# Muslim Extremists Still Can't Get Over Cartoons, Apparently



## Darklyre (Jan 1, 2010)

> COPENHAGEN ? Police foiled an attempt to kill an artist who drew cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that sparked outrage in the Muslim world, the head of Denmark's intelligence service said Saturday.
> 
> Jakob Scharf, who heads the PET intelligence service, said a 28-year-old Somalia man was armed with an ax and a knife when he attempted to enter Kurt Westergaard's home in Aarhus shortly after 10 p.m. (2100 GMT) on Friday.
> 
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100102/ap_on_re_eu/eu_denmark_cartoonist

Seriously, _get the flying fuck over it_.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 1, 2010)

So you shoot somebody who draws sacred pictures?  Peaceful.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 1, 2010)

Maybe he was just an overly passionate art critic.


----------



## Mael (Jan 1, 2010)

Wow it's so awesome how the "religion of peace" has followers that are without a doubt the biggest, blubbering babies since the diehards against the Second Vatican Council.  People have opinions and this guy has the right to do it.  I mean, support raging against the Pope or blowing up a sculpture of Buddha and you'll get some complaints, but insult Mohammed and everyone gets violent.

Seems like some followers need to evolve.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Jan 1, 2010)

Sweet jesus that is stupid. Muslims need to get over it.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 1, 2010)

Mael said:


> Wow it's so awesome how the "religion of peace" has followers that are without a doubt the biggest, blubbering babies since the diehards against the Second Vatican Council.  People have opinions and this guy has the right to do it.  I mean, support raging against the Pope or blowing up a sculpture of Buddha and you'll get some complaints, but insult Mohammed and everyone gets violent.
> 
> Seems like some followers need to evolve.



Jesus Camp.


----------



## Mael (Jan 1, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> Jesus Camp.



I saw that movie...and they're all retarded too.  But I don't remember them trying to carry out assassination attempts on a cartoonist.

Yeah I might be a fascist, but it's about time to curb a lot of this.  Either grow the fuck up or don't bother to exist.  You're just wasting resources for the rest of us.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 1, 2010)

your faith in God must be really weak if cartoons are what threatens you


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 1, 2010)

"kill anyone that says Islam is violent"


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 1, 2010)

Mael said:


> I saw that movie...and they're all retarded too.  But I don't remember them trying to carry out assassination attempts on a cartoonist.
> 
> Yeah I might be a fascist, but it's about time to curb a lot of this.  Either grow the fuck up or don't bother to exist.  You're just wasting resources for the rest of us.



I'm awaiting news of your suicide for the good of the world.


----------



## Mael (Jan 1, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> I'm awaiting news of your suicide for the good of the world.



Eat a dick. 

I don't see how what I'm saying is anything wrong.  Some people just can't see that it's a fucking cartoon.  Why bother calling yourself an adult if a cartoon sends you in a murderous mindset?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 1, 2010)

Religion: Makes you spazz out


----------



## Altron (Jan 1, 2010)

It happened 5 years ago, my god get over it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 1, 2010)




----------



## Utopia Realm (Jan 1, 2010)

Some people need to chill out a bit.


----------



## very bored (Jan 1, 2010)

I forgot how Christians reacted to the chocolate Jesus and the cross in the bottle of urine.  How bad was it in relation to this?


----------



## Darklyre (Jan 1, 2010)

very bored said:


> I forgot how Christians reacted to the chocolate Jesus and the cross in the bottle of urine.  How bad was it in relation to this?



They haven't killed anyone over it or burned any embassies for it, if that's what you're asking.


----------



## Mael (Jan 1, 2010)

very bored said:


> I forgot how Christians reacted to the chocolate Jesus and the cross in the bottle of urine.  How bad was it in relation to this?



No one died and no Molotov Cocktails were thrown at Western embassies, if you really want a comparison to the butthurt of some Muslims.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 2, 2010)




----------



## Spirit (Jan 2, 2010)

Don't be surprised...some Muslims won't get over it. Most probably because they've never lrn2Voltaire.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

It's not like this guy didnt know what he was letting himself into when he decided to make those cartoons. He knew it was going to offend a lot of people, yet he wanted to get a reaction with his art, and he's got it, a cheap laugh with his buddies and target sign tattooed in the middle of his forhead. 

  Muslims are generally considered to be barbarians, warmongers, terrorists and mass murderers to begin with, so when you call them out like that dont expect them to be reacting any differently from what you pictured them as.


----------



## Tyrannos (Jan 2, 2010)

You know, I got an idea that we could use to our advantage.

Use the Chris Hanson method of bringing in the extremists.  Instead of kids, we just say those cartoonists are here.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

Tyrannos said:


> You know, I got an idea that we could use to our advantage.
> 
> Use the Chris Hanson method of bringing in the extremists.  Instead of kids, we just say those cartoonists are here.



something like the pied piper, but for terrorists 

it could work


----------



## spaZ (Jan 2, 2010)

LOL these people really need to stop caring about what others say no one gives a shit about there opinion and when they get all serious it just makes them look like  a bunch of barbarians.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 2, 2010)




----------



## Agony (Jan 2, 2010)

wad the fuck.wad's wrong with drawing pictures?


----------



## fantzipants (Jan 2, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100102/ap_on_re_eu/eu_denmark_cartoonist
> 
> Seriously, _get the flying fuck over it_.



i don't condone violence. i hate terrorism and i say that as colombian but just because there is nothing holy nor sacred to you it doesn't mean that you can just tell people to get over something they believe is an unspeakable crime.


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 2, 2010)

> Muslims are generally considered to be barbarians, warmongers, terrorists and mass murderers to begin with, so when you call them out like that dont expect them to be reacting any differently from what you pictured them as



Then it means they're idiots.

"Hey ! That guy called me a violent, blood thirsty bastard ! I'M GONNA GO BLOODY KILL HIM !!!!"

And seriously, this is sooooo 2007...


----------



## Zaru (Jan 2, 2010)

Tyrannos said:


> You know, I got an idea that we could use to our advantage.
> 
> Use the Chris Hanson method of bringing in the extremists.  Instead of kids, we just say those cartoonists are here.





I say we implement this right away


----------



## Havoc (Jan 2, 2010)

Chris Hanson would get asploded.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Then it means they're idiots.
> 
> "Hey ! That guy called me a violent, blood thirsty bastard ! I'M GONNA GO BLOODY KILL HIM !!!!"
> 
> And seriously, this is sooooo 2007...



yes it does, but it makes you an even bigger idiot for knowing what they will do but you still go ahead and invite them to attack you, just like putting a hand through a cage when a sign tells you not to do it.

dont act surprised like you were expecting a different outcome, you got exactly what you wanted.


