting each other. (i seriously wish that the world becomes a virtual community like VBF and CG where people come and help each other without even knwoing who is asking for help)

About the placards. That is pure nonsense. Asking a terrorist to come and help you is nothing but pure frustration. Killing innocent people is nothing but murder and murderer according to me has to be killed.

One more thing that I would like to add here is that Judging the whole community by actions of few 1000s or maybe even 100s is not going to do any good to all of us.

[Andrew G]

How about these? I'm not trying to say anything about anyone or anything, I'm just showing that muslims publish things about other religions, but we do not see anyone protesting or any violence.

"The Islamic Bookstore in Lakemba, for example, sells vicious anti-Semitic tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well as various anti-Christian titles (Crucifixion or Cruci-FICTION?).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cartoon-fury-calls-for-arrests/2006/02/06/1139074159423.html

[Shuja Ali]

If you read my post again, you will see that I have mentioned that offending others is not going to lead us anywhere. That is my perception of how I see things.

Being a Muslim it is my responsibility to condemn or protest anything that is being said or done against my religion. But yes indulging in voilence is not the way of doing things. It can and should be done peacefuly.

[Andrew G]

I'm not saying that all muslims are the same, I am merely pointing out that a few people published an image, and it lead to many people protesting etc, but here we have also people who post stuff about other religions, but no one does anything such as protests. All I am trying to say is that maybe protesting and violence (even if its by only a few people) is a bit too much for such a thing. I agree that no one should put any images or say anything to offend others, but if does occur, to me it would not be a major problem.

Either way i do not wish to start a religious war in VBF or any where, and hence i am sorry if i have offended anyone.

[Shuja Ali]

Either way i do not wish to start a religious war in VBF or any where, and hence i am sorry if i have offended anyone.This is why I wrote :) (i seriously wish that the world becomes a virtual community like VBF and CG where people come and help each other without even knwoing who is asking for help)

[FishGuy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4684652.stm

IMO people are just taking this too far, sorry but I have seen loads of cartoons of god and not been too offended, these people all claim to be outraged, just an excuse to riot and protest I think. all they are doing is damaging themselves and their own cities by these protests.

Death to France and Denmark indeed, sorry but while many may be protesting peacefully it's the other muslims who are grabbing the headlines with their extremist banners and the like which really doesnt do their cause very good at all.

Munira Mirza is a commentator on multicultural issues and Islamophobia

British newspapers should publish the images. Muslims should be able to see them and judge them for themselves, that's why we have freedom of speech.

Many Muslims want the same freedoms as everyone else to debate, criticise and challenge their religion.

They want to be able to say: "Hey we're not children, we can handle criticism, we don't need special protection - we're equal."

Many don't want to be treated as a special group, seen as worthy of more protection from criticism than other groups because of their apparent victim status.

There are a lot of British Muslims who I'm sure would not be offended by the cartoons. There are, of course, many who are upset and hurt, but that's the point of living in a free society.

No matter the price, the principle of freedom must be defended. Unless we stand up for freedom of speech, we are unable to engage freely and hold belief systems - of all kinds - to account.

In Denmark, there are counter-demonstrations by moderate Muslims saying they don't want the images banned.

This idea that all Muslims have to hold the line against Islamophobia is just nonsense. We should not play the games of extremists and nor should we play into the very patronising assumptions of the British political elite about what Muslims are capable of listening to.

[grilkip]

You should ban yourself for that, Adam. Seems against the AUP amongst other things.
Haven't you guys ever heard of CNN? They aren't any network that may be biased one way or another. Might be like your bbc network, or even the same thing.
I watched both CNNI and BBC World during the Iraq invasion, it seemed like there were two different wars going on. Too bad I can't receive BBC World were live now.

On topic:

Ofcourse I condemn the violence, which is probably being fueled by radical elements and pent up frustration. but..

I do not understand why 'we' would use the freedom of speech we hold deer to purposely offend others. What is the point? Is the printing and reprinting of these cartoons a way to reaffirm our freedom to ourselves? Surely there is no need to demonstrate it to 'them'.

Freedom of speech is a delicate thing, it does not work without self restraint. The free societies in the west and elsewhere can exist not only thanks to laws but also (or even more so) thanks to a number of unwritten laws. One of which is to show respect to others in the public domain, even if you are not technically required to do so.

Here in Holland we thankfully have had no turmoil so far even though some media have shown the cartoons. Hopefully it'll stay that way.

Freely quoting former foreign minister Hans van den Broek from the telly:
I wish those cartoonists would now use their freedom to draw a cartoon of a Muslim preacher, a Rabbi and a Priest looking up to god, who says: "If you do not shake hands I cannot guarantee you peace".
Wouldn't be as funny maybe, but more helpful.

$0.02

[FunkyDexter]

I think it's worth taking a quick look at what actually happened. A Danish paper ran a competition inviting people to send ion cartoons depicting how they saw the islamic faith. They then published them and made it 100% clear that they included representations of Mohammed (so I'm afraid 'How did they know it was him?' arguments don't really go anywhere). The islamic faith specifically bans depicting Mohammed because it's believed to encourage idolatry - this is a tenet we do not have in Christianity (the Vatican sells Jesus Christ snow globes for crying out loud) but that does not mean it's one we should be unsympathetic to.

At this point, muslims world wide began protesting by boycotting Danish goods - this seems like a perfectly reasonable form of protest to me and I see no difference between it and the American boycotting of French goods when they refused to support the Iraq war. This peaceful form of protest was effective and eventually the Danish government apologised, at which point a right leaning French paper, followed by others, reprinted them claiming the right of free speech. To me this smacks of a cynical attempt to sell copy by provoking a clash and I doubt very much that they were motivated by a desire to defend free speech. Just because you have the right of free speech does not always mean you are right to exercise it - I have the right to berate a small child for hours on end until they cry but if I do it I'm still an ass-hole.

I'm not surprised so many muslims took to the streets to protest and I do not condemn them for doing so, in fact I'd encourage them AS LONG AS THE PROTEST IS PEACEFUL. Even the occasional outbreak of violence is understandable (if not excusable) as this says more about the nature of mobs than the nature of muslims. However, burning down embassies and carrying placards advocating murder clearly is not and those guilty of these acts should be arrested. However, we do need to remember that many muslim leaders have condemned what's going on and I get the impression that the vast majority of muslims feel these actions went too far - we should not tar an entire religion with the same brush.

Someone posted on either this thread or the other that they should all go back to where they imigrated from. I can't remember who now. I'd like to point out to that poster that Islam is a religion, not a nationality (at least in the context of a nation state), and there are many 2nd, 3rd and even higher generation muslims in the UK - they didn't immigrate from anywhere. (Yes, I know about the "Nation of Islam" but that's not a nation in the commonly held understanding of the term.)

[mendhak]

I also think it is funny that you on that side of the pond think your news is unbiased. It certainly spends more time on international affairs, but it is biased toward the liberal end of the spectrum.

As far as Muslim religious leaders condeming the violence.
This is the only line in both articles that said anything about the subject. All other references were from political leaders which do not have anywhere near the power of the religious leaders.

There is no out cry from the religious community to stop the violence and until there is it will continue.
Uhm... hi. Woka's posted the link twice for you to see.

http://www.mendhak.com/extras/goodjob.jpg

[Valleysboy1978]

Yes the BBC News website had it up for a while then they came to their senses before their place got torched.

Any action like this is totally unjustified, especially blaming the whole of Europe (and other allies) with one Danish newspaper. This is just yet another excuse for extremists to jump on the bandwagon and destroy some property for fun.

Its a disgrace to human kind

[Valleysboy1978]

i can't believe the european papers could be so stupid! (or money-grabbing)


30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut

THEY RE-PRINTED IT!?!
What in the world were they thinking knowing the reaction it would cause??? :eek:

[grilkip]

THEY RE-PRINTED IT!?!
What in the world were they thinking knowing the reaction it would cause??? :eek:
Yes, well appearantly the fact that people protest it makes them feel like their freedom is being tarnished. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[big blue alien]

i dont think it should have originaly been printed but now everyones goin on about it i think everyone should know what their talking about. If you havnt seen the pics then how do you know how bad they were

[moeur]

With people who hold attitudes like yours; they wonder where terrorists come from!!This is truly enlightening.

I claim that people who commit violence should be held accountable and their community leaders should act like leaders and stop this violence by speaking out.

I claim that the rest of the world should not be cowed by this violence and stop apologizing to hoodlums.

And, it is a fact of life in this multicultural world that different cultures will be offended by what others do on occasion. They do not have any right that can prevent this. They can expect that others will act in a respectful manner, but cannot demand it.

For these three rational, logical thoughts I am breeding terrorism?

And because you personally haven't seen this then all muslims are terrorists?No, nothing I said should have led you to believe this. Granted there may be some religious leaders around your neighborhood who condemn the 7/7 violence and that is commendable, but why do the majority stay silent?

What I am looking for is a policy of non-violence coming out of the mosques. I’m looking for them to start preaching peace to their members. This is not happening.

And don't bother to argue with the likes of moeur. It's just not worth it.Wally, Wally, Wally…

Uhm... hi. Woka's posted the link twice for you to see.And I read them twice. As stated above they talk about politicians not religious leaders.

[grilkip]

I do not want to be associated with this person but a right-wing Dutch politician has posted them on his site.
(it's a Dutch site, just scroll down a bit to see the images)
[removed]

[visualAd]

The publications that re-printed are in my opinion as bad as the so called religious protestors who are burning down embassys and inciting terrorism.

[yrwyddfa]

I haven't read all of the posts (because I'm lazy) but you guys all know me, I have to have my tuppence worth . . .

Freedom of speech is a concept, and tradition that should be held high on all aspects of humanity, society, and government. I don't think anyone here would disagree.

However with freedom of speech comes a very large responsibility. The responsibility to moderate extremities of such a freedom.

The Danish thought that they were publishing satire; true, in many cases such an image would be considered satire - where I live, the Bishop Of Rochester (publically) stated that the Christian church has had to endure satire for centuries, and 'to be honest - we've got used to it, so it doesn't offend'

The Muslim faith, who largely believe in the same morality as the rest of the religious world, have not had to endure satire. This is the first time, and they've reacted badly to it.

They've held placards denoting the wishes to 'kill the enemy' talked of 'beheading' and dressed up as suicide bombers (although the guy who did this has since publicly apologised.

What are we to do? No-one has been arrested for clearly anti-Western sensibilities; remember belief is protected by UK law. Yet a moderate secular satirist cartoon has been taken to the wolves for, what I consider, a lesser offence - his offence is one of ignorance and not of aggression.

The Muslim leaders of the UK are right to distance themselves from these incidents. In an already growing xenophobic western civilisation, these people are doing themselve no favours by promoting violence, and anger.

In the words of a leading UK Muslim institution - "It's un-Islamic"

[FishGuy]

Asking for the cartoonist to be tried in a court of Islam and executed though is a bit much. I dont know the full story here and I havent seen the cartoon, I am guessing the cartoonist did not know how offensive it is to Muslims to depict Mohammed. I also gather it was a competition to draw how they felt Islam is perceived. For this reason I am unsure of how they know it was actually Mohammed(The prophet) in the cartoon and not just labelled as a person called Mohammed which is considered a stero typical Islamic name.

I also believe that it is wrong to take anger out at the government embassys, the governments of the countries and many of the people from the countries are having hate directed at them for the actions of one person in one newspaper (a newspaper is not a country).

They've held placards denoting the wishes to 'kill the enemy' talked of 'beheading' and dressed up as suicide bombers (although the guy who did this has since publicly apologised.

His apology really did not seem from the heart to me, it was IMO a soliciters letter designed to hit every note required to stop him being on an Inciting violence charge. This is a problem for me because it shows there are alot of(still a minority to the peaceful Muslims) people who actually do hold these extremeist views living an everyday life among us, just waiting for the next provocation do act upon their hate for the west.

[Pino]

If anyone watched newnight last night it summed it up, there was 4 muslims on the show, a succesful political lady, a succesful oxford profesor, a lady from some orginisaation. and some jerk from i dont know.

He was the disgrace, he admitted to orginising the marches which caused problems. I seriously think people like this should be deported.

Its no wonder partys such as the BNP are increasing in popularity.

its 1 or 2 causing problems for the muslim world.

also there was no one cartoonist, from what i understand it was readers who sent in the cartoons.

[NoteMe]

Now this sums up what kind of muslims we are used to in Scandinavia...This web page was just made...


http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/



- ØØ -

[Valleysboy1978]

This was plain ignorance at first because I honestly didn't know it was offensive for any image of Mohammed to be printed, but it was an accident. However the persons who re-printed it should apologise for they knew what would result.

What I want to know however is where is the "inciting racial hatred" law? If these violent protests were caucasian males with identical placards except against muslims all the protestors would be in jail quick as a flash. It just seems we are forever walking on egg shells to refrain from offending the minority.

and why do they always become VIOLENT protests? can't they appreciate that a peaceful protest is much more likely to get results. There are currently violent protests at a sea liners office in Egypt(?) about the 100 or so people that drowned in that cruise ship. I understand they are angry but asking for the workers' heads is a bit extreme. They should be taken to court for criminal negligence

[Codehammer]

Again....wrong wrong wrong on SOOOOOO many lvls.

What news/media are you getting your "facts" from...yea, maybe one of 2 radicals did that, but the majority certainly dont, and do speak out.

Read news.bbc.co.uk, voted worlds best news service for it's unbiased reporting.

Woka

I watched on BBC the interview between a Islamist Leader dude vs a America, the American Didnt even give the Anchor a Chance to Talk & He Kept saying their religion was spread by violence. The Islam Dude did condemn it like 100 times and that was about 2 days ago.

[Codehammer]

So my question is: How do they recognize that the cartoon is a picture of him?

Thousands of gaudy pictures of jesus would allow any christian to recognize a caricature of him, but how so for a muslim?

The Competition in the Denmark Paper was to Draw Mohammed. So thats why I'm told this all started. Otherwise People Would Think The Drawing Was Of Osama Maybe.

[Valleysboy1978]

I suppose it only takes a few violent rejects to spoil it for everyone else. I just can't understand why they enjoy violence so much

[Codehammer]

Pardon, but isn't the saying supposed to be "There is no god but allah, and muhammad is his prophet"?

Must be a translator issue.

Guy here says the Christians/Jews/Muslims Believe in the Exact Same God. (the jews didnt believe anyone after Moses was a True Prophet, the Christains Say the same About Jesus and The Muslims Believe That Muhammed and Moses And Jesus Were All Prophets)
He Says The Arabic Name For God is Allah. In their Religion God Has 99 Qualitities Like The Most Just/All Knowing/King of Kings, etc. It Suppose to Encompass Every Quality that can Exist, that you can Think of in the 99 Names. To Sum up 99 at once the Word Allah is Used, I Think This is What he Said. But the Exact Same God The 3 Religions Beleive in.

[Codehammer]

i can't believe the european papers could be so stupid! (or money-grabbing)


30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut

THEY RE-PRINTED IT!?!
What in the world were they thinking knowing the reaction it would cause??? :eek:

Yeah, Denmarks Gonna Go Bankrupt.

[NoteMe]

Yeah, Denmarks Gonna Go Bankrupt.


Ironicaly enough...we actualy earn money on this... :confused: Norway that is...

[Valleysboy1978]

Which is why if they had done peaceful protests they could potentially have had compensation, they won't even get sympathy now.

Oh, and as for the British guy who dressed as a suicide bomber then publically apologised I guess he forgot he was a wanted criminal for drug dealing. He was promptly arrested for an outstanding warrant :lol: idiot

[DeadEyes]

Which is why if they had done peaceful protests they could potentially have had compensation, they won't even get sympathy now.

Oh, and as for the British guy who dressed as a suicide bomber then publically apologised I guess he forgot he was a wanted criminal for drug dealing. He was promptly arrested for an outstanding warrant :lol: idiot

He got away lightly, if he had of been Brazillian he would have been shot.

Disturbingly, on the way to work this morning I seen someone had pasted pictures of the cartoon on lamposts with a tag line "whats the fuss". chippan->water water->chippan.

[big blue alien]

now its gettin realy realy bad, British troops sent to defend a base in Afganistan under siege by rioters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4689358.stm

[PineyWoodsJimbo]

i can't believe the european papers could be so stupid! (or money-grabbing)
What in the world were they thinking knowing the reaction it would cause??? :eek:

Is this a good reason not to print something? The Muslims might burn stuff down? If you really want to worry think about what gets said about the US. Ooow. What if we got all in a wad about every little thing? We have nukes. Mmmm, next time a Danish paper says something about us...

Why do we have to target Muslims and there beliefs? Being a Muslim I also condemn the printing of something that abuses our prophet(peace be upon him) or our religion.

Welcome the party. The rest of us with any religion have been bashed for years. You might want to get used to it. The big difference between Muslim protestors and, say, American Christian protestors is that they burn down buildings and chase harmless Danes out of town while our variety do this dopey stuff:

http://www.baptis****ch.org/fredphelps.html

Oh, and when Phelps talks about killing me, I know he's not coming over to do the job himself -- or send some young kid to do the job for him.

Maybe if the guys in Lebenon just got some spray paint and posterboard and used their imagination... ;)

[Wokawidget]

The big difference between Muslim protestors and, say, American Christian protestors is that they burn down buildings and chase harmless Danes out of town while our variety do this dopey stuff.
Wrong wrong wrong, it still only a small minority.

Oh, and can I bring your attention to the KKK...weren't they American ;)

Personally I am amazed that in todays world so much fuss can be caused over fictional characters.

Woka

[visualAd]

Since when was chur a bad word?

[PineyWoodsJimbo]

What the... Link didn't work, did it.

Try this one: http://www.hatemongers.com/home.html

Check out the signs. I've seen some of their better ones in real life. Very impressive. :rolleyes:

Now if there is a Norweigan consulate in Lawrence....

[demotivater]

Wrong wrong wrong, it still only a small minority.
You'd better hope so. Then again, that may not be the smartest thing to hope for.

[Wokawidget]

Now people are burning effigies of the Danish PM...he hasn't done anything wrong!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4691878.stm


But the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, one of the groups that applied for the injunction, said "one cannot insult a religion".

I am sorry, but why not? Get a grip on reality.

I actually do find it insulting that in a world that has science as a powerful aid to backup our existance and theories, that people still believe what is written in a novel published thousands of years ago, to which there is no basis for fact what-so-ever that can be backed up with any kind of proof.

So, apparently God created Adman and Eve 1st...ok, fair do's...so, how do you explain dinosaurs that are millions of years old that arn't covered in the bible...:quick, think of something: "err god put the dinosaur bones there for non believers"...come on, is that the best you can come up with?

In the US some christian schools actually want to drop teaching about dinosaurs and such like!

Even though I disagree with religion I still see how it can benefit certain indiviuals and give them peace of mind and stength to carry on through the day. Follow this religion in your own homes, churches, mosques etc...I have no problem with that. But as soon as people start dictating what I, yes me personally, can or cannot do regarding their fake religion then this starts to wind me up.

If soemone insults the English I laugh, i do think it's amusing, and while I have been out here in the US I have taken some stick from people at my new company for not only being English, but for being a VB programmer (C developers really look down on VB). Has it bothered me...has it heck.

Woka

PS And before people jump down my throat and say that I cannot say that religions are fake, the fact that someone posts saying they believe in god, or the prophet, or whomever, then this essentially is them saying that science and other religions are fake.

[Shuja Ali]

Welcome the party. The rest of us with any religion have been bashed for years. You might want to get used to it. The big difference between Muslim protestors and, say, American Christian protestors is that they burn down buildings and chase harmless Danes out of town while our variety do this dopey stuff:I am also not with the voilent protestors. But my point was that Freedom of Speech doen't mean that you will offend others. Even in US, you have freedom of speech but that does not mean you will go and start offending people on the road. We are not going to get used to being offended everytime.

I would say the newspapers owe an apology and they have to do so, because they have hurt each and every muslim in this world. And these things are not going to help us as I had mentioned in my previous post. You need to be responsible for your own actions in this world. If you offend someone's beleif that person/community is going to protest/condemn such acts.

This Cartoon row was started in september and Dannes apologized for this. I don't understand why papers in other European countries had to reprint them. It was not Freedom of Press, it was done just to offend a particular community.

[Wokawidget]

This Cartoon row was started in september and Dannes apologized for this. I don't understand why papers in other European countries had to reprint them. It was not Freedom of Press, it was done just to offend a particular community.
No, it was done as a statement of "we're not going to be bullied", which is essentially what is happening. Certain people are trying to stamp their religion in places where it doesn't belong.

Can you remember miss world in Nigeria...after a local newspaper wrote that Prophet Mohammed would have made one of the Miss World contestants his wife the world went nuts. People died, building were torched. Insanity. Similar to what we have here. Why is this character so protected?

I am sorry, but it's just absolutely rediculous to get so wound up about something so trivial. Why does it matter so much what other people, who have no impact on your life, say or do.

My girlfriend got a new hair cut, I didn't like it, I told her so. she was offended, but my house still stands, we are still seeing each other.

People are offended every day of the year, it's just part of life. It happens. Read my post above #66. I am insulted and offended, but do you see me boycotting anything, or making rash judgement on individuals...no.

I am intregued, but this isn't me having a go at you or anything, but why does this offend you personally so much? Is it not possible to think "stupid newspaper, doesn't know what it's talking about, it is only a newspaper, I'll get on with my life" and then just never buy that newspaper instead...

Woof

[Wokawidget]

I would say the newspapers owe an apology and they have to do so, because they have hurt each and every muslim in this world.
Disagree.
I agree with people going out and protesting in a peaceful manner, in fact it quite impresses me that people can be so devoted.
However, referring back to my comments in post #66, so from what you're saying does this mean you and every other religious person in the world should appologise to me? Ain't gonna happen is it? :(

Woka

[Shuja Ali]

It all depends on how you beleive in your religion. What we don't understand is that Muslims around the world beleive in their religion. The prophet in our religion has got the highest place in our lives second only to God almighty.

So If I am a beleiver I would not tolerate such incidents and I would condemn such acts. This would not only include this incident but incidents like 7/7 or 9/11. It is the responsibility of the respective governments to make sure that sentiments of other communities are not hurt (Be it Muslim, Christain or any other religion).

What we need to understand is that attacking each other is not going to take us anywhere. Why can't we just live in peace? Why can't we just stop targetting Muslims? Why can't we just let people live their lives the way they want to? Why can't we just understand that voilence is not the way? And last but not the least, If I have hurt someone I need to apologize same way if these newspapers have hurt Muslims they need to apologize. I would again stress on the point that having freedom of press/speech does not mean you will start offending me.

And to the reponse of Post 66, I would like to add one more thing here that it is not one person that has been hurt, it is the whole community and we need to address this honetly.

[Andrew G]

I have a quick question, from religion classes i learned that Muslims belive in Moses, Jesus and all the prophets, then how come it is only the Prophet Mohammed, that is so strongly guarded. Shouldn't you be defending every prophet? How come when pictures of Moses are published in the papers no one cares, but if its the Prophet Mohammed, then the whole islamic community is upset?

[Shuja Ali]

That is a very good question. We beleive in all the prophets that came before the Last Prophet. And if you remember correctly there are Jews who beleive in Moses and Christians who beleive in Jesus. And if we start protesting against things which you have said, people will say that Muslims are interfering in others' religious matters.

[Andrew G]

That makes no sense at all. You should be either protesting for every prophet or none at all, otherwise you are saying that some prophets are more important than others.

[Valleysboy1978]

It all depends on how you beleive in your religion. What we don't understand is that Muslims around the world beleive in their religion. The prophet in our religion has got the highest place in our lives second only to God almighty.You don't need to understand other religions, just to accept that other people have the choice to follow whatever they wish and leave it at that
So If I am a beleiver I would not tolerate such incidents and I would condemn such acts. This would not only include this incident but incidents like 7/7 or 9/11. It is the responsibility of the respective governments to make sure that sentiments of other communities are not hurt (Be it Muslim, Christain or any other religion).Government and religious beliefs should never interfere with each other. That is the fundamental basis of a modern democracy and it works. (I believe it's in the US constitution?)
What we need to understand is that attacking each other is not going to take us anywhere. Why can't we just live in peace? Why can't we just stop targetting Muslims? Why can't we just let people live their lives the way they want to? Why can't we just understand that voilence is not the way? And last but not the least, If I have hurt someone I need to apologize same way if these newspapers have hurt Muslims they need to apologize. I would again stress on the point that having freedom of press/speech does not mean you will start offending me.Why can't they accept that a peaceful protest works more effectively? Why can't Muslims stop acting like they are the victims? Why do Muslims always resort to violence instead of actually talking something through with the relevant persons?
And to the reponse of Post 66, I would like to add one more thing here that it is not one person that has been hurt, it is the whole community and we need to address this honetly.There has been incredibly hug emnity between the celtic nations (Wales, Scotland, Ireland) and England for the best part of 4000 years. Yet we live next to each other in peace leaving the emnity to a playful jab every now and again.

Ever heard of escalation? He calls you something, you reply with something more hurtful. He hits you with his fist, you stab him with a knife. He comes back with a pistol.....you see my point? Everything like this starts with something small and neither willing to walk away because they do not want to seem like a wimp. Just walk away.

It is just so sad to watch how easily people who have no interest in what the original offence was (even if it was unintentional) jumping on the bandwagon and everyone from that said community egging them on

[Shuja Ali]

That makes no sense at all. You should be either protesting for every prophet or none at all, otherwise you are saying that some prophets are more important than others.
Each and every prophet is equally respectable. There is no such distinction here. Why can't they accept that a peaceful protest works more effectively? Why can't Muslims stop acting like they are the victims? Why do Muslims always resort to violence instead of actually talking something through with the relevant persons?If you read my previous posts, I did mention that protests should be peacefull. Another thing that needs to be addressed is that people start judging the whole community by the acts done by few hundred people. This is what is creating more problems.

Again I would stress on my first point that by re-publishing the material certain Newspapers have made a point that they are defending Freedom of Speech and it becomes more and more evident that they are not actually defending Freedom of Speech, they just want to have the matter escalated to the highest point.

Those people who have offended have to apologize. It can be people who printed the cartoons and people who burned the embassies. But as I said we need to have the understanding that unless we respect each others setiments and beleifs we are not going to do any good to this world.

[Andrew G]

Each and every prophet is equally respectable. There is no such distinction here.

Ok so i expect that the next time a picture of any prophet to be in the paper is should turn on the tv and see people protesting... I seriously doubt it would happen. How about all those movies about Moses, i should have seen millions of people protesting. How come it is only the Prophet Mohammed's picture that is not allowed to be printed but every other prophet is allowed. There should be 'no such distinction here.'

[fahad k]

The Holy Quran and Islam have never preached violence.The meaning of 'Jehad' is holy war.The first point in jehad is a war against your inner self.Its just that radical Mullahs have led the people who are usually poor into believing that the West is evil.I dont support any of the Mullahs nor am i a fan of Osama.But who created Osama?What has led the Muslims to think US is evil? Whats the root of all this?

No kind of violence is justified.I condemn the acts of violence commited by all the misled Muslims.One thing I would like to add is that I am from a country (India) that has the second highest number of Muslims but we haven't seen any kind of violent protests.

PEACE.

[Shuja Ali]

Ok so i expect that the next time a picture of any prophet to be in the paper is should turn on the tv and see people protesting... I seriously doubt it would happen. How about all those movies about Moses, i should have seen millions of people protesting. How come it is only the Prophet Mohammed's picture that is not allowed to be printed but every other prophet is allowed. There should be 'no such distinction here.'
There are people who belong to faiths that beleive in Moses and Jesus. And if these people themselves are posting a picture or printing something against themselves then I would say it is their beleif. And I would not offend them saying that you cannot do this.

But what I can do is that I will not let people offend me or my religion using cartoons or photographs. You are again missing my point. What I have been telling right from the start is that we need to understand and respect each others beleifs and live peacefully.

[FishGuy]

Took this from the BBC website.

Pakistani liberals argue that Muslims know very well that the West - despite its emphasis on personal freedoms - also has its sacred cows, the Holocaust being a prime example.

What the Muslims have yet to learn, they say, is how to persuade the prevailing Western mindset to pay similar respect to what they hold so dear.

That is a task which liberal Pakistanis feel is unlikely to be accomplished by banishing the cartoons for being sacrilegious or burning down Western embassies.

"The cartoons should be treated as a window into the western mind and examined to understand the exact nature of this gap of understanding," concludes a lawyer from Karachi.

"Only then can the Muslims hope to explain to the West that suicide bombings are not a politically glorified quest for virgins in the hereafter."

[nemaroller]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/08/cartoon.protests/index.html

That's one thing you DON'T want to try - protesting toward a military base.

[nemaroller]

"Meanwhile, a prominent Iranian newspaper, Hamshahri, invited artists to enter a Holocaust cartoon competition, saying it wanted to see if freedom of expression -- the banner under which many Western publications reprinted the prophet drawings -- also applied to Holocaust images"

Oh... this is going to be a hoot... battle of the religions via cartoons.

[Andrew G]

You beleive in Moses and Jesus right, and regard them as Prophets. Then why don't you get offended when they put cartoons or photographs of them in magazines or newspapers? I just want to know why the prophet Mohammed is regarded as more important that any other prophet if he was sent by Allah, like every other prophet before him. Shouldn't he get the same treatment? I do beleive that we should respect everyone's beliefs but i beleive that some people make a big deal over something that is too small to hurt them.

I'm not trying to start trouble, I just want to point that in other religions if something is printed that offends them, they normally do not protest or anything.

That is all i am saying on this topic. :wave:

[penagate]

The Holy Quran and Islam have never preached violence.The meaning of 'Jehad' is holy war.The first point in jehad is a war against your inner self.Its just that radical Mullahs have led the people who are usually poor into believing that the West is evil.I dont support any of the Mullahs nor am i a fan of Osama.But who created Osama?What has led the Muslims to think US is evil? Whats the root of all this?

No kind of violence is justified.I condemn the acts of violence commited by all the misled Muslims.One thing I would like to add is that I am from a country (India) that has the second highest number of Muslims but we haven't seen any kind of violent protests.

PEACE.
That was an excellent post. :thumb:

[Valleysboy1978]

But what I can do is that I will not let people offend me or my religion using cartoons or photographs. You are again missing my point. What I have been telling right from the start is that we need to understand and respect each others beleifs and live peacefully.Why will you not let them? Rise above such hatfeul opinions and realise that it was an accident and offence was not intentional.

How can the muslim faith not expect to be victimised when they are so keen to attack innocent persons for an accidental insult :rolleyes:

[penagate]

How can the muslim faith not expect to be victimised when they are so keen to attack innocent persons for an accidental insult

Only a few of them are. You can't say all people that follow Islam would attack innocent persons.

[Shuja Ali]

Why will you not let them? Rise above such hatfeul opinions and realise that it was an accident and offence was not intentional. Simple. Because it is my right to protest against such incidents. And it might have been accidental at first but after that it was all intentional. If you know that the cartoons first appeared in Sep and then the newspaper apologized. What was the need of reprinting them again in the name of Freedom of Speech when they knew it is going to create more problems.

How can the muslim faith not expect to be victimised when they are so keen to attack innocent persons for an accidental insult :rolleyes:That shows how you think. :) Why should I blame whole of Europe when a single newspaper printed something? I wouldn't blame an English speaking person just because an English paper printed something that offended me?

Because of couple of guys you are dictating that whole of the community is wrong. I am sorry dear friend but you have got the basics itself incorrect.

[Shuja Ali]

Only a few of them are. You can't say all people that follow Islam would attack innocent persons.
Ditto here

[FunkyDexter]

The problem is that the right of free speech DOES give you the right to offend people and generally to behave like an rear pointing orifice. I would argue, however, that it's not a good right to exercise in that manner. I don't think Shuja Ali has tried to justify the violence of the recent protests but has instead asked 'Why would you knowingly offend me? or defend the right of others (ie the media) to do so?'. This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. And it doesn't matter why a muslim finds a cartoon of Mohammed offensive, it only matters that they do. After all, I like bacon, but I wouldn't feed it to a jew.

I think the original printing of the cartoons by the Danish press was excusable as ignorance and, notably, the islamic community protested PEACEFULLY, to that - they simply boycotted Danish goods. The reprinting of the cartoons, however, was not excusable. This was a deliberate attempt to offend and to provoke exactly the sort of reaction that has ensued. The question is not whether the papers had a right to do this (they do have that right), but rather why, as right thinking human beings, they would choose to exercise it in this case. The right of free speech is worth fighting for, but not over the ability to print some ropey old drawing that most us wouldn't regard as particularly funny anyway and when you know you're going to offend people by doing so.

[FunkyDexter]

There has been incredibly hug emnity between the celtic nations (Wales, Scotland, Ireland) and England for the best part of 4000 years. Yet we live next to each other in peace leaving the emnity to a playful jab every now and again.
Many members of my Catholic Irish family would disagree with you :ehh: (which isn't meant to be an indication of my own politics - I live quite happily in Southampton)

[Wokawidget]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/08/cartoon.protests/index.html

That's one thing you DON'T want to try - protesting toward a military base.
Yup...not the brightest thing to do.

I am interested to see what happens regarding these cartoons in Iran about the holocoust. I hope they print the cartoons, and I also hope that people will just go "whatever" and pretty much ignore them, which is what I can actually see happening. If this happens then surely the papers plans would have backfired.

Also, the cartoons of the prophet were a competition to see how the middle east and Muslims are preceived by the west. As it should last week people drew the prophet with a bomb on his head, may this be wrong, or right, it's not an issue. However, if that's how people were perceived back then...what on earth is their perception now :(

Woka

[Wokawidget]

But what I can do is that I will not let people offend me or my religion using cartoons or photographs.
WHy not? What's so special that you feel you are except from satire? Bearing in mind that we are talking about satire here, and not a hate campagne.
What I have been telling right from the start is that we need to understand and respect each others beleifs and live peacefully.
This seems a little hypocritical don't you think...? :confused:
Can you not respect the fact that the west (Europe) has feedom of speech, and therefore a satirical cartoon is perfectly accdeptable, regardless of it's nature and was not meant as a stab at the religion, but as light hearted humour?

Woka

[Valleysboy1978]

Indeed, its certainly not helping woka.

If they didn't react violently the said newspapers wouldn't have done what they did (which is why I had a post exclaiming about their actions). Recently there have been many such comments about the Welsh in many different media types from "why do they exist?" to "They are full of single mums on benefit". Even so, as hurtful and derogatory these comments are I would never resort to a violent protest against persons that didn't originally MAKE the comments. I just ignore it and get on with my life.

[yrwyddfa]

Well what a tangled web we weave!

Let's have some facts (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) (unverified I might add: before someone bites my head off)

On this basis around 1/6th of the world is Islamic, which means the vast vast majority of people are not interested in Islamic beliefs or values. The vast majority.

How do those who profess to be of the Muslim faith in one hand and promote violence in the other intend to live in a world where the vast majority of people do not accept, understand, nor believe in Islam?

Satire is embedded in Western culture; it should not be changed, nor modified. Every religion has to accept that it will be subject to satirical whims regardless of whether or not they like it.

As for the word 'offense?' How overused is that word these days? I suspect a great deal of those who were 'offended' were told they must feel this way. I don't see it per se as being offensive - it's satire - it's meant to pull at a few strings.

It's unfortunate that the overtly aggresive reaction from a particularly small minority of Muslims is in fact a parody of what they are offended by. This makes it circular and self-perpetuating.

It is up to the Muslim leaders to educate their crowd accordingly and in such a manner that enables Muslims to live side by side with their secular cousins in harmony (just as the vast majority of Muslims in fact do). Do they not currently enjoy the freedom to practice their religion precisely as a result of secular democratic government?

I can feel a profound and saddening sense of irony coming upon me . . .

[space_monkey]

Speaking as non-Muslim somewhat conservative american idiot:

First and foremost I'm repulsed by the fact that newspapers reprinted the cartoons merely to show off their "Free Speech". This only cheapens the great gift that we have been given in the western world.

Second I was excited at first to see that the arab world was initially embracing peaceful protest, such as boycotts and what have you. I think this is a major step in the right direction and will only make relations between our people that much better. BUT for every step forward that we seemed to take a bunch of steps back, this raging violence has brought us back further than we were to start. The radical muslim world (I realize that they do not represent muslims as a whole) needs to learn that violence will not gain them respect or cooperation, hatred and mistrust are the only things to be gained from this. Violence only brings about more violence, and it saddens me to think of the loss of human life because of a stupid cartoon. That my friends is unacceptable (i'm not saying that there are acceptable reasons for the loss of human life just that this is even more appaling).

I hope that some good can come of this, but as of now that seems doubtful.

[Valleysboy1978]

Well what a tangled web we weave!

Let's have some facts (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) (unverified I might add: before someone bites my head off)

On this basis around 1/6th of the world is Islamic, which means the vast vast majority of people are not interested in Islamic beliefs or values. The vast majority.

How do those who profess to be of the Muslim faith in one hand and promote violence in the other intend to live in a world where the vast majority of people do not accept, understand, nor believe in Islam?

Satire is embedded in Western culture; it should not be changed, nor modified. Every religion has to accept that it will be subject to satirical whims regardless of whether or not they like it.

As for the word 'offense?' How overused is that word these days? I suspect a great deal of those who were 'offended' were told they must feel this way. I don't see it per se as being offensive - it's satire - it's meant to pull at a few strings.

It's unfortunate that the overtly aggresive reaction from a particularly small minority of Muslims is in fact a parody of what they are offended by. This makes it circular and self-perpetuating.

It is up to the Muslim leaders to educate their crowd accordingly and in such a manner that enables Muslims to live side by side with their secular cousins in harmony (just as the vast majority of Muslims in fact do). Do they not currently enjoy the freedom to practice their religion precisely as a result of secular democratic government?

I can feel a profound and saddening sense of irony coming upon me . . .Another truly excellent post from yrywddfa :thumb::thumb:

[Wokawidget]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4694090.stm

Errrr...NO!

England is not a muslim country.

Can I campagne to ban all religion and make it illegal to be religeous full stop, re post #66.

One of the reasons this frustrates me so much is because in a years time, will something else offend, then we are back to square one.

Lets take it to an extreme, say people start saying that women who don't cover their faces up offend. So there is a call for ALL women, regardless of religion, to cover themselves up...i have taken that to an extreme, but where does it all stop?!

Woka

[Shaggy Hiker]

The Holy Quran and Islam have never preached violence.The meaning of 'Jehad' is holy war.The first point in jehad is a war against your inner self.Its just that radical Mullahs have led the people who are usually poor into believing that the West is evil.I dont support any of the Mullahs nor am i a fan of Osama.But who created Osama?What has led the Muslims to think US is evil? Whats the root of all this?

No kind of violence is justified.I condemn the acts of violence commited by all the misled Muslims.One thing I would like to add is that I am from a country (India) that has the second highest number of Muslims but we haven't seen any kind of violent protests.

PEACE.

Excellent post. I'd sure like to hear the true answer to those questions. I have heard right-wing answers, and they sound self-serving to me. I have heard little from the left except more questions. I'd like to hear an actual answer other than some variation on: "We're great, so they hate us for it."

[Wokawidget]

As far as I am aware it was the CIA who "created" Mr Laden. Back in the 90's the CIA helped the afghans defeat the Russian invasion. They pretty much trained and financed the entire operation over a number of years.

This was when the 1st training camps were setup, but the "enemy" was the invading Russian army. Even though the cold war was over, the US and Russia still didn't like each other. The US really doesn't like communist states, and that's why they financed the Taliban.

One thing I have always wandered was why did he/they then turn on the US? Did Bin have this planned when the US was helping him? What did the US actually do to deserve 9/11?

Woka

[Wokawidget]

One thingthat is interesting is that up until the 1st world war, the US was the whipping boys of the rest of the world. Spain, England and many other countries used to sail over there and give them a good kicking.
Then one day in the very late 1800's the US got wind of a planned Spanish invasion, and so sailed over to Spain and splattered the Spanish fleet when they set sail. Ever since then the US has not let anyone come over and attack it on it's own soil, and thus has always intercepted the "enemy" on foreign ground (abroad).
Essentially the US was that little kid at school who was bullied everyday, but then grew up to be a very strong lad who can stand up for himself, and so confronted any agression head on without waiting to be attacked 1st. We all must know someone like this.

Woka

[moeur]

As far as I am aware it was the CIA who "created" Mr Laden.This is a myth. The US did support the Mujahidin in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, but Bin Laden was not one of the revepients. He hated the U.S., had his own money and would never have accepted help for the evil satan.

[Wokawidget]

This is a myth. The US did support the Mujahidin in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, but Bin Laden was not one of the revepients. He hated the U.S., had his own money and would never have accepted help for the evil satan.
This is incorrect...I'm almost positive of it.
I have seen many documentaries that say otherwise, interviews with ex CIA agents, video footage of said CIA agents actually smiling and laughing with Mr. Laden.

Woka

[Wokawidget]

I have just tried to find info on the web about this and have come across 2 very different stroies. The documentaries and video footage evidence I have seen is almost exactly what is found here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

However, I did come across some sites that say the CIA had nothing to do with anything and were not even present if Afghanistan.

From what I have seen and from evidence now publicly available due to the Freedom of Information act I am almost 99% convinced that what is in that link above is true.

ex-CIA members, who were filmed with Bin, also back up the info in that above web site.

Maybe they lied on camera for what ever reason, but personally I doubt it.

As you are well aware the CIA have tried to start the odd war here and there...I am thinking of a time when they sank a ship from cuba. This is fact and only became truth, instead of a conspiracy theory, when the documents had to be made public by US law x many years after it happened.

Woka

[moeur]

Everything I've seen (and I don't mean propaganda web pages like the one you referenced) says there was no connection between the two.

But, we will probably never know for a fact.

[demotivater]

Wanna talk about who created what? A mullah in Denmark created this whole storm. Going on a tour d' Islam to rally the troops by throwing the cartoons around for months after the original publication. That, Shuja - is why the images were reprinted - that's exactly what the plan was. When that didn't work people up enough (read muslims), he added a couple more to the original cartoons, including a grainy photo from a French pig calling competition that showed a French guy in a pig mask. The esteemed mullah saw fit to claim it was a cartoon depicting Mohammed. That did the trick, and here we are today. The religon of peace my foot. And show me in the Koran where it says that images of Mohammed are forbidden. Wasn't this a response to Christian images of Jesus/God? You show us yours, so we won't show you ours. Pick a fight and that's exactly what you'll get. At least this may be a wake up call for Europe. If nothing else good comes out of this, at least awareness of the threat may finally be heightened and civilized people will act accordingly.

I've often wondered what it was like for those that lived and saw the beginnings of the world wars. Did they realize what they were seeing? Would I? I don't have that question anymore.

[Wokawidget]

:eek:

I thought we had all come to agreement that it was only a minority of people causing violence...although this number does seem to be growing, maybe it's just getting more media attention and so we just assume it's getting worse. But the majority of muslims are good hard honest citizens of whatever country they are nationals of.

What we cannot do is tarnish the good decent people with an evil incorrect perception.

Remember 7/7 in london, well weeks after that Asians were getting onto the tube, in rush hour, to go to work just like any average person in London. When they got onto the tube people moved away from them. How awful must that have been. Complete strangers segragating you when you have done nothing wrong and it's purely because of your perceived nationality. Must hav been horrible and very upsetting for these people.

The worst thing is, is that even though I KNOW it's wrong to do that...would I have done it under the circumstances...I would love to say I wouldn't have...but...:(

It's an extremely shocking and horrible situation to be in, and I really do feel for the innocent people who are being portrayed as evil, regardless of race, nationality, religion or whether they like iPods or not.

Woka

[Shuja Ali]

Wanna talk about who created what? A mullah in Denmark created this whole storm. Going on a tour d' Islam to rally the troops by throwing the cartoons around for months after the original publication. That, Shuja - is why the images were reprinted - that's exactly what the plan was. When that didn't work people up enough (read muslims), he added a couple more to the original cartoons, including a grainy photo from a French pig calling competition that showed a French guy in a pig mask. The esteemed mullah saw fit to claim it was a cartoon depicting Mohammed. That did the trick, and here we are today. The religon of peace my foot. And show me in the Koran where it says that images of Mohammed are forbidden. Wasn't this a response to Christian images of Jesus/God? You show us yours, so we won't show you ours. Pick a fight and that's exactly what you'll get. At least this may be a wake up call for Europe. If nothing else good comes out of this, at least awareness of the threat may finally be heightened and civilized people will act accordingly.

I've often wondered what it was like for those that lived and saw the beginnings of the world wars. Did they realize what they were seeing? Would I? I don't have that question anymore.
I knew they would finally blame it on some one from the community.

I am still stressing the point that you cannot offend me or my religion by printing whatever you like. And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.

Everyone is talking about the violent protests across the world. I too do not like people encouraging voilence. But I also do not like people offending my religion. Why do acts which will encourage people like OBL and others to take advantage of all this. When I am not saying anything against other religions, why should others offend me.

And to have a look at the World Population , you might think that muslims are a minority. Have a look at this link (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html). It says Islam is the second most popular religion in the world and is growing even faster than the population growth rate of the world. This is just in response to one of the posts here.

[Wally Pipp]

Satire is dead, long live the new satire. The time has come to introduce the world to Satire Light. Without the sting.

And cherry flavoured.

[Codehammer]

You beleive in Moses and Jesus right, and regard them as Prophets. Then why don't you get offended when they put cartoons or photographs of them in magazines or newspapers? I just want to know why the prophet Mohammed is regarded as more important that any other prophet if he was sent by Allah, like every other prophet before him. Shouldn't he get the same treatment? I do beleive that we should respect everyone's beliefs but i beleive that some people make a big deal over something that is too small to hurt them.

I'm not trying to start trouble, I just want to point that in other religions if something is printed that offends them, they normally do not protest or anything.

That is all i am saying on this topic. :wave:

I Asked the Dude At Work This Question. Islam Prohibits Drawings Full Stop. So The Iqraa Channel/Al Jazeera for Example Which We Catch on Cable Shows the Prophets Biography Animated, Its Draws All the Prophets Followers, Friends Family, etc and Obviously is Done in a Respectable Way, Yet It is Incorrect and Refrained from. In Those Cartoons They Dont Draw The Prophet Mohammed Though.

Muslims Believe That Some People For Example: Like in India Worship Idols, Even Though People Praying Know That Some Ancestor Made That Idol, Supposedly to Represent God. That Eventually Got the People to Forget God And They Transformed into Believing That the Idol itself was God. See Where This is Going...

So Islam Forbids Drawings, It is Allowed For Muslims to Draw Trees, Etc, Anything that Does Not Have Eyes.
Example: Animals, Humans, etc. If a Muslim Ends Up Drawing Anything With Eyes And Regards the Drawings as Sins, Yet he Does it, then he Will be Punished on Judgement Day. Part of the Punishment is God Will Ask Him to Make that Same Drawing Come to Life, Which he Wont be Able to Do. Then He Will be Punished, As He Tried to Create Something Better that What God Has Created, and Muslims Believe Only God is the Best of Creators. I Kinda Agree With This As Kids of today Worship X-Men, Spider-Man, Etc.

So Any Muslim That Draws Animated Objects is Sinning. So This my Collegue Says "Shuts Up the Cartoons The Iranians, Etc Draw in Protest."

As For Offending Other Religions, Like South Park for Example, They Do Whatever Negative They Can With Jesus. Chritistians However Do Squat. He Says This Shows Christianity is not A True Religion - They believe its God Son, Yet they do Nothing, Muslims Only Believe its A Prophet & Look at their Response. They Blood Does Boil for Belittling of Jesus, Moses, etc, However And he says Those That Do Belittle any True Prophet is Cursed. They Also Believe Jesus Will Return On Day, But To Propagate Islam - Not as a Prophet, as A Preacher.

Your Question: Why the Prophet Mohammed Regarded as More Important Than Any Other Prophet ?

He Says Everyone has A Favourite, Like a father has 2 Sons for Example But Likes One More Than the Other (you can understand this?). Muslims Believe God Favourite Creation is Mohammed.
Proof 1:
You Know The Israelis And Palestinians Always Fight For the Same Piece of Land, Jews Saying Solomon is Burried There, But The Muslims Say its Their Sacred Site. Its Muslims Sacred Site Cause Mohammed, Just Before He Journey'd to Heaven, To Get the "Sallah Orders" (Salaah is the 5 prayers They Do Everyday) He Journeyed to Palestine with Angel Gabreal to That Same Site Al-Aqsa(which is that Building that has the Big Gold Roof), and Lead the Prayers Infont of All of the Previous Prophets, To Show All Prophets he is the Leader of Them.
Proof 2:
The Story Goes, Prophet Yahya had 2 Sons Haroon & Another One.
I Think Prophet Haroon is The Isreal Progeny (Jews) and From The Other Son Came the Arabs Progeny. All the Prophets Before Mohammed Came From the Isreal Side of the Family and All of them Knew That The Last Prophet Was to Come and That he was the Best of All the Prophets.
The Jews as They Were Told in their Scriptures Were Waitng in Arabia For the Last Prophet. But Because He came From The Other Side of The Family (Arabs) Not the Jews Progeny, the Jews Rejected Him. So the fact that he Was Known to be the Last Prophet By Each & Every Prophet, Shows His Status, to Muslims & to The Previous Prophets Themselves, Who Believed in His Arrival as the Last Prophet..

I'm not trying to start trouble, I just want to point that in other religions if something is printed that offends them, they normally do not protest or anything.
Yeah I Hear ya, But He Says Imagine that All the Protests Were Peacefull. He Explains: The Cartoons 1st Came out in September in Denmark, The Muslims There Objected, I Think The Gov. Apologized, But Said it Wont be Banned For the Free Speech Deal. End of Story.
But then It Got Published Again This Year, Almost to Say Nothing Happend in Denmark, So Lets Mess with Islam As they Do With Jesus -This is How he Reasons it.

Personally I want to Know Why it Reprinted, it isnt Really Freedom of Expression and The Media Has the Right to Know, There's No Real Knowledge to Come out of these Cartoons, Only Hatred. In Denmark the Newspaper Competition was To Draw Prophet Mohammed in a Jestful Manner, as you Can See All the Pics were ONLY of Mohammed, and ALL were Offensive.(why republish that around Earth?)

My Friend Also Says If You Project the Prophet of A Religion WorldWide as A Terrorist, Who'd Join Islam?
Muslims Felt the Brunt of that - So The Protest Went out Of Control, WorldWide. Obviously the Peacefull Protests in Denmark Back in September Didnt Work, The Cartoons & Still Being Spread & Not Banned. So They Went Wild. In a way I Understand, But No One Should Die, If they Wanna Wreck Stuff to Scare The Media & Ban the Pics Evacuate People then Wreck Stuff.
No one Should Die.

You Should See These Muslims, In a Normal day, Everyday They Eat With The Right Hand, Enter The Toilet With The Left Foot, Wear their Trousers Above the Ankles, Refrain totally From Pork & Alcohol, Pray Before Eating, Pray Before, During, After Travelling, Pray Before Sleeping, Pray On Awakening, Pray When it Rains, Pray Before Sunset, etc.
This Muslim Dude Here Cant Even Eat From McDonalds or KFC, Cause the Meat Might be "Halaal" and Allowed For Them but the Spices isn't(if Fats Come From Impermissable Meat)
He cant Brush His Teeth With AquaFresh caue It Contains Certain Unlawful Ingredients.
They Wake at 4AM to Pray which last for about 3 Minutes Everyday, Grow Beards, Women Dress with the Scarf & Veil, etc...... and all this Because they say the Prophet is the Best Example, and he Did That, So that Must Be the Right Way, hence they Follow.

So After So Much of Their Lives Are Affected by the Prophet, in Everyday's Everything, How do you Expect Them To React When the Media is Dishonouring their Prophet Publically to Them & Everyone. I can Understand the Anger though I disagree with the Implementation/Protest.

This Muslim Friend Of Mine Knows His Stuff, So If You Got Questions, I Can Ask Him.

[Shuja Ali]

Nice Post Dude.

[Shuja Ali]

But what can you do?
A peacefull protest, stop using the products that are made there, stop reading that newspaper, things similar to that.

[yrwyddfa]

Hang on a minute - there's that word again: the 'offend' word.

Now I'm going to be first in line to admit I know next to nothing about Islam, and what does and doesn't upset the proponents of the religion. I know that if I served squid to a follower he's not going to eat it. I know the name of their principle fellow, and I wouldn't take his name in vein, or anything else, out of respect for the good (peaceful) people who follow Islam.

But would I draw a cartoon? I don't know - I actually don't draw cartoons that well - but would I have expected this to offend a Muslim friend? No, I wouldn't have. I have learnt from this episode that one shouldn't be drawing pictures of their holy people - even though Islams closest cousins, the Christians, have been drawing cartoons for kids for centuries. (I think the Bible has something to say about that, actually)

So where do I go from here? Is it now a social requirement to learn the ins and outs of the main five religions so that I will know, in advance, what it is that will offend and what it is that won't?

Do the people of the major 5 religions expect me to do the same?

I can prepare a questionnaire for the Christians, and Muslims on here on Buddhism if you'd like, so you can see how you'd fare on an 'offence test' against one of the smaller of the 5 religions.

In a complete turnaround of what I've just said . . There are obvious distinctions between respect and prejudice. Depicting anyone as a terrorist (without a shred of evidence) is clearly crossing the line between satire, and prejudice. This does not detract from the fact that depicting a major religious figure as a terrorist is an utterly ridiculous, stupid, and ignorant thing to do.

I support the current Islamic protests that are peaceful and follow the process of law as is customary in a democratic nation.

[Codehammer]

Do they not currently enjoy the freedom to practice their religion precisely as a result of secular democratic government?



The Muslim Women Traditional Islamic Dress Hijab To Cover the Head is Banned in Places Like France, Ireland & Turkey.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=92
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/11/story398539447.asp
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/i/france_hijab_2.htm

Isnt France one of the Big 5?

[yrwyddfa]

The Muslim Women Traditional Islamic Dress Hijab To Cover the Head is Banned in Places Like France, Ireland & Turkey.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=92
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/11/story398539447.asp
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/i/france_hijab_2.htm

Isnt France one of the Big 5?Actually, I'd forgotten about that particular issue.

BTW, France is not one of the big 5 religions. Not that I'm aware of, anyway.

[yrwyddfa]

the difference between religious freedoms internationally and domestically: the French, Turkish and Russian governments acted to deny Free Exercise, while the U.S. government acted to protect Free Exercise. Whilst there are countries that act in an intolerant way, I find it comforting that the US protects it's citizens. There are about 100 secular democracies throughout the world, and I don't think I would be alone in saying this, the French, Turkish, and Russian democracies are not representative of free-market secular democracies the world over.

In many cases these three are renowed for legislature promoting intolerance (normally to protect secularism, and not to promote hatred, btw)

[Codehammer]

:eek:

What we cannot do is tarnish the good decent people with an evil incorrect perception.

Remember 7/7 in london, well weeks after that Asians were getting onto the tube, in rush hour, to go to work just like any average person in London. When they got onto the tube people moved away from them. How awful must that have been. Complete strangers segragating you when you have done nothing wrong and it's purely because of your perceived nationality. Must hav been horrible and very upsetting for these people.

.... and I really do feel for the innocent people who are being portrayed as evil, regardless of race, nationality, religion or whether they like iPods or not.

Woka

Like I Say, Islam and True Muslims Are Innocent concerning Terrorism & Violence Done By "Muslims", as Christianity & True Christians Are Innocent Concerning "Christian" Hitler's Rampage .


Whats the IPOD Gig?

[Shuja Ali]

BTW, France is not one of the big 5 religions. Not that I'm aware of, anyway.He meant France is among the Big 5 nations not the Big 5 religions.

[yrwyddfa]

He meant France is among the Big 5 nations not the Big 5 religions.MY previous post mentioned the Big 5 in a religious context. I thought he was following on from my context. If he wasn't then he should have specified that he was talking about countries.

. . and I very much doubt if France is considered one of the Big 5 countries.

[Codehammer]

My girlfriend got a new hair cut, I didn't like it, I told her so. she was offended, but my house still stands, we are still seeing each other.

I am intregued, but this isn't me having a go at you or anything, but why does this offend you personally so much? Is it not possible to think "stupid newspaper, doesn't know what it's talking about, it is only a newspaper, I'll get on with my life" and then just never buy that newspaper instead...
Woof

South Parks 1st Season's Episode Started With Jesus, Its Season 9 Now & its Going On. Drawn Together & Countless Others Joined in to Mock.
I Dont Know If the Christians Opposed It, But I'm Hearing Nothing. - Theres the Problem, Doing Squat Causes Squat Results & on it Goes.

Seems Like the Christians Either Dont Care, or Maybe Feel Helpless, or Don't Really Have Faith To Motivate Some Sorta Action?

I Mentioned Above How Passionate The Muslims Are, Can You Wake Up Everyday at 4AM to Pray for +- 3 Minutes, Then Sleep Again, & Wake to Go Work? Yet Every Muslim Has to Do That Everyday.
In Contrast I've Met Only One Christian So Far, In This Christian Dominated Country I am In Thats Unmarried and is Still a Virgin. (this point is obviously not researched)

Had the Christains Protested Like the Muslims Did At the Start, it May Have Stopped - Which is What Christains Would Want - The Violence Part is the Hot Topic (its Wrong I Know), But Maybe Violence is What It Takes to Get a Point Through WorldWide, So it Seems?

Note: I am Not Supporting the Violence or Approving it, i'm Just Trying to Make Sense if It All.

Christians Slack in Their Faith, It Got to the Point Where Gays & Gay Priest are Accepted into their Faith. In Islam Can You Believe in the 21st Century they Refrain From Interest, And Can't Change a Single Law Based on "The Times"?
Interest Dude, its EVERYWHERE!
My Point Here Being is You Ask Why Arn't Christians Protesting and Angered, Well Analysing their Responses To Issues of Faith Like Gay Priests, etc May Hold that Answer to That Question.

"stupid newspaper, doesn't know what it's talking about, it is only a newspaper, I'll get on with my life" and then just never buy that newspaper instead...

Muslims Don't See it That Way. Why?
If You Make the Prophet A Terrorsit Globally, Who Will Accept Their Faith?
Face it, We Got People in This Country, On this Forum, on this Thread Who Can't Differentiate That Muslims Can be Good, Hardworking and Against Violence, Not All Being Extremists & Out to Get Them? Its News For Them & I Can't Count How Many Times I Addressed These People Here and Elsewhere, Its Like They're the Ones Living In Caves.

People Today Believe Elvis is Around, Bigfoot, Spiderman. They Will Believe Anything in The Papers. Where Again is This Forums Thread Saying We're in the Matrix Right Now? :)

So Negatively Advertising in Newspapers Globally on the Religion Will Have Negative Impacts on Their Religion, They Realise This And Go Wild. - I Can Understand This.


My girlfriend got a new hair cut, I didn't like it, I told her so. she was offended, but my house still stands, we are still seeing each other.

Advertize Globally On the Net & All the Papers & TV 'bout your Gurls Crap Haircut, Then I Wanna See You Get Some! :) & If You & Your House Exist on Earths Surface.

[Wally Pipp]

my bullsh*t-o-meter just blew a fuse...

[space_monkey]

South Parks 1st Season's Episode Started With Jesus, Its Season 9 Now & its Going On. Drawn Together & Countless Others Joined in to Mock.


Have you heard the recent uproar about the tv show on NBC called the "Book of Daniel". Google it. The show aired maybe once or twice before it was yanked, and there was no violent protests needed. South park has been protested time and again, but not as much due to the fact that is on cable, i believe and has a much smaller audience than compared to normal broadcast tv.


In Contrast I've Met Only One Christian So Far, In This Christian Dominated Country I am In Thats Unmarried and is Still a Virgin. (this point is obviously not researched)


:lol: I need to meet some of the women that you hang out with. :lol:

[Wokawidget]

And to have a look at the World Population , you might think that muslims are a minority.
2nd biggest religion in the world...yes...Most people in the world are not religeous and do not appreciate religeous people preaching their laws and rules at them, can you not appreciate this?

Woka

[Wokawidget]

the islamic community protested PEACEFULLY, to that - they simply boycotted Danish goods.
Yes, and hard working decent honest Danes, who had nothing to do with the cartoons, have now lost their jobs! :(

This is just as disgraceful as someone saying ALL Muslims are terrorists.

Boycotte the newspaper yes...but innocents...people need to get a grip on reality and stop being self obsessed [insert expletive] and just get on with their lives.

Shuja Ali, why do you think you are so special that you feel that you cannot be offended? Are you honestly 100% telling me you have never upset or offended ANYONE in your life? I VERY VERY much doubt it.
Would you change your way of living, what you can say or do, because something you do offends me?! Would you crap.

Woka

[Pino]

@Codehammer

I cant get over how many problems this has caused. If you say that christians dont protest because it isnt a real religion. I think you should turn around and run at the nearest wall.

Why? no, they dont protest no they dont kick up major fuss. simply because they have the ability to have a laugh, humour etc.

You said that If You Make the Prophet A Terrorsit Globally, Who Will Accept Their Faith?
I didnt evan know it was a prophet? so i dont think that counts as an argument

I agree 90% of muslims are innocent but that leaves 10% who arnt. and they are causing a bad name for the rest.

I dont wnat to get into the relms of which religijon is best. But lets all step back and have a look what happened.

A cartoon was published in a newspaper which maybe 1000 people would see (cartoon in non-muslim country) so maybe 50 muslims would see. But because of people need to start problems the whole muslim world has seen it.

Maybe the cartoon touched a nerve?

[Pino]

I give up reading your posts


Seems Like the Christians Either Dont Care, or Maybe Feel Helpless, or Don't Really Have Faith To Motivate Some Sorta Action?

turn around and begin to run, if i said that about a muslim they would be protesting


I Mentioned Above How Passionate The Muslims Are, Can You Wake Up Everyday at 4AM to Pray for +- 3 Minutes, Then Sleep Again, & Wake to Go Work? Yet Every Muslim Has to Do That Everyday.
Firstly no they dont its a choice. Secondly so what?


In Contrast I've Met Only One Christian So Far, In This Christian Dominated Country I am In Thats Unmarried and is Still a Virgin. (this point is obviously not researched)


and i've met lots of muslims who dont following praying times, obviously this sint researched

Lets get back onto the point here.

Also from a moderating point of view I think you violate this.


It is not a place to preach your religious views, ridicule the beliefs of others or pass judgements on the beliefs of others.

[Pino]

I'm still scanning here...


I am still stressing the point that you cannot offend me or my religion by printing whatever you


If it offends you move to a muslim country, i'm pretty anoyed now. Lets look at it this way...

If a women goes to a muslim country usually they are made to wear a head scarf thing. Ok? so people respect the beliefs and ways of that area.

So if a muslim is in a non-muslim country surley they should learn to live in the mode of that country? and the mode of the countrys in the west is freee speach humor etc.

DONT LIKE IT, DONT LOOK


And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.


I think if people really wnated to hurt you they could do much worse than a cartoon. A FREAKING CARTOON!

arghhhhh

[Shaggy Hiker]

If people want to be upset......well, a cartoon is as likely to satisfy them as anything.

[MasterBlaster]

And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.

Ooooops. MasterBlaster, I accidentally clicked edit instead of quote :(
This toasted your post as I then deleted the bits a didn't want and then clicked save. DOH!


Woka, bad moderator *slap*

[Wokawidget]

And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.

The worst thing was this was NOT the reason for reprinting the cartoon.

The cartoon was reprinted as a statement of "who do you think you are telling us what we can and cannot do".
If people want their own rules, and values, this is fine...but please please do not force them upon others, espescially me, as I do not like it.

Woka

[Wokawidget]

Here's an interesting thought...

Some Middle Eastern countries require women to keep their faces and bodies covered up at all times. I think this is actually quite degrading to women and very backwards, and thus I find it offensive.
What do you think would happen if I went over there and said "that offends me, i think you should treat women as equal and let them dress how they want"...Hmmmmm I know EXACTLY what would happen, but then again I wouldn't do that as I have respect their culture, even though I personally find it offensive and damn right outrageous.

Having respect for something, or someone, does not mean you have to agree with them, or even like them.

Why can't people respect the laws that Europe has even though they are different to others.

Woka

[nemaroller]

but then again I wouldn't do that as I have respect their culture, even though I personally find it offensive and damn right outrageous.

Woka
Translation:
I wouldn't proclaim my offense for fear of being beaten with shoes and fed to a goat.

On a lighter note, let's have some comic relief.. with SouthPark..
"Osama bin Laden has Farty Pants" (airdate: 7 November 2001). Airing weeks after the terrorist attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, [Episode of South Park] became one of the first fictional series to address the matter.

Watch it here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Park/video/37682

[Shuja Ali]

@Wokawidget

Well the newspapers knew the reaction of the community to the initial cartoons then why did they reprint it. They knew it is going to offend the muslim community and they did it again. I don't know if having the Freedom of speech means that you can offend others. Try abusing your neighbour and you will come to know what I mean.

Now what do you see here, people taking advantage of the whole thing. Why can't we understand there are more people out there who are ready to grab opportunities to create more trouble rather than solving anything?

And if Muslims have their religious practices they don't throw it on others. If you don't cover your face then it is your choice. But in some of the European countries they have put a Ban on wearing head scarves, wearing pagdis (the one that Sikh community wears) and more things. That shows people are interfering in other religions which is not good.

Telling me that it was done just to show that we have Freedom of Speech here does not mean I will let people abuse someone who is the most respected people in this world (atleast for Muslims). And you saying that why should Dannes suffer for something which a small newspaper did, To counter that I would say why are Muslims being targetted when just a few people did something wrong sometime back.

This can go on and on, but then this will not help us. We need to have some respect for others and then only there will be peace. Why do something that will offend others, just don't do it.

And regarding the population, my response was to the post that said only 1/6th of the worlds population is muslim.

And on a lighter side
@nemaroller : I never thought you can use MS logos like that.

[CyberSurfer]

The fundamental problem as I see it is that everyone seems to be convinced that their religion (or lack of) is the right way and everyone else is wrong. To wit:

The Muslims think that their religion is right, There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet. This makes cartoons such as those discussed here firmly against their religion and fundamentally offensive.

The Christians think that the way Muslims treat their women (and by that I mean in more extreme countries such as Iran) is a denial of fundamental human rights. And, by the way, they also think that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong.

These two views are mutually imcompatible. The Christians can't see what all the fuss is about, because they've been poking fun at Jesus for years. The Muslims can't see what all the fuss is about with the whole Hijab thing. It's been that way for years.

What people need to get into their heads is that not everybody agrees with them. There are billions of people in this world, of many different creeds and cultures. The sooner everyone recognises that none of those creeds are any less valid that their own to the people who hold them, the better. People are entitled to beleive in whatever god or belief system they choose, whether it be God, Allah, Jehovah, Buddah, King Haile Selaisse I, Hare Krishna or the Great Undefinable Buggery****. What people are NOT entitled to do is treat everyone elses opinions as invalid (hence also their becoming offended because of religious matters).

Apologising in advance for any offense caused to those who find my use of the word "Jesus" to be blasphemous or offensive, Jesus people!!! Get a grip!!

[Valleysboy1978]

Some very interesting points here, but I have to side with woka on this one.

In the middle ages the threat was from Christian extremists (the Crusades).
In the early twentieth century the threat was from the IRA
Now the threat is from Muslim/Islamic extremists.

Face it people, the greatest threat of the time will obviously be the most violent.
I think Palestine is an excellent example. Now that Hamas is in power (democratically elected I might add) they have realised that they need the commerce from the western nations and have admitted that they need to calm things down and discuss the situation with those said nations. A good sign :thumb:

[Pino]

agree

[Wally Pipp]

I would like to see one question answered:

Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?

[Pino]

Well I agree, but once thing a member of staff here mentioned was. If you express your view you must deal with the consiquences.

So if I give you a gun (Opinion) and you shoot someone (express it) expect to go to jail.

Free speach is there but use it wisely.

Pino

[MasterBlaster]

Ooooops. MasterBlaster, I accidentally clicked edit instead of quote :(
This toasted your post as I then deleted the bits a didn't want and then clicked save. DOH!


Woka, bad moderator *slap*


That's it. I'm burning down your embassy :lol:

[FishGuy]

I found this on Scott Adams blog which I quite liked

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
Cartoonist or Puppet Master?

Perhaps you’ve heard about the Danish editorial cartoon that sparked riots all over the world. According to the news, the comic featured some disrespectful images of The Prophet, so believers burned Danish embassies and whatnot.

Let me go on record as saying I don’t approve of the burning of embassies. But I must confess I’m intrigued by the notion of causing it to happen. Apparently the indirect method of causing embassies to be burned down is both totally legal and also a highly prized right. As you know, there aren’t many ways you can burn down an occupied building and get away with it. But it is completely legal to use your freedom of speech to indirectly incite other people into doing almost any dumb ass thing you can think of. That’s a big reason I became a cartoonist.

I always thought it was unfair that diplomats had diplomatic immunity. They can run over you with their car several times a day while saying the equivalent of “neener neener” in their own language. And it’s all perfectly legal. As a cartoonist, I have the power to fight back. The next time I see an ambassador double parking, I will mumble to myself “Say goodbye to your embassy.”

In another article about a plot to blow up the US Bank he quotes a story from the BBC, It seems more and more people even in non British countries are using the BBC as the source of their news. Perhaps its just me who takes them for granted but I would have thought most other countries could supply news just as good.

[moeur]

I would like to see one question answered:

Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, [the right] to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?You mean like the VBForums Moderators have?

[Wokawidget]

You mean like the VBForums Moderators have?
Incorrect...you have no freedoms on here :D
To use this site you must abide by OUR rules, which are clearly stated in the AUP, which you agreed to when you signed up up :)

Lets take maliscious code as an example. I/we will toast any dodgy code posted on VBF. This is clearly stated in our AUP. Now lets say vbDevSiteB.com allows uses to post this said dodgy code, and the mods don't do a damn thing about it. Fair enough.

But what we cannot do as mods here, regardless if writing dodgy code is right or wrong (WRONG by the way), go over to vbDevSiteB.com and start imposing our rules upon their site, users and mods ;)

Woooow...good analogy :D

Woof

[Wokawidget]

Well the newspapers knew the reaction of the community to the initial cartoons then why did they reprint it. They knew it is going to offend the muslim community and they did it again. I don't know if having the Freedom of speech means that you can offend others. Try abusing your neighbour and you will come to know what I mean.

I agree, but like I said...they were NOT printed to cause offence.


Now what do you see here, people taking advantage of the whole thing. Why can't we understand there are more people out there who are ready to grab opportunities to create more trouble rather than solving anything?

Again agreed...but people are wanting to kill INNOCENT people, who probably disagree with the pictures and are on your side, and to start violence. Over a cartoon...a cartoon. Ok, so people are annoyed at it, I can understand this. But murdering innocent people, burning down embassies, hurting innocent peoples families and careers by boycotting all Danish companies. A little extreme even you must have to admit. Oh, and now there are banners like "Insulting our prophet is decalring war on Islam"...Oh come on, grow up.


And if Muslims have their religious practices they don't throw it on others. If you don't cover your face then it is your choice. But in some of the European countries they have put a Ban on wearing head scarves, wearing pagdis (the one that Sikh community wears) and more things. That shows people are interfering in other religions which is not good.

No, they are not banned from counties...some countries have banned them from state schools. Which I strongly agree with...schools should be religeous free. The reason for this is because it's extremely hard to teach people when every person has a different need/requirement. Peoples education starts suffering. One of the rules of a state school is school uniform, all pupils must wear this, it's in the rules. See my previous post above about rules on this forum and others. People should abey these rules, and no-one should be except.
And as for having religeon thrown upon others...I see it every day, mainly Christianity because I live in the UK. Being forced to pray and go to church when I was young, and being told off when I didn't. Hmmmmm.


Telling me that it was done just to show that we have Freedom of Speech here does not mean I will let people abuse someone who is the most respected people in this world (atleast for Muslims).

That seriously sounds like you're going to participate in the violence...please tell me that isn't so, as you've posted you disagree with any violence and have stated soem very good points.


And you saying that why should Dannes suffer for something which a small newspaper did, To counter that I would say why are Muslims being targetted when just a few people did something wrong sometime back.

2 wrongs DO NOT make a right! What people have done is caused innocent people to lose their jobs and security of bringing their families up. As I keep posting in many many posts, it's only a minority of people causing the agro. How would you feel if EVERYONE just said "sod it, you're muslim, you're the enemy" and then stabbed you, or cause you to lose your job :rolleyes:


This can go on and on, but then this will not help us. We need to have some respect for others and then only there will be peace. Why do something that will offend others, just don't do it.

Again, as I've stated b4, what offends you does not offend others. What you do, does not offend some people, but offends others. Would you stop being religeous because it offends people who don't believe in religeon??? I very much doubt it. This is where tollerance comes into it.


And on a lighter side
@nemaroller : I never thought you can use MS logos like that.
You should have seen what he did with my badger avatar :(
Not nice *sulk*

:D


Woooooof

[Valleysboy1978]

When you signed up to VBF you agreed to abide by the rules set by the AUP. If you do not you will be banned.
When someone comes to live in the UK they have agreed to abide by the rules set by that government. If you do not you will convicted of a crime.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would like to see one question answered:

Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?

You want that question answered??

Frankly, I'd just be happy if it were a question :lol: :lol: :wave:

To quote a cartoon: I don't know what you just said, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it!

[Shuja Ali]

I agree, but like I said...they were NOT printed to cause offence.I don't agree with this. At first they might not have been printed to cause offence but later on it was just for offending people. As I said earlier they knew what the reaction was when they were printed first so why print them again. And if the answer is freedom of press then I would say that people also have right to protest.
Again agreed...but people are wanting to kill INNOCENT people, who probably disagree with the pictures and are on your side, and to start violence. Over a cartoon...a cartoon. Ok, so people are annoyed at it, I can understand this. But murdering innocent people, burning down embassies, hurting innocent peoples families and careers by boycotting all Danish companies. A little extreme even you must have to admit. Oh, and now there are banners like "Insulting our prophet is decalring war on Islam"...Oh come on, grow up.As I said any kind of voilence is supposed to be condemned so is the act of offending others.
No, they are not banned from counties...some countries have banned them from state schools. Which I strongly agree with...schools should be religeous free. The reason for this is because it's extremely hard to teach people when every person has a different need/requirement. Peoples education starts suffering. One of the rules of a state school is school uniform, all pupils must wear this, it's in the rules. See my previous post above about rules on this forum and others. People should abey these rules, and no-one should be except.
And as for having religeon thrown upon others...I see it every day, mainly Christianity because I live in the UK. Being forced to pray and go to church when I was young, and being told off when I didn't. Hmmmmm.I don't think I will agree with you on this. How would a girl wearing hijab affect what is being taught in a school.
That seriously sounds like you're going to participate in the violence...please tell me that isn't so, as you've posted you disagree with any violence and have stated soem very good points.I belong to a country which got its independence because of non-voilence, so me going voilent is out of question here. But yes me protesting against such acts is what I am doing.
2 wrongs DO NOT make a right! What people have done is caused innocent people to lose their jobs and security of bringing their families up. As I keep posting in many many posts, it's only a minority of people causing the agro. How would you feel if EVERYONE just said "sod it, you're muslim, you're the enemy" and then stabbed you, or cause you to lose your job Exactly, this is what I have been trying to post. You cannot decide how 1.2 Billion are by just looking at few hundred people. Right? This is what has been happening. Depciting a person, who is most respectable among Muslims, as a terrorist does not do any good either.
Again, as I've stated b4, what offends you does not offend others. What you do, does not offend some people, but offends others. Would you stop being religeous because it offends people who don't believe in religeon??? I very much doubt it. This is where tollerance comes into it.And where exactly does the responsibility come iin to picture then?
You should have seen what he did with my badger avatar
Not nice *sulk* Thank god I don't have an Avatar yet. :D
But doesn't this voilate the policy of usage of MS Logos.

[penagate]

Shuja, are you suggesting that the newspaper should be held liable for the violent protests? :confused:

[Codehammer]

my bullsh*t-o-meter just blew a fuse...


I'll still dig your signature though :) [nothing exploded :)]

Whats the Bull for Youz, the Fact that All Muslims are Not like the On on CNN or My reasoning of these muslims peoples actions?

Here at work three people, 1 Jew and 2 =Christians converted to Islam - Post 9-11 (true Islam that is)

I get to Experience First Hand Their Behaviours and Can id the Different Types of Muslims.

[Shuja Ali]

Shuja, are you suggesting that the newspaper should be held liable for the violent protests? :confused:
I am suggesting that people who do such acts should be held responsible.

[Codehammer]

I would like to see one question answered:

Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?

this would have to come back to God or this Q will never be answered.

I think this earth & life is all about justice(some call it Karma)
(an eye for an eye, you know the saying)
So if some Injustice occurs then it must be offset to make things equal. We know this isnt always the case on earth some die and have no penalties for their Bad Deeds.

Going Back to the Definition (for ever injustice there must be justice) then that would say the Judgement for the Dead Unjust has to Occur Somewhere.

Judgement Day.

If that Exists then God Exists.

So we established God Exists.

God Has given the Code of Conduct, etc. So if one breaks the Rules whatever God says must be carried out should be done in the way God said it must be Done.

So for this Q:
I would like to see one question answered:
Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?

The perpeprator and The Law Established where Both Follow God.
Then it Makes Sense.

ooooooo Wally's gonna be all over this....

[Wokawidget]

I am suggesting that people who do such acts should be held responsible.
Hmmmm...yes, I agree...but only to a certain extent.

The problem with this is that at this present time there is nothing to be accountable for. They have not broken any laws. The only thing that's happened is that the papers have pissed a few people off, and I use the word few lightly there.

This is where the whole east/west divide comes in.

The outcome in England over all of this will probably be a change in the law, and then if something like this happens again then it will be classed as "racial incitment" or something like that, and then yes, people will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.

If this happens, then the protests have been a success. Would you be happy if this was the outcome?

However, the damage has already been done. Violent protests around the world, people dead, calls for 9/11 and 7/7 for Europe, war against Islam etc These acts have seriously damaged the reputation of Muslims in Europe.

I know that this cartoon has annoyed loads of people, but since I am not religeous I cannot imagine what people are feeling to see this cartoon. The only thing I have to relate to this is Christians and their god/jeasus...to which we see them being satirised everyday, and their isn't a problem with it. Most people here probably are still thinking..."but it's just a cartoon...???"

These peaceful protests have bought this to peoples attentions, which is a good thing. However, the violent protests have overshadowed the peaceful ones. Maybe Muslims in general should be gathering in numbers, protesting outside embassies and condeming the violence too instead of protesting saying "The posting of pictures depicting the prophet is offensive...we protest peacefully...here, have a cookie", maybe they should be protesting purely about the violence and saying "Stop radical fundamentalist teachings of Islam...we are peacefull...here have a cookie".

All this violence by extremists is hurting general good honest Muslims, not me, not my housemate or girlfriend, but people like yourself. You are the one who is indirectly affected by this onslaught of violence...and this is sad as why should you be tarnished by some clowns actions.

People are prejudice...this is human nature. Look at the Welsh, no one likes them ;) *now that was said in jest, but I doubt a Welse person would get offended*
So if more of this violence carries on, and more and more people turn to violence, then more and more people will start to have an issue with Muslims.
This I am afraid is something that seriously needs to be changed. I can just see turf wars going on outside my house in the street.

Also, going back to an earlier topic, the wearing of the head scarf in schools.
Wearing the head scarf does not directly affect anything. However, praying times and other religeous things do, not just Muslims. So instead of saying "right, this, this and this is banned, but this is not and this is not", where people can the turn around and say "Awww...but you left off this...come on, you let the religious person 1 have this and this, why can't we have this?", people decided to say "Right...NOTHING religeous at all, we'll treat people exactly the same.", which I think is a good thing.
And yes, it is only in schools, and not banned in the entire country ;)
If anyone can find any proof of an entire country in Europe banning any religeous clothing I would be very interested in reading it, but as far as I am aware it hasn't happened.

The question is, where does this stop?

woka

[Wally Pipp]

ooooooo Wally's gonna be all over this....

Err, no I'm not. In fact, I'm no longer wasting my time with this sort of drivel.
Have a nice day :wave:

[Valleysboy1978]

People are prejudice...this is human nature. Look at the Welsh, no one likes them ;) *now that was said in jest, but I doubt a Welse person would get offended*Oi! :eek: I resent that! Besides, you're just jealous because you WANT to be Welsh :lol:

Perhaps the underlying issue has also been overlooked. As I understand it the initial cartoon in the Denmark newspaper was a childrens competition to illustrate how they see Islam. The question we should be asking is:

Do all our children really see Islam as a collective of bombers? If so, this is worrying and needs to be addressed with great care.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't know what you just said, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it! :lol: :lol:
The original quote (Satre) is my favourite quote of all time but I always felt it applied more to the right to dissent than the right to offend (mind you, Satre certainly practised the right to offend his mother in law). I find it quite surprising that we seem to have lost sight of the difference between the two. To me, the right of dissent is absolutely vital to a democtratic system, a fact we should remind our government of (just as long as we don't stand near the houses of parliament when we do it because that would be illegal :sick: ). However, if we reduce the right of free speech down to my right to call people names I believe we've cheapened an immensely vauable tool. I may have the legal right to do that but I don't believe I have the moral right.

To all those who seem to think that all Muslims are extremists who cannot protest peacefully please read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4700482.stm)

And to anyone who says, hey, if you don't like our rules why do you want to live here I would again point out that many British muslims (I suspect the majority, though I'm not sure) were born here. They're British. They have as much right to be here as you or I and, I believe, they have the right to be respected while they do.

[space_monkey]

Do all our children really see Islam as a collective of bombers? If so, this is worrying and needs to be addressed with great care.
I think we need to work on the parents of those children first. Seems to me that most adults have the same view of Islam as a collective of bombers. And that's why its being passed on to our children.

[Valleysboy1978]

Look at it from this perspective:

You're out on a Saturday night on the town. You get a bit drunk and some guy spills his pint on your brand new £70 shirt. You are angry and call him every name you can think of. He then promptly punches you in the face.

Rightly so you have done know wrong, but he will be arrested for assault.

General insulting is a part of free speech, however anything that turns physical is a crime. If the protests had remained peaceful they would have been tolerated and listened to promptly. Instead violence insued with multiple arrests and as such it is not tolerated and yet again the situation escalates because of a few idiots who have nothing better to do. :(

[FunkyDexter]

Good analogy but this only serves to demonstrate that the law is an ass. It is, of course, right that he get's arrested for assault, but I feel you should be arrested for 'verbal assault' (or whatever you choose to call it). The penalty should be less but it should still be there. It should also serve to mitigate some (not all) of his penalty for the assault. Of course, he's guilty of wilfull and malicious beer spillage which ought to be a hanging ofence :mad: :bigyello:

Basically, I don't think that deliberately offending someone with no motivation beyond causing that offence should be OK in a modern society. Trouble is, because what causes offence is a purely subjective matter, you can't actually legislate against it. What we can all do, however, is try not to offend others as best we can and condemn the actions of the media (or any other body) when they deliberately and cynically set out to offend, which is what I believe happened in this case (with the exception of the first Danish printing, I think that was accidental).

It's worth noting that the precident to avoid offending people and apologising when you do, is out there. Public figures do it all the time. I'm particularly thinking of Kenneth Clarkes recent drunken outburst at a jewish journalist (he compared him to a concentration camp guard) and Prince Harry's wearing of nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. In the former case it was an outburst in the heat of the moment and in the latter it was meant as a joke but was in poor taste. In both cases, as soon as the parties had realised how much offence they'd caused they issued full public apologies. The media generally doesn't seem to seem to adhere to the same moral standards it imposes on others, however.

[Shuja Ali]

Wow this is great. This guy is planning to distribute T-Shirts for what. To show that they have freedom of speech (I seriously doubt that). Take a look at what an Italian Minister has to say here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4714548.stm

[Valleysboy1978]

Good analogy but this only serves to demonstrate that the law is an ass. It is, of course, right that he get's arrested for assault, but I feel you should be arrested for 'verbal assault' (or whatever you choose to call it). The penalty should be less but it should still be there. Justice is based on evidence. Proving that person 1 hit person 2 is easy because person 1 will have bruised knuckles and person 2 will have a bruise in the shape of person 1's fist. Try proving person 2 insulted person 1...impossible, and even then it can be argued they were in jest.

[Valleysboy1978]

Okay, now this is going a bit beyond rational thought.
According to the BBC News website Danish pastries imported into Iran are no longer to be called Danish pastries but will instead be called "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed" :ehh:

[Wokawidget]

Hahahahaha :D

Link?

Shuja Ali, can you not see where the Italian minister is coming from?
Lets say we take this to an extreme:

Lets say a group of people, lets call them the Badgerites for this purpose.
Now, a few million of the Badgerites do not like hair gel, or any hair products at all. They say it offends them, for whatever reason.
Now, regardless of how much they protested countries in the world would not back down and force people to stop wearing hair gel.

Now to the other extreme:

The Wooftarians, again a few million of 'em, really get offended when people get murdered. They protest to make murder illegal. "Hmmmm maybe they have a point there" someone in government says, then before you know it, murder is now illegal. Woohooooo.

Those 2 things above are taken to extremes to establish that there is a line here. Some are just stupid protests, ie the hair gel, which will never get made illegal. Then there's murder, which will definately be made illegal.

Now the problem we have here is:

The Growlies, they don't like a picture drawn of someone they worship. This offends them. There a few million of them again. They protest away to make it illegal to draw a cartoon of the one they worship.

Now, as you can see, this is another situation. But where does it come on the scale above...keep it legal, make it illegal. The problem we have here is that a lot of people believe it still should be legal, and see no problem with it...just in the same way I doubt you have a problem with hair gel.

To me it seems a little daft to be honest...it's a cartoon...just like it's only hair gel.

The worrying thing is that if people keep drawing these cartoons, then we will see more 9/11's and more 7/7's across the world where innocent people, and I stress the word innocent here, get murdered over someone elses beliefs.

So...basically the whole world is being bullied into something...essentially.

Now...obviously this won't be the end of this even if it's made illegal.
What if...say in ten years down the line there are more and more hard line muslims. Lets say they suddenly start getting offended by something else...do we back down instantly...or let the murders start?

The worrying thing is, is that this is the way things are happening :(

Woka

[FishGuy]

Hahahahaha :D

Link?

Shuja Ali, can you not see where the Italian minister is coming from?
Lets say we take this to an extreme:

Lets say a group of people, lets call them the Badgerites for this purpose.
Now, a few million of the Badgerites do not like hair gel, or any hair products at all. They say it offends them, for whatever reason.
Now, regardless of how much they protested countries in the world would not back down and force people to stop wearing hair gel.

Now to the other extreme:

The Wooftarians, again a few million of 'em, really get offended when people get murdered. They protest to make murder illegal. "Hmmmm maybe they have a point there" someone in government says, then before you know it, murder is now illegal. Woohooooo.

Those 2 things above are taken to extremes to establish that there is a line here. Some are just stupid protests, ie the hair gel, which will never get made illegal. Then there's murder, which will definately be made illegal.

Now the problem we have here is:

The Growlies, they don't like a picture drawn of someone they worship. This offends them. There a few million of them again. They protest away to make it illegal to draw a cartoon of the one they worship.

Now, as you can see, this is another situation. But where does it come on the scale above...keep it legal, make it illegal. The problem we have here is that a lot of people believe it still should be legal, and see no problem with it...just in the same way I doubt you have a problem with hair gel.

To me it seems a little daft to be honest...it's a cartoon...just like it's only hair gel.

The worrying thing is that if people keep drawing these cartoons, then we will see more 9/11's and more 7/7's across the world where innocent people, and I stress the word innocent here, get murdered over someone elses beliefs.

So...basically the whole world is being bullied into something...essentially.

Now...obviously this won't be the end of this even if it's made illegal.
What if...say in ten years down the line there are more and more hard line muslims. Lets say they suddenly start getting offended by something else...do we back down instantly...or let the murders start?

The worrying thing is, is that this is the way things are happening :(

Woka
:thumb: Great Post

[Shuja Ali]

So...basically the whole world is being bullied into something...essentially. This is the best thing that I heard today.

Actually it is upto the common people like you and me to stop this bullying thing from happening. If we understand our responsibilities and respect each other then few people who want to disturb the situation will have nothing to talk about.

This is why I posted the link out there. When people know that something is creating tensions then why do it at all. Printing and reprinting is adding to the tension rather than reducing it. Now you would say that those people say that they have freedom of speech and they are defending it. Then I would say if they are defending their Freedom of speech, then those people protesting and burning embassies are also defending their beleifs.

This way it is not gonna go anywhere and again someone will come and bully us again. There is a need to understand each others sentiments and stop playing with things like religion.

[Valleysboy1978]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stmIt's the mini-quiz on the bottom right of the page. How absurd :rolleyes:

[big blue alien]

Its so childish when they start changeing names of things like that. Its not like the Danes care what you call them.
Do they still say freedom fries in America?

[moeur]

Then I would say if they are defending their Freedom of speech, then those people protesting and burning embassies are also defending their beleifs.Maybe they are acting in a defense of their religious beliefs or maybe they are just following the mob because burning things western is cool.

In either case once you elevate the protest to violence you have crossed a line. You have moved from righteous to wrong in the eyes of most of the west. If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.

[yrwyddfa]

If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.That may be true today, in fact it probably is.

But where would America be if the British hadn't failed against the insurgent rabble all those years ago ?

[moeur]

Of course we know now that a lot of the reaction to the cartoons is not spontaneous, but was incited deliberately by Radical Danish imams.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/775

[moeur]

But where would America be if the British hadn't failed against the insurgent rabble all those years ago ?There is a big difference here.
Non-violent protests are within the laws of most countries, violent protests and uprisings are not. This being the case the protestors (insurgents)will be treated differently based on their methods.

You don't have a right to an armed insurgency even though you may feel morally justified. If you do take up arms against your government then you must be prepared to suffer the consequences (usually death). Don't go whining to the world community when your government does what it can to stop you.

[yrwyddfa]

There is a big difference here.
Non-violent protests are within the laws of most countries, violent protests and uprisings are not. This being the case the protestors (insurgents)will be treated differently based on their methods.

You don't have a right to an armed insurgency even though you may feel morally justified. If you do take up arms against your government then you must be prepared to suffer the consequences (usually death). Don't go whining to the world community when your government does what it can to stop you.I was talking about the struggle for American independence . . . .

[moeur]

I was talking about the struggle for American independence . . . .I know you were and my response was directed at that.

Winners always get to write the history, so we look upon the revolution as a righteous cause. Had the British won we might now look upon it as a case of domestic terrorism.

The point I was trying to make is that once you take up arms against your government you are no longer protected by you rights to protest and speak freely. So, the revolutionaries had to accept that it was an all or nothing struggle. Either they would defeat the British or die trying. And no one should blame the British for trying to put down the rebellion by whatever means they had at their disposal.

This argument does change a little due to the fact that America was a colony and the morality of maintaining colonies is dubious

[MasterBlaster]

Wow this is great. This guy is planning to distribute T-Shirts for what. To show that they have freedom of speech (I seriously doubt that). Take a look at what an Italian Minister has to say here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4714548.stm

I guess you do not understand wester culture. We will sell offensive T-Shirts about anything to make a buck. It's about free market not free speach.

[PineyWoodsJimbo]

Originally Posted by moeur
If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.

That may be true today, in fact it probably is.

But where would America be if the British hadn't failed against the insurgent rabble all those years ago ?


Another point is that the insurgent rabble stopped acting like rabble when they formally declared and formed an army. There must have been exceptions, but they did not aim their displeasure physically toward innocent people -- unlike the current bunch.

And vocally condemning the actions is one thing. I'll start believing that the average Moslem is really against such acts when I hear about a few sticking their own bodies and fortunes in between the freaks and the cameras.

[yrwyddfa]

I know you were and my response was directed at that.

Winners always get to write the history, so we look upon the revolution as a righteous cause. Had the British won we might now look upon it as a case of domestic terrorism.

The point I was trying to make is that once you take up arms against your government you are no longer protected by you rights to protest and speak freely. So, the revolutionaries had to accept that it was an all or nothing struggle. Either they would defeat the British or die trying. And no one should blame the British for trying to put down the rebellion by whatever means they had at their disposal.

This argument does change a little due to the fact that America was a colony and the morality of maintaining colonies is dubiousNelson Mandela is a terrorist, too. Tried and convicted by a jury of his peers . . . .

My point, although in the most part I agree with you Moeur, is that the world simply isn't as black and white as your posts imply.

[moeur]

My point, although in the most part I agree with you Moeur, is that the world simply isn't as black and white as your posts imply.No it is this black and white. If you use violence then harsh methods (i.e. greater force) will be used against you. So before resorting to violence realize that your actions will bring severe consequences upon you and your accomplises.

[yrwyddfa]

No it is this black and white. If you use violence then harsh methods (i.e. greater force) will be used against you. So before resorting to violence realize that your actions will bring severe consequences upon you and your accomplises.I agree that that is what is going to happen, but with regard to whether it is right or wrong that this consequence should happen, in my opinion, questionable

[demotivater]

He who hesitates is lost.

[Wally Pipp]

The more I read these posts, the more I'm convinced this world (and the West in particular) is sliding into degeneration and oblivion at lightning speed.

But at least when things have finally gone to pot I know where the blame lies.

[Shuja Ali]

Maybe they are acting in a defense of their religious beliefs or maybe they are just following the mob because burning things western is cool.

In either case once you elevate the protest to violence you have crossed a line. You have moved from righteous to wrong in the eyes of most of the west. If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.As if offending someones religious sentiments is not wrong. More than half of world's population stays in east and we would not care what west thinks of us. If west can do anything so we can we. We can burn down whatever we want and protest in whatever way we like. If west doesn't like it then let them do whatever they want. (This is a kind of response you get when west doesn't know what responsibility and respect is)

To be frank West needs to understand that people (unlike people in West) living in East have sentiments that are closely related to their culture and religion. And when you play with these sentiments then these people get irritated and can resort to voilence.

I like this post so much :The more I read these posts, the more I'm convinced this world (and the West in particular) is sliding into degeneration and oblivion at lightning speed.

But at least when things have finally gone to pot I know where the blame lies.

I guess you do not understand wester culture. We will sell offensive T-Shirts about anything to make a buck. It's about free market not free speach.If you would have given it a thought then you would have understood that this one is not about money.

[moeur]

As if offending someones religious sentiments is not wrong.Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.

[Wokawidget]

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.
Have to sort of 1/2 agree with you there.

Woka

[yrwyddfa]

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.A vast over-simplification.

Of course you can control your behaviour to such a degree that it might prevent you offending someone. You could be knowingly racist, for instance.

The extension of this is whether it is right to constrain behaviour in that fashion . . .

[space_monkey]

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.

Knowingly offended someone and accidently offending someone are two different things. For instance up until recently i had no idea that drawing an image of mohammed (sp?) was wrong, so if i had done it, i can't be held accountable or at least the offendie should be a little understanding. But doing something to offend someone in order to anger them or because i just don't care isn't the right thing to do. Both the potential offender and the offendie should try excercise some form of self control.

edit: i should have read a little further down. its kinda scary that i'm agreeing with yrwyddfa :sick: :lol: