Printable View
Well at least I can now see the irony.
To protest a cartoon that depects a religious leader as a terrorist. Some of the so called followers of the religious leader are going to show the rest of the world the falseness of these cartoons by the followers engaging in terrorist acts.
I wonder if they ever watched the Life of Brian and thought it was a documentary?
I don't feel comfortable. The pic showing Muhammed as a terrorist is plain silly and pointless. Obviously, the autors knew the Muslim population wouldn't like it and would protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Now, as silly as it was, I just don't care about the prohibition of Muhammed's pics. Some Muslims want apologies ? Fine, but I hope no one will apologise for practising freedom of speech, even in a stupid way.
Indeed. But the Queen has not been elected, has she? Nor have the government ministers. Or the diplomats in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Or the members of the Higher Education Inspection. Yet they all represent you in various ways. The same principle applies to the EU Commission. They are appointed by those who have been elected to do so in your name and mine, so they represent you and me on various levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
And like you, I often wish they had different ideas and policies, though it has to be said that Mandelson is doing a reasonably good job. Of course it involves more diplomacy and less of the merciless one-on-one of Prime Minister's Question Time.
I wonder what you would have preferred him to say instead of what he actually said. "Pfwoar, laughed me arse off at those cartoons! What are the towelheads getting worked up over? Get a loife?"
Something along those lines? :mellow:
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Why not? Don´t muslims honour honesty?:surrender:
Again - wearing headdresses. Very important in areas where sandstorms are present - even westeners put themon then, not required anywhere else in the world. So why are they still worn elsewhere? Most countries have national costumes which were what was worn many years ago and basically make you look like a prat. It seems in the Middle East it is the de rigeur to wear these all the time, even when there's not a spek of sand on the highly manicured street.
It really is a mindset that has a lot in common with North Koreans - completely fixated and completely immune to all reason.
~:smoking:
More goodies, sorry for the tactless link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/religion_...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--
My favorite quote:
"I think this is not only about a bilateral issue between Indonesia and Denmark, this is a much more serious issue ... It involves the whole Islamic world vis-a-vis Denmark and vis-a-vis the trend of Islamophobia," [Indonesia's foreign ministry spokesman] Thamrin added.
Evidently free speach is called Islamophobia in the east.
Oh good they're ready to kill to defend the honour of someone who died over 1,000 years ago... does the Koran state that this is required, or is it again just dogma from previous interpretation?
~:smoking:
It is a form of entertainment for a couple hundred unemployed youth and some clerics at the low end of the theological foodchain.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I heard an interview with him, where he said something along these lines; While we acknowledge the concept of freedom of expression, it shall not serve as a cover to violate others on their belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I think that is the case on the edge, they think it shouldnt, we think it should.
The Danish paper is a secular paper from a European country with a small minority muslim population. Yet, the muslim world feels this, and all other newspapers, are obligated to follow the laws of the Quran. In other words, in the muslim mind, we are all ALREADY under Sharia, regardless of whether we're muslims or not. Interesting perspective, I wonder what else I do, or do not do, on a daily basis that an Imam in Amman would take offense to and force me to stop, given the chance.
That would be your normal BBQ, eating spareribs while drinking beer
Well it indeed shows the pen is mightier than the sword as some cartoons can cause an uproar like this, while cutting the heads off hostages in the name of Islam doesnt seem to do the same.
As it started with cartoons lets have another one:
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y2...ist_School.jpg
CBR
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060203...ropemediaislam
Very tasteless cartoons but at the same moment calling for riots and killing seem a little over the top over cartoons. With "art" of the Virgin Mary smeared in feces and other anti-religious and disrespectful displays such as the cartoons depicting Muhammad in a bad light, should free speech also show a little more curtesy. Not a dig on Islam, but when Christians and Jews are potrayed in this sort of disgusting way, you don't see so much violence as you do when Muslims are disrespected by secular media and society. Can someone explain to me why the phenomenom of violence in the Islamic Faith seems more prevalent in these sort of issues?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60620
Sorry a thread is already discussing this issue, could a mod combine my thread to it? Thanks
:creep:
Where would i be without you my Dear Friend!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
I objected to his assertion that the UK press should not print the cartoons. I repeat it has got nothing to do with him.Quote:
I wonder what you would have preferred him to say instead of what he actually said. "Pfwoar, laughed me arse off at those cartoons! What are the towelheads getting worked up over? Get a loife?"
Something along those lines?
Even Tony has put some clear blue water between Downing St. and his erstwhile ally.
hereQuote:
Downing Street tried to distance itself from the row by saying it was wrong for Tony Blair to tell the media what to do. Asked if he agreed with Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, who urged newspapers to think twice before publishing the cartoons, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “This is entirely a matter for the media organisations to decide what they ought to do within the law.”
Now Jack'boot' Straw has thrown his hat into the ring. God what a bleedin' shower. They want to try growing a backbone.
and hereQuote:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned the decision by some European newspapers to reproduce cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as "disrespectful".
I remember the deafening silence from these fellas when Iqbal Sacranie denounced homosexuals about a month back. One has to wonder how far these politicians will fawn to the Islamists?
You mean the European press. And it has to do with Mandelson, because he is controlling a trade row. As for Jack Straw, he and his government have the right to their own opinion just like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
On Sacranie's remarks you have a point. They were investigated by Police and found to be legal, but barely. However, that is not the real issue. Sacranie and some other Muslim clerics are advisers to Tony Blair, and Blair should distance himself from them as soon as possible. Bar one or two, they are an unpalatable lot and deserve no special consideration because of the people they claim to represent.