----------



## Havoc (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> just like putting a hand through a cage when a sign tells you not to do it.


Only a coward wouldn't; are you a coward?


----------



## Zaru (Jan 2, 2010)

He just compared muslims to raging animals that maul people on instinct.



I'd report him if he was wrong 
_______________

​







































And now I could sit back and wait for a ranging muslim to maul me. It's that easy.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

Havoc said:


> Only a coward wouldn't; are you a coward?



No, but i'd much rather keep my arm. i guess im just being sensible.


----------



## Havoc (Jan 2, 2010)

I'd keep my arm and the animals.

Because that's what it means to be a man.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

Havoc said:


> I'd keep my arm and the animals.
> 
> Because that's what it means to be a man.



Tarzan... is that you?


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> yes it does, but it makes you an even bigger idiot for knowing what they will do but you still go ahead and invite them to attack you, just like putting a hand through a cage when a sign tells you not to do it.
> 
> dont act surprised like you were expecting a different outcome, you got exactly what you wanted.



Maybe my parents are ashamed of me... They're muslims, and here I am, not being butthurt and violently furious about silly cartoons, that don't invite any anger in my heart...

How shameful of me not to willing to set embassies on fire and physically and verbally attack Scandinavians !

My parents ! Will you ever forgive me for not being violent about stuff that don't deserve it ?!

You're making these muslims look like the norm. There's an imam in France that said the "muslim's street" reactions were overrated and just played AGAINST Islams image MORE than the comics.

Excuse me for not being the muslim you'd like me to be.



> just like putting a hand through a cage when a sign tells you not to do it.



If you put it as muslims are animals in cages, then does it make me a domesticated animal who's out of the cage, or am I a human wondering what other humans do in a cage, pretending to be animals ?


----------



## basiK (Jan 2, 2010)

Damn, he shot in the knee, thats gone hurt.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> It's not like this guy didnt know what he was letting himself into when he decided to make those cartoons. He knew it was going to offend a lot of people, yet he wanted to get a reaction with his art, and he's got it, a cheap laugh with his buddies and target sign tattooed in the middle of his forhead.
> 
> Muslims are generally considered to be barbarians, warmongers, terrorists and mass murderers to begin with, so when you call them out like that dont expect them to be reacting any differently from what you pictured them as.


So considering Islam considers disbelievers as evil, your really saying muslims shouldnt complain if non-muslims act evil and say, slaughter every muslim on the planet?


----------



## Arya Stark (Jan 2, 2010)

They aren't normal Muslims.(who wants jihad etc.)
And we don't draw him in cartoons etc. because his appearence changeble to our minds.Plus,in the past they can make his squares and starting worship to these things.First Muslims are really afraid of ruin their beliefs or change the true ones.So they don't want to back their pasts (putperest),because most of them are uneducated and they can belive wrong things quickly.

Please before bash something,search please.


Not funny.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 2, 2010)

so, when a middle eastern muslim calls westerns plague of mankind he's an idiot, but when westerners call middle eastern muslims plague of mankind, they're totally right?

i don't agree with going around killing people, but double standards are pretty stupid


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 2, 2010)

Its like the Mafia

Your account is only settled when your in your grave


----------



## Sephiroth (Jan 2, 2010)

Lesson, don't piss off fucking batshit insane people.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 2, 2010)

dont feel sorry for the artist

he knew it was going to offend a lot of people


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Maybe my parents are ashamed of me... They're muslims, and here I am, not being butthurt and violently furious about silly cartoons, that don't invite any anger in my heart..
> 
> How shameful of me not to willing to set embassies on fire and physically and verbally attack Scandinavians !
> 
> My parents ! Will you ever forgive me for not being violent about stuff that don't deserve it ?!



So your parents were damaging properties and attacking random people on the street? 




> *You're making these muslims look like the norm.* There's an imam in France that said the "muslim's street" reactions were overrated and just played AGAINST Islams image MORE than the comics.



How was i doing that?

 As for the islamic image, who cares? You say you have a muslim backgroud, no one cares about you. I say i'm a muslim, again no one gives a shit it, people tend to overlook the obvious and boring ones. But you turn on the tv and see a small crowd doing some BS and thats 'US' collectively branded as being the same as eachother...
evil, vile, murderous,terrorist all planning a massive conspiracy to kill jews and eat christian babies. BARBARIANs! 

so 'image' doesnt matter to me and isnt what im discussing.

 What im talking about is the choices some people make, looking to pull in a certain crowd, then when they get the reaction they want they act as if they never expected it all. 





> Excuse me for not being the muslim you'd like me to be.



huh? First you talk about your parents and your personal issues, then switch to some random french imam talking about protests, and now somehow youve managed to drag me into this with this baseless accusation of me having some sort of demands or expectations of you? :

Not trying to come across rude, but your post is confusing. I dont mind the debate but these random stuff is a bit :S



> If you put it as muslims are animals in cages, then does it make me a domesticated animal who's out of the cage, or am I a human wondering what other humans do in a cage, pretending to be animals ?



  I dont know, I was only trying to emphasise the choices some people make when the outcome of those choices are pretty obvious.

 If the trafic light is signaling red and you ignore it and drive on, excercising your right as license holder to drive, dont be surprised if you run someone over,crash or are hassled by other road users.

Edit: Post below backs my point about 'image'


----------



## lazer (Jan 2, 2010)

Funny how sharia law is a ok but a cartoon  oh!! it's on now, bitches!!


----------



## xXincognitoxXx1 (Jan 2, 2010)

While I do find Gospel Channel to be on the verge of insanity, it limits itself to becoming a laughigh stock by non-believers. It is the religion that interferes with the lives of peaceful citizens that I would like dismissed. 

What worries me, is how Muslims like FirstMoon vaguely says that they are not ordinary muslims, but yet feels a need to defend his religion. An explanation of that sort only hints at that while few will carry it out due to human morals, the Qur'an does not go out of its way to level these things, and if righteous, put killing as the ultimate and thereby avoidable sin.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 2, 2010)

It astounds me the Muslims who excuse these acts of violent are unable to see the irony. 

They claim "whats the point of the cartoon" and "only did it to insult"

Yet, by their OWN REACTION OF EXCUSING VIOLENT ACTS, they are exemplify this cartoon's point!



			
				Al-Yasa said:
			
		

> don't feel sorry for the artist
> 
> he knew it was going to offend a lot of people


for example here.

He should expect muslims to be violent, because he drew a cartoon that offends muslims by calling them violent. 

-

How do guys not see the irony in this? How can you not see that condoning violence and expecting violence to be enacted on this man yet at the same time saying the cartoon HAS NO POINT!

If you were expecting violence against him for drawing the cartoon, then YOU PROVE THE POINT TRUE!
*You expect Muslims to be violent, YOU EXPECT MUSLIMS TO BE VIOLENT. *

You have the same conclusion as the cartoon.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> It astounds me the Muslims who excuse these acts of violent are unable to see the irony.
> 
> They claim "whats the point of the cartoon" and "only did it to insult"
> 
> ...





there are diffrent kind of muslims

some takes things to far others dont

just like chritians and athiests

the artist knew it would anger some muslims


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> How do guys not see the irony in this? How can you not see that condoning violence and expecting violence to be enacted on this man yet at the same time saying the cartoon HAS NO POINT!
> 
> If you were expecting violence against him for drawing the cartoon, then YOU PROVE THE POINT TRUE!
> *You expect Muslims to be violent, YOU EXPECT MUSLIMS TO BE VIOLENT. *
> ...



Yes, we did expect some muslims to react violently and so did the cartoonist. He went ahead and did it anyways for the lulz 

Also the issue wasn't about calling the muslims violent, it was about the cartoon.


----------



## abcd (Jan 2, 2010)

@n120 Most cartoonists earn their living by pointing out such things ... Dint u know that ??? .... I thought that was the whole point ot political sattire cartoons too


Actually he made a lot of sense in his post :/


The cartoon pointed out Muslims being violent

And muslims who dont like it try to attack him and prove the point he made :/


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 2, 2010)

abcd said:


> @n120 Most cartoonists earn their living by pointing out such things ... Dint u know that ??? .... I thought that was the whole point ot political sattire cartoons too
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so those muslims who acted violently represent all muslims now ?

the dude knew he was going to anger extremists


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> *so those muslims who acted violently represent all muslims now ?*
> 
> the dude knew he was going to anger extremits



Unfortunately in the eyes of everyone that wasn't a Muslim...yes they did for a second "represent" the Muslim community mindset.  I understand it can offend, but trolling through the cartoonists of an Iranian newspaper can get you far worse things.


----------



## abcd (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> so those muslims who acted violently represent all muslims now ?



No they dont -- but since they are now doing it for the cause of islam -- Their actions tend to make an impact on the religion itself ... Thats how society works ... Whether we like it or not .


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> Yes, we did expect some muslims to react violently and so did the cartoonist. *He went ahead and did it anyways for the lulz *


Actually he did it anyway to prove that he was not going to be terrorized into silence.  

Using fear to control a population is yet another action that some muslims take, and defiance of this tyranny is applauded.



			
				Al-Yasa said:
			
		

> there are diffrent kind of muslims
> 
> some takes things to far others dont
> 
> ...





			
				Al-Yasa said:
			
		

> so those muslims who acted violently represent all muslims now ?
> 
> the dude knew he was going to anger extremists


When you expect Muslims to be violent, don't complain when a cartoonist expects the same, and makes a cartoon that says so.

I don't expect christians or atheist to act violently about a cartoon, if one did I would not say that it is the fault of the person who drew the cartoon.

Saying that you expect violence, only means that you believe the cartoons are true.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> U*nfortunately in the eyes of everyone that wasn't a Muslim...yes they did for a second "represent" the Muslim community mindset*.  I understand it can offend, but trolling through the cartoonists of an Iranian newspaper can get you far worse things.



then those ppl are just as worse as the extremists and the cartoonist


----------



## Glued (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> so those muslims who acted violently represent all muslims now ?
> 
> the dude knew he was going to anger extremists



Brother, don't act like this isn't an embarrassment.

How do you think the non-muslims are going to feel when they hear that some of us capable of killing over a stupid cartoon?


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

abcd said:


> @n120 Most cartoonists earn their living by pointing out such things ... Dint u know that ??? .... I thought that was the whole point ot political sattire cartoons too



 yes i do, but did you know muslims arent supposed to draw images of prophets? so why would we welcome others to use imagery as means to make a point good or bad? You have a right to offend people,then people have a right to be offended and react.



> Actually he made a lot of sense in his post :/
> 
> 
> The cartoon pointed out Muslims being violent



No it didnt, it just insulted the prophet and pretty much did something muslims never do, draw picture of prophets good or bad.

 If your going to make a political statement to stimulate debate then it must be done in a way that opens dialogue,that makes you think,  But if you decide the best way forward is to offend them by drawing the prophet which is forbidden, and then depicting him as being a terrorist then you pretty much are guaranteed to fail.

The guy knew it was not only controversial to do so, he knew sections of the muslim community could get violent he did it anyway. 

 dont blame me for that.


> And muslims who dont like it try to attack him and prove the point he made :/



Muslims have issues with him because of the cartoon itself, not because of some lame point people seem to be making up. 

 to muslims in general, it's 2 different issues at play here.



sadated_peon said:


> Actually he did it anyway to prove that he was not going to be terrorized into silence.



 which proves my point 


> Using fear to control a population is yet another action that some muslims take, and defiance of this tyranny is applauded.



Dont wet yourself just yet, the situation isnt that bad. There are various means to deliver your intended message, If the guy were to make the point some other way no-one wouldve raised an eye-brow, but he intentionally went out to offend people to get a reaction, you dont offend people then you expect them to sit down to discuss the artwork and philosophy over tea and cake do you? get real.



> When you expect Muslims to be violent, don't complain when a cartoonist expects the same, and makes a cartoon that says so.



Actually everyone is in agreement here, the muslims knew some would get violent, the media knew some people would get violent, the cartoonist knew he was asking for trouble.

 the issue was the cartoons depiction of the prophet, not the message itself.



> I don't expect christians or atheist to act violently about a cartoon, if one did I would not say that it is the fault of the person who drew the cartoon.



Thats your problem, you have an unrealistic view of the world you live in. get out more often, better yet actually take time to read the responces and understand them rather skimming through it , trying to look for a word here a sentence there you can use to make another 'point' that has no value to anyone whatsoever.


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> then those ppl are just as worse as the extremists and the cartoonist



Wait, so making the error of putting all Muslims under the "extremist" label is just as bad as the extremists behaviour, which includes murder attempts?

There is simply no moral comparision between the two


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 2, 2010)

Ben Grimm said:


> Brother, don't act like this isn't an embarrassment.
> 
> How do you think the non-muslims are going to feel when they hear that some of us capable of killing over a stupid cartoon?



ppl are capabable of killing over anything

the thing is i dont think it was right for extrenits muslims to attack the cartoonists but i dnt feel sorry for the cartoonists


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> then those ppl are just as worse as the extremists and the cartoonist



The only real difference is that the extremists are advocating the use of violence against an adverse opinion while the non-Muslims simply gain a negative opinion without such overt calls for violence.  It's still significant.



Ben Grimm said:


> Brother, don't act like this isn't an embarrassment.
> 
> How do you think the non-muslims are going to feel when they hear that some of us capable of killing over a stupid cartoon?



Ben summed it up nicely.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> The guy knew it was not only controversial to do so, he knew sections of the muslim community could get violent he did it anyway.
> 
> dont blame me for that.



lol, I love it, how can you not see this irony!!!!

He knew secutions of the muslims community could get violent, and so he drew a picture expressing this point!

You support the cartoons point every time you reply. 


Irony, it is truley wasted on the stupid.


----------



## Glued (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> ppl are capabable of killing over anything
> 
> the thing is i dont think it was right for extrenits muslims to attack the cartoonists but i dnt feel sorry for the cartoonists




You don't feel sorry that a human being may get shot because of a cartoon, wow I'm really impressed. I am really freaking impressed.

This was more than just, "not right"

It is shameful.


----------



## Degelle (Jan 2, 2010)

Extremists is an issue not only in the muslim faith, but in all faiths. This is most embarrassing and doesnt help the millions of muslim that has nothing to do with such actions.


----------



## xXincognitoxXx1 (Jan 2, 2010)

Excuse me? You think that the cartoonist expected an extremist connected with Al Qaida to bust in his door with an axe and attempt to murder him and possibly his 5 years old grandson? 

Just look at it this way. It is controversial whether or not death sentences should apply, even if there is a serial killer who targeted children. Personally, I do not see the humane in execution. So try to scale that in comparison to making a drawing in a newspaper. Does anyone deserve to die because of that? It's a lack of respect against religion sure... which in my opinion the world would be better off without... but such actions are just incomprehendible to a civilized person.


----------



## Bender (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuck all religion


----------



## abcd (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> yes i do, but did you know muslims arent supposed to draw images of prophets? so why would we welcome others to use imagery as means to make a point good or bad? You have a right to offend people,then people have a right to be offended and react.





			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Why is the insult so deeply felt by some Muslims?
> 
> Of course, there is the prohibition on images of Muhammad.
> 
> ...




My muslim friends had similar opinions too ... They said , If he had drawn pictures of prophet -- It could be considered as ignorance -- But now he is calling us all terrorists (though they never took it seriously)



N120 said:


> No it didnt, it just insulted the prophet and pretty much did something muslims never do, draw picture of prophets good or bad.



yes it did -- I could find 1000's of such images of jesus christ for instance-- Even in this same forum as aignatures -- Raptor jesus, Zombie jesus etc ... OF course it offends the christians if i am not wrong, I dont see any of these artists getting killed ... Even with the wide spread and number of ppl in the religion.



N120 said:


> If your going to make a political statement to stimulate debate then it must be done in a way that opens dialogue,that makes you think,  But if you decide the best way forward is to offend them by drawing the prophet which is forbidden, and then depicting him as being a terrorist then you pretty much are guaranteed to fail.



Sattirical cartoons are meant to be offensive and funny . 





N120 said:


> The guy knew it was not only controversial to do so, he knew sections of the muslim community could get violent he did it anyway.
> dont blame me for that.
> Muslims have issues with him because of the cartoon itself, not because of some lame point people seem to be making up.
> to muslims in general, it's 2 different issues at play here.



Explained most of the stuff above .... and yes he is a cartoonist who mocks at stuff and by making it true u made him get some awards .....


----------



## xXincognitoxXx1 (Jan 2, 2010)

I used to treasure God not as some miracle man, but simply one I could visualize as an understanding listener. Now I take distance from religion all together, because I realize that it inspires violence and separation by so many.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> lol, I love it, how can you not see this irony!!!!
> 
> He knew secutions of the muslims community could get violent, and so he drew a picture expressing this point!
> 
> ...



looks like you responded when i was addressing your points with edit, read the last statement, i predicted this would happen lol 

Again you intentionally overlook my argument and respond with more crap.

He drew the picture to offend, not make a point in itself. Its like me punching you in the face with the intention of making a point of how annoying you are, and then acting all innocent when you respond.

 Similarly he knew he was going beyond making a point by doing something considered as blasphemous, by drawing the prophet and using his image to make his lame point.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Jan 2, 2010)

It's not really surprising ... What do you expect when you insult people? That ALL will get over it?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 2, 2010)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> It's not really surprising ... What do you expect when you insult people? That ALL will get over it?



the moral of this story is: yes, it is wrong to go around killing people, but don't slap a bear and then say it had no reason when it ripped your arm off


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 2, 2010)

Psycho said:


> the moral of this story is: yes, it is wrong to go around killing people, but don't slap a bear and then say it had no reason when it ripped your arm off



Bears are bears, muslims are human beings. You're basically comparing them to instinct based animals, which means that you'll be the next one to get a nice little visit from an extremist muslim and the moderates won't feel sorry for you


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 2, 2010)

It's nice the Muslims in this thread are encouraging me to be Islamaphobic

"Well we're a very touchy and sensitive people, given to outbursts of violence at perceived slights. Indeed, you should expect these violent outbursts."

Self hating Muslims


----------



## Dog of War (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Qaeda were slamming planes into skyscrapers before this guy had put pencil to paper, so what did he expect by antagonising this faction with the cartoons?


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

abcd said:


> My muslim friends had similar opinions too ... They said , If he had drawn pictures of prophet -- It could be considered as ignorance -- But now he is calling us all terrorists (though they never took it seriously)



 Like i said before to tarok, we are all individuals and as individuals we all have different reactions, interpretations and understanding. Some will not care, some will just raise an eye-brow, some will try to laugh it off uncomfortably or try to emphasise how Liberal they are, many would be offended and some would become violent.yet majority of these people almost unanimously said it was forbidden to draw the prophet and it is considered offensive. yet it was reprinted in defiance why? wheres the debate and dialogue in that?

 Thats the reality. from exprience you know there are sections of the community who will not take it and react stronger than others, some will even go to extreme lengths and become violent. 




> yes it did -- I could find 1000's of such images of jesus christ for instance-- Even in this same forum as aignatures -- Raptor jesus, Zombie jesus etc ... OF course it offends the christians if i am not wrong, I dont see any of these artists getting killed ... Even with the wide spread and number of ppl in the religion.



 Theres a difference between us, we dont draw a cross with jesus hanging on it, the christians already use his imagry as part of their religious symbolism but we muslims dont, for us its an forbidden act, our approach and attitude towards is completely different.  




> Explained most of the stuff above .... and yes he is a cartoonist who mocks at stuff and by making it true u made him get some awards .....



 I Already admitted the fact that its true, but my reasoning is completely different from yours and thats, and its the difference in interpretation and understanding of this image thats probably the hardest thing to explain. 

i'll try though, these images for you only represents a point, but to the muslims it makes two points. 

One is the content and what it means: now that i have no problem with, criticism is fine and using the the shock factor is also fine, you'd find many muslims would actually enjoy it like everyone else if it was just left at that, some clever way to make a political/social argument.

 But the second issue here which is the reason for the disturbances in the community is the choice of imagry itself. the prophet. Muslim religously and culturally (wether your secularist,western,eastern,liberal etc etc) do not make images of the prophet, some out of respect, some out of religious teaching, some because it's innappropriate and it has never been emphasised for us to do so, and some out of respect.

generally the muslim population, young and old, free or oppressed, hardcore or liberal avoid it, we just dont do it nor expect it.

 then comes along this one guy who shoves a picture in your face trying to depict the prophet, and asks you to 'discuss bitches' and walks away dusting his hands. 

 thats the muslim Perspective.

Now to finalise my point, just like the BBC report showed, this isnt anything new. the cartoonist knew it, those who watch the news know it, those who know about rushdie knew it, this is generally considered a no-go for muslims in general, so what were you going to expect from the small violent elements within the community?

 it was done intentionally knowing that fact to draw them out, and he succeeded. now people turn to me and others and question US for it like we planned this somehow.


 
*EDIT: *
okay i see the problem here, Some people here are interpreting explanations of why its offensive as being an acive support/excuse for midless violence *sigh*

Okay, I'll calrify my position: I dont support the violent acts, dont excuse them nor condone them, I am merely pointing out the obvious aswell as providing trying to get a muslims point of view across.

When i say he wanted to offend and provoke the community knowing there are elements within the voices who will use violence, then thats what i mean, its observation not an excuse.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:
			
		

> which proves my point


Not really considering that it is therefore justified. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Don't wet yourself just yet, the situation isn't that bad. There are various means to deliver your intended message, If the guy were to make the point some other way no-one would've raised an eye-brow, but he intentionally went out to offend people to get a reaction, you don't offend people then you expect them to sit down to discuss the artwork and philosophy over tea and cake do you? get real.


don't give me that "another way" BS. The idea that you can claim the extremist population insane in one sentence, then go on to say that if you phrased it differently they would be rational in the next is ludicrous. 

That some were insulted MEAN NOTHING TO ME. Your quran insults me, it does it quite often. Does that give me the right to kill you! Does that mean that I can have it banned in my country because it insults me! 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Actually everyone is in agreement here, the muslims knew some would get violent, the media knew some people would get violent, the cartoonist knew he was asking for trouble.
> 
> the issue was the cartoons depiction of the prophet, not the message itself.


Everyone knew that they would get violent!

lol, so you are offended by the cartoon that you agree is true. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Thats your problem, you have an unrealistic view of the world you live in. get out more often, better yet actually take time to read the responses and understand them rather skimming through it , trying to look for a word here a sentence there you can use to make another 'point' that has no value to anyone whatsoever.


I have an unrealistic view? Why because I blame the criminal and not the victim?

Is this what Islam has done to you?


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> looks like you responded when i was addressing your points with edit, read the last statement, i predicted this would happen lol
> 
> Again you intentionally overlook my argument and respond with more crap.
> 
> ...


He drew the picture to MAKE A POINT, that is what editorial cartoons are about MAKING A POINT! 

Its like punching you in the face? lol, I now declare that you posting on this forum is like punching me in the face, you can't post on this forum anymore it offends me. 

Whats the matter? you don't care that you posting on this forum offends? or do you feel that I shouldn't be offended by you posting on this forum?

Hey guess what? take whatever response you were going to have about the inane nature of me being offended by you posting on the forum, and apply it to your being offended by a cartoon. 



			
				|)/-\\/\/|\| said:
			
		

> It's not really surprising ... What do you expect when you insult people? That ALL will get over it?


For muslims, not surprising at all. Hence the point of the cartoons. 



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> the moral of this story is: yes, it is wrong to go around killing people, but don't slap a bear and then say it had no reason when it ripped your arm off


Bears are animals, this is how you consider you fellow muslims?!?!?
Irony, you expect everyone to realize that Muslims will be violent by a cartoon that points out this fact. Offended by the truth.....


----------



## Darklyre (Jan 2, 2010)

By Christ's left nut the defense of Muslim extremist reactions is hilarious.

Look, let me put it to you this way:

1. Cartoonist draws a satire of a Republican, stating that the politician depicted hates free speech.

2. Republic politician promptly demands that it be censored/withdrawn or sues the cartoonist for libel.

3. Republican voters defend the actions of the politician, stating "well, what did you expect?"

4. Everyone else facepalms because it is quite possibly the most retarded defense you can make.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 2, 2010)

Ben Grimm said:


> You don't feel sorry that a human being may get shot because of a cartoon, wow I'm really impressed. I am really freaking impressed.
> 
> This was more than just, "not right"
> 
> It is shameful.



the thing is he put himself in that position. obviously i dnt want him to die but im not feeling for sorry him as in the situation his in.


----------



## Bender (Jan 2, 2010)

I wish they would get angry at Family Guy.  They do tons of religious bashing especially to Islam.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 2, 2010)

Yosemite Sam said:


> Al-Qaeda were slamming planes into skyscrapers before this guy had put pencil to paper, so what did he expect by antagonising this faction with the cartoons?


Kind of unrelated to the article.  And he probably did not expect million dollar hit contracts (using dumb pawns) and a violent reaction from the general public in the Middle East.  Would you have expected that?

Salman Rushdie could have been a hint, though I don't think it's wise to give into any such intimidation.  I really don't think "what did you expect" reactions are really grasping the point in how it affects life in Europe.  Also the comparisons to wild animals are rather funny since most places kill animals if there is a worry they might hurt people.  Also, bears tend to not get offended by cartoons, but that goes without saying.


----------



## darkangelcel (Jan 2, 2010)

Banhammer said:


> your faith in God must be really weak if cartoons are what threatens you




YEP THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT!


----------



## NanoHaxial (Jan 2, 2010)

Psycho said:


> the moral of this story is: yes, it is wrong to go around killing people, but don't slap a bear and then say it had no reason when it ripped your arm off



Don't piss off Muslims because you should expect them to be out to kill you afterwards if you do? That's the whole vibe I'm getting from this thread.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Not really considering that it is therefore justified.


 



> don't give me that "another way" BS. The idea that you can claim the extremist population insane in one sentence, then go on to say that if you phrased it differently they would be rational in the next is ludicrous.



Never said such a thing, Im getting tired of constantly having to ask you to read and try to understand before you make a responce to me/

 I said he was intentionally trying to get a reaction from them, now what kind of reaction do YOU expect an extremist would have? it's really not that difficult to figure out.

 If you didnt use the prophet then you wouldnt get an extremist back-lash  obvious is obvious.



> That some were insulted MEAN NOTHING TO ME. Your quran insults me, it does it quite often. Does that give me the right to kill you! Does that mean that I can have it banned in my country because it insults me!




You act like you own the fucking world and that only your views hold any relevance, fuck everyone else! 
If thats the case then sure Go for it, but dont be surprised if i retaliate to any attacks, and dont bitch around if i manage to counter your ban by kicking you out as a responce. I'm sure given your attitude you'll approve of an equal responce yes?

If however your sensible, then you'll try to come to common grounds as to how the differences can sensibly managed as to not attack the other or create friction.




> Everyone knew that they would get violent!
> 
> lol, so you are offended by the cartoon that you agree is true.



well im guessing your the only muslim hater in this forum who actually believed there'd be none :Lmao

 Look i dont get your argument, I'm telling you there are individuals within the muslim community who can get violent. so what they hell are you arguing against? i thought you'd be happy? :S

 as for it being offensive to me, yep! but i pay it no mind, i get on with life, i have better things to do with my life than waste it crying over some guys handywork.



> I have an unrealistic view? Why because I blame the criminal and not the victim?



 No, because you cant accept a simple explanation or differing views. Like i said, If the guy knew he would endanger himself if he went ahead with what he was doing then he was being an idiot, thats not to say he deserves violence used against him nor me siding with violent elements. its just an explanation.



> Is this what Islam has done to you?



what do you mean?



> He drew the picture to MAKE A POINT, that is what editorial cartoons are about MAKING A POINT!
> 
> Its like punching you in the face? lol, I now declare that you posting on this forum is like punching me in the face, you can't post on this forum anymore it offends me.
> 
> ...


 
Oooooh 

 I dont see how a public forum which has nothing to do with you, my post which you dont have to respond to or read, equates to the cartoonist specifically making point about islam, using means that are forbidden in islamic culture and then trying to conjure up a message about muslims via the depiction of the prophet as a tickin time tomb?

like i said, the world you live in is very different one from the real world the rest of us live in.

 Its like saying i find it offensive that your taking up space in this world/


----------



## abcd (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> Like i said before to tarok, we are all individuals and as individuals we all have different reactions, interpretations and understanding. Some will not care, some will just raise an eye-brow, some will try to laugh it off uncomfortably or try to emphasise how Liberal they are, many would be offended and some would become violent.yet majority of these people almost unanimously said it was forbidden to draw the prophet and it is considered offensive. yet it was reprinted in defiance why? wheres the debate and dialogue in that?
> 
> Thats the reality. from exprience you know there are sections of the community who will not take it and react stronger than others, some will even go to extreme lengths and become violent.
> 
> ...




U have just repeated everything u said in the previous post -- Yes I understand ur point ...  There are sensitive things like religion and other things which should not be touched upon ... There are many societies that do that .... *But wait the problem is not there *-- 

Say for example 
This news 


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But do u see any one trying to kill the guy who did it ? ... No u dont , Yes all u see are non violent protests . 

Why am I making this point , Instead of trying to accept that there are violent muslims, Why is it not taken seriously by other muslims and create an awarness about the things that really matter , I am sure prophet mohammed would not have wanted people to kill others using his name .

People of other religions/atheists cannot stop such issues, Only if the people of the same religion condemn such acts ,the  people will learn that peaceful methods bring long term solutions as compared to short sighted "scare" attempts


----------



## Darklyre (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> You act like you own the fucking world and that only your views hold any relevance, fuck everyone else!
> If thats the case then sure Go for it, but dont be surprised if i retaliate to any attacks, and dont bitch around if i manage to counter your ban by kicking you out as a responce. I'm sure given your attitude you'll approve of an equal responce yes?
> 
> If however your sensible, then you'll try to come to common grounds as to how the differences can sensibly managed as to not attack the other or create friction.



It's amazing how you can write this and not see the irony.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jan 2, 2010)

Wow, reports said he hid in his "panic room" when he realized someone was trying to enter into his residence to do him bodily harm. I didn't realize people actually had panic rooms.


----------



## Altron (Jan 2, 2010)

lol I love all the raging butthurt in this thread.


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> It's not really surprising ... What do you expect when you insult people? That ALL will get over it?



They should.  They're not doing their faith any favors.  This isn't the Holocaust or Rape of Nanking we're talking about.  This is an editorial cartoon.



Psycho said:


> the moral of this story is: yes, it is wrong to go around killing people, but don't slap a bear and then say it had no reason when it ripped your arm off



No. 

The moral of the story is that people have to understand not everyone will agree with you and you shouldn't get so angry over a cartoon from a man who has the right in his country to do that, that you feel it's necessary to commit violence against him and probably that little grandson of his.  It's the same principle with Theo van Gogh.

When Dan Brown came out with those books, Catholics b'awwwwed but I never saw fucking fatwas against him like I have with van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and this cartoonist.  I know this man expected some harsh reactions but actual threats of violence and calls for "jihad" against anything Danish?  Overreaction much?  I know Islam is srs bznss but for God (Allah's sake), take it easy.  I mean you can't say Muslims bash Judaism and Christianity willy nilly because they do and oh jeez...haven't seen much over the top protest and assassination attempts that were strictly religiously based in a long while.


----------



## lazer (Jan 2, 2010)

Out of all religions to make fun of, why choose a religion that doesn't give a shit.


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

lazer said:


> Out of all religions to make fun of, why choose a religion that doesn't give a shit.



Like Buddhism for example. 

They have Shaolin...but raging and carrying out random acts ain't part of their credo.


----------



## Bender (Jan 2, 2010)

These guys are bastards for not getting angry at Family Guy


----------



## Taco (Jan 2, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Fuck all religion



Nice post, bro! You're very intelligent, and your post makes a ton of sense!


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:
			
		

>


Standing up against those who would control you through violence and fear = a good thing. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Never said such a thing, I'm getting tired of constantly having to ask you to read and try to understand before you make a response to me/
> 
> I said he was intentionally trying to get a reaction from them, now what kind of reaction do YOU expect an extremist would have? it's really not that difficult to figure out.
> 
> If you didn't use the prophet then you wouldn't get an extremist back-lash obvious is obvious.



Yes, you did right here
"If the guy were to make the point some other way no-one would've raised an eye-brow"
Here is you SAYING IT. 

He was intentionally drawing a cartoon that he knew would provoke an action, TO MAKE A POINT about Muslim violence. The point of the cartoons was to express the problems with violence in the sub-sections of the Muslim population and the general muslim reaction to that sub-section. 
He didn't draw it so that extremist Muslims would attack him, but accepted there were some that would. 

If he didn't use the Muhammad then he would be submitting to their terror. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> You act like you own the fucking world and that only your views hold any relevance, fuck everyone else!
> If thats the case then sure Go for it, but don't be surprised if i retaliate to any attacks, and don't bitch around if i manage to counter your ban by kicking you out as a response. I'm sure given your attitude you'll approve of an equal response yes?
> 
> If however your sensible, then you'll try to come to common grounds as to how the differences can sensibly managed as to not attack the other or create friction.


*facepalm. 
I gave you your own argument back to you, and then claim that I act like I own the fucking world. 

It hilarious to me that you don't see your double standard. That you are unwilling to see any position other than your own. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> well I'm guessing your the only muslim hater in this forum who actually believed there'd be none :Lmao


I am a muslim hater now huh? How fucking dare you. Where do you get off? huh? 
You think that you can just accuse me of shit without me calling you on it. You sit he rationalizing the actions of attempted murders and expect me not to respond. You sit back while fellow muslims try to kill people and me having a problem with this now means I hate all Muslims. 

It must be difficult to not be able to argue a point and must resort to playing out the victim of "hatred" against your religion. 

Here in this conversation where justify the actions of murders and attempted murders you have the balls to claim the victim of religious hatred. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Look i don't get your argument, I'm telling you there are individuals within the muslim community who can get violent. so what they hell are you arguing against? i thought you'd be happy?
> 
> as for it being offensive to me, yep! but i pay it no mind, i get on with life, i have better things to do with my life than waste it crying over some guys handywork.


What don't you get here. The point of the cartoon was to point out the violent sub-section of the Muslim community that uses FEAR and VIOLENCE to intimidate the population. 

You are defending that use of FEAR and VIOLENCE. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> No, because you cant accept a simple explanation or differing views. Like i said, If the guy knew he would endanger himself if he went ahead with what he was doing then he was being an idiot, thats not to say he deserves violence used against him nor me siding with violent elements. its just an explanation.


How don't you get this? What is the mental that make you unable to grasp this point!

The act of violence against him for drawing a cartoon IS WRONG! Therefore drawing that cartoon is NOT idiotic because the violence against him IS WRONG!

How can't you grasp this! What don't you get about standing up to those who would commit illegal actions?

-
As you can't seem to be able to see the double standard in this situation let me give you another example. 

A Christian extremists tells Muslims in US that if they practice their religion they will kill them, would you say that any muslim that still continued to practice their religion is STUPID, that they knew that they would endanger themselves and went ahead and did it anyway! 

Would you now accept that all Muslims should stop being Muslim because they are under threat? That they should all become christian because they are under threat of violence?

Or would you expect them to stand up to the threats of violence! Would you feel sympathy for those Muslims killed for still practicing their religion, or would you say

"It's not like this guy didn't know what he was letting himself into when he decided to continue to be a Muslim. He knew it was going to piss off a lot of people, yet he wanted to get a reaction with his faith, and he's got it, a cheap prayer with his buddies and target sign tattooed in the middle of his forhead. 

Christians are generally considered to be barbarians, warmongers, terrorists and mass murderers to begin with, so when you call them out like that don't expect them to be reacting any differently from what you pictured them as."


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> what do you mean?


Is it Islam that has lead you to blame the victims of crimes? Has islam done this to you?



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> I don't see how a public forum which has nothing to do with you, my post which you don't have to respond to or read, equates to the cartoonist specifically making point about islam, using means that are forbidden in islamic culture and then trying to conjure up a message about muslims via the depiction of the prophet as a tickin time tomb?
> 
> like i said, the world you live in is very different one from the real world the rest of us live in.
> 
> Its like saying i find it offensive that your taking up space in this world/


Of course you don't understand, because you have a double standard and are unable to see past your double standard. 

I feel you blasphemy regulation is idiotic, and no one should be offended by it. Just as you find you posting on a forum no reason to be offended. 

Do you understand this yet?
Its simple, take your argument against me on the forum post, and apply it to the cartoons.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 2, 2010)

And westerners can't get over muslim extremist...small world.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 2, 2010)

0Fear said:


> And westerners can't get over muslim extremist,,,small world.



Yeah, really pathetic if you can't get over people breaking into your house trying to murder you


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 2, 2010)

So he meant Muslims?


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> They have Shaolin...but raging and carrying out random acts ain't part of their credo.



Clearly you haven't watched many kung fu movies...they'll come slap a bitch.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 2, 2010)

Everything has a critical point right?

I wonder when outrage will have its


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

0Fear said:


> And westerners can't get over muslim extremist,,,small world.



There is much fail in this statement. 



Pilaf said:


> Clearly you haven't watched many kung fu movies...they'll come slap a bitch.



That doesn't mean rage and random acts of violence like oh let's say AQ, the Taliban, and this Somali man are capable of.


----------



## BulgarianSasori (Jan 2, 2010)

I heared this on the news, these people are mad!


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 2, 2010)

I am mostly dissappointed that people talk about "the" muslims...as if every muslin is trying to bring down the western civilization and is angered by every action someone does. there were some idiots trying to be violenty, but that doesnt make every muslim ready to convict crimes or burn something down...maybe its the picture you have of muslims, but out of over one billion out there, most are probably way different than what you see and expect in tv. 

to the comic thing: i think people should respect every religion, it doesnt matter which one. drawing caricatures about the holyest person of the islam, knowing it hurts their feelings, and therefore for 1 billion people is probably equivalent to running around as a hitler imitation in tel aviv....dont wanna see what happens to this certain person there, but i expect a lot of blood. and there were a lot of muslim preachers who said that the violent demonstartions were wrong, but that does probably not produce high quotas for the media...
its sad to think that freedom of speech means for some people to be allowed to insult people just because its your opinion. 
maybe you sit in your chair and laugh about stuff like that and dont give a shit, but i really think that this way of thinking is what makes us so much trouble anywhere in the world today. losing respect for neighbours and other people and treat them as stupid just because they dont follow the same perspective you do makes us human beings look pretty stupid. i dont think that jesus, moses, muhammed, budda, the dalai lama or any other institution would approve this.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

-News article of Muslims killing over cartoon

-Muslims on this board: Cartoonist deserved it.

-Muslims on this board: Keeps supporting a holy book that says disbelievers are evil and should be tortured in hell.

Sure sounds like hypocrisy to me.


----------



## Havoc (Jan 2, 2010)

0Fear said:


> And westerners can't get over muslim extremist,,,small world.


...what          ?


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 2, 2010)

Kimimarox said:


> to the comic thing: i think people should respect every religion, it doesnt matter which one. drawing caricatures about the holyest person of the islam, knowing it hurts their feelings, and therefore for 1 billion people is probably equivalent to running around as a hitler imitation in tel aviv


Respect is not givin sir it is EARNED.


----------



## xXincognitoxXx1 (Jan 2, 2010)

Remind you though, that currently we are not discussing whether muslims in general act a certain way, but rather yet specifically those in this thread that defend the act by saying "what did you expect?", as if it was a natural cause of action. Showing our disbelief toward that, is also a way to support Islam, as I personally at least do not think of it like that.

Islam is normally considered a pacifist religion standing on equal footing with the other world religions. If you ask a normal Muslim whether he would dedicate his life for Allah's will, what would his answer be? If he was asked to kill in Allah's name, would he? It would be great to see a large scale petition where this was confirmed to be outside their interests and morals. As you said, it's all about image, and currently that image is falsely projected.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 2, 2010)

Kimimarox said:


> to the comic thing: i think people should respect every religion, it doesnt matter which one. drawing caricatures about the holyest person of the islam, knowing it hurts their feelings, and therefore for 1 billion people is probably equivalent to running around as a hitler imitation in tel aviv....dont wanna see what happens to this certain person there, but i expect a lot of blood.



Bad analogy. Not to mention dressing up as a Nazi transcends just religion. I mean a man traveled to another continent to kill another man over a drawing, when compared to a douchebag going out of his way to go to another country and dress up as the man responsible for the genocide of an entire people it just does not match up whatsoever.


----------



## Bender (Jan 2, 2010)

Im going to write a fanfic just to piss off Muslim extremists off :33

It's called 

Mohammad and Frank

Mohammad is a straight religious guy with a lot of patience

His buddy Frank his a former felon who is always trying to have sex with Mohammad

Just wait til the last episode 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Frank manages to trick a drunk Mohammad into having sex with him


----------



## hcheng02 (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> They should.  They're not doing their faith any favors.  This isn't the Holocaust or Rape of Nanking we're talking about.  This is an editorial cartoon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a really good point. Dan Brown probably made a more offensive story about Catholics than this cartoonist did about Islam. Brown's whole story is based on the assumption that the Catholic Church is one big lie and is willing to kill to hide the TRUE religion from the world and shit. And yet Danny boy can walk around fine and dandy with two Hollywood films under his belt. The worst thing that happened were a bunch of protests, and even that was pretty tame since I don't recall anyone being hurt. You don't have the Pope issuing a declaration to have him killed or some shit like that.


----------



## Sen (Jan 2, 2010)

That's pretty disturbing, scary to think that just by criticizing them with a cartoon that his life would be in danger. ._.


----------



## Psallo a Cappella (Jan 2, 2010)

aquis45 said:


> Bad analogy. Not to mention dressing up as a Nazi transcends just religion. *I mean a man traveled to another continent to kill another man over a drawing,* when compared to a douchebag going out of his way to go to another country and dress up as the man responsible for the genocide of an entire people it just does not match up whatsoever.


This is what it comes down to, and this is why I feel sorry for this man and not a man that was so ridiculously sensitive, he went out of his way to kill. Someone who clearly made a plan with sincere intent to murder another over_ satire_, is pathetic and warped.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

abcd said:


> U have just repeated everything u said in the previous post -- Yes I understand ur point ...  There are sensitive things like religion and other things which should not be touched upon ... There are many societies that do that .... *But wait the problem is not there *--
> 
> Say for example
> This news
> ...



This isnt a competition of who performs better against insults, the indians  arent without their troubles with fundamentalist hindus, vs fundamentalist muslims. Im sure we can pull out sources for both sides like the gujarat massacre for example by the hindus or the multiple bombings in mumbai by extremist muslims. so such example and arguments mean very little.

 Now for your point about why muslims dont take it more seriously and use this cartoon as an example to promote tolerance.you said I repeated alot but it seems you skipped through the main portion of my argument, else you wouldnt be asking me this quetion. There are over a billion muslim in this world and believe it or not we actually are individuals and strangers to one another at the end of the day, we have our own identities and have our own views that differ from one another just like everyone else so we are a bound to come across a few people who will use violence, and we wont always be able to get our points across... thats just fact.

Are we doing enough? Simple answer is theres 1.5 billion muslims in this world and you have at most a few hundred thousand muslims being dicks, i think thats showing a lot of restraint and a positive thing wouldnt you?

 Saying all that though, i agree more can be done by society as a whole to understand one another better so we can all just get along, BUT if you think we as muslims are going to use this crap, people brand as art and witty humour then your mistaken, its not gonna happen. MOST of us just tolerate it, but dont accept it and would never use it as a campaign slogan there are more sensible ways to go about it other than using these insults as our core motivations to act.








Darklyre said:


> It's amazing how you can write this and not see the irony.



I dont see a problem in my argument, its why i made it. If you find one point it out. thank you.



sadated_peon said:


> Standing up against those who would control you through violence and fear = a good thing.



 I agree, but trying to provoke a reaction out of the blue, knowing some of it could be violent simply for your own amusment or to show how macho you are = stupid. 
it's also uncalled for. I dont walk down the street and pick fights with people just show them im not scared, thats not how heroism it supposed to work.



> Yes, you did right here
> "If the guy were to make the point some other way no-one would've raised an eye-brow"
> Here is you SAYING IT.
> 
> ...



 No, what he did was insult almost every muslim on the face of this earth by his cartoons knowingly, a side effect being he also ruffled the feathers of the violent few amongst that majority. We as muslims already live tagged lives, and are used to the daily 'terrorist' stereotyping and name calling but most people get on with their lives, it may surprise you but we actually do tolerate it. 

 But now its not enough for you to stereotype us to make a 'point', it's not enough you have programmes after programmes highlighting jihadis and the west, lecture after lecture explaning the muslim conspiracies and thread after thread of how evil and intolerant we are, but now you take it a step further by not only repeating the same crap we hear everyday, but do it in a way no muslim would ever dream of doing in the open by intentionally and openly insulting us via our prophet, by drawing him as a ticking time bomb?

  misunderstanding i can handle, jokes i can laugh at, debates i can add to, but intentional trouble starting and insults? no thanx.

You've excercised your right to offend people and succeeded, well done.


> *facepalm.
> I gave you your own argument back to you, and then claim that I act like I own the fucking world.
> 
> It hilarious to me that you don't see your double standard. That you are unwilling to see any position other than your own.
> ...



pleaaase, save your patronising act for someone else. 

as for the rest:

Double standards: None, Its not DS pointing out that the guy got the reaction he was looking for.
   It's not double standards pointing out that the extremist exist and will go after him.
   It's not DS pointing out understanding has to come from BOTH sides to create tolerance, not one side insulting the other hiding behind the excuse of art and the other resolving to violent means. its mutual not one sided.

Justifying murder or would be criminals: Nope, . Im just pointing out the obvious, im not condoning any of that shit extremist get upto