I couldn't agree more. Why Blair decided to jump into bed with that lot is a mystery to me. Most of the Muslims I know think, at best, they are self-righteous prigs and at worst traitors.Quote:
However, that is not the real issue. Sacranie and some other Muslim clerics are advisers to Tony Blair, and Blair should distance himself from them as soon as possible. Bar one or two, they are an unpalatable lot and deserve no special consideration because of the people they claim to represent.
The UK is, thank God, (:laugh4: )a secular state and should remain as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Apparently, a lot of people are manifesting now. Much more than a couple hundred at least.
Now, this is really getting funny. They are screwing their country a bit more by kicking all europeans out of there and will never get their damn silly apologies.
That's slightly OT, but this is something French are really proud of and that will hopefully never been negociated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'm not sure this is a good example, but it's like the Right to bear arms in the US. I think it's silly and pointless, but I understand why so many people care about that.
As I understand it, the cartoons were first printed as a "test" of free speech. All the other newspapers printed them just to show they could. That's ridiculous. Being free to make a political statement is one thing, seeing how much of a shitstorm you can start is another.
The violent response this is getting from the muslims is going out of hand. Boycotting and printing topless pictures of the virgin mary is all the farther it should go, though I don't approve of either.
This reminds me a lot of the Janet Jackson Nipple at the Superbowl thing. Nudity and swear words are edited out of most tv, that's not free speech. They don't allow it because it offends people...just like pictures of Mohammed offend people. I think it's a lot of fuss over some pictures just like I thought it was a lot of fuss over a nipple.
The paper has the right to print the images, but it isn't right. In fact it exceptionally nasty and thoughtless. Offending millions of people just because you can gets nothing but contempt from me. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to be offensive. As long as you can offend people you have freedom of speech.
Not as ridiculous as it sounds. Shouldn`t religions have to accept to such? Yes they should, it`s free speech, and everyone can offend everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Besides, I don`t think the first printings were a test, but rather the later ones; like the Norwegian printer, who said that he tested free speech.
Well, we don`t have that sort of trouble in Europe.Quote:
This reminds me a lot of the Janet Jackson Nipple at the Superbowl thing. Nudity and swear words are edited out of most tv, that's not free speech. They don't allow it because it offends people...just like pictures of Mohammed offend people. I think it's a lot of fuss over some pictures just like I thought it was a lot of fuss over a nipple.
You should have seen what the state channel served me with the warning "strong scenes". ~:eek:
(it was uncensored sex. Did probably offend many, but news is news)
I agree, but it wouldn`t have been printed in other countries if it wasn`t for these massive, ridiculous reactions.Quote:
The paper has the right to print the images, but it isn't right. In fact it exceptionally nasty and thoughtless. Offending millions of people just because you can gets nothing but contempt from me. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to be offensive. As long as you can offend people you have freedom of speech.
Jyllands Posten tested it out; wont do it again.
All in all: it`s the reactions that are ridiculous, not the printings.
“Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. “
I think this article are against the Islamic principals and offend millions of them. How a women could equal to a man, for example. And no comments should be done about their faith, drawings or in writing. To question their faith and its applications isn’t allowed because it offences them.
So, in order to avoid terrorism and riots, these articles should be deleted from the Universal Declaration.:help:
Voltaire should be banned from printing, and Victor Hugo or other writers from GB, USA having the same approach.:help:
The debate in the French Assembly about the separation between Churches and State in 1905 should be deleted as well, because some leftist compare religions (all of them) with superstitions.
Au secours, help, upomoc !!!!:help:
Where was all this indignation, this hanger from the Muslim world when bombs exploded in Paris, Madrid, London, when the planes hit New York? Why the Imams, Ayatollahs and other Doctors of the faith didn't react and issued a fatwa against the poeple who commit and organised it?
They protest against cartoons, and not a word (or so little) against bombs? Gays hanged in Iran, women killed by stoning in Saudi Arabia, enslaved and let to die without medicaments or access to doctors in Afghanistan during the Taliban, women not allowed to drive (still Saudi Arabia) not a word…
But, caricatures, that is an offence!!!:furious3:
Speaking of free speech...
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....r399679231.jpg
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....ngs_llp117.jpg
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....ngs_llp121.jpg
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....ngs_llp118.jpg
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....3443127481.jpg
Lovely...
Maybe the cartoons hit too close to home.:no:
Impressive beards. :2thumbsup:
I, for one, admires Osamas beard(he sure looks like Santa). These ones aren`t even close to his. Wannabes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
and not a 'red' one in sight. Interesting. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Considering how the UN was (perhaps still is) considering illegalizing criticism of Islam, and how Muslims have tried to force and apology and silence criticism, I think it was important for the papers to show that they aren't afraid to print these. After all, if people have the nominal right to free speech, but are scared to speak out on certain issues, that isn't really free speech.Quote:
As I understand it, the cartoons were first printed as a "test" of free speech. All the other newspapers printed them just to show they could. That's ridiculous. Being free to make a political statement is one thing, seeing how much of a shitstorm you can start is another.
Terrorists saw off a man's head, slowly killing him as he screams, and videotape it, and not a peep of protest from the Muslim world*. Someone prints a drawing they don't like, and they threaten a continent with destruction.Quote:
Lovely...
Maybe the cartoons hit too close to home.
Crazed Rabbit
*Generalization of most incidents and ranking authorities of Islam, and Muslim people.
My problem with all that is why it took four months before the reaction?
The second one is, if, as I believe, Islamic/Fascist Terrorism is due to a minority, why so much Muslims react against these drawings they probably never saw?:dizzy2:
Third, if the goal was to stop that kind of caricatures, it missed the point. They are now every where.:laugh4:
And it will more and more difficult to pretend that Islam means peace. It is peace if you do what I want…:embarassed:
What are you talking about CR, about the UN making it illegal to criticize Islam? You can't just lay something like that out there not offer some support. Is there a UN resolution afoot or something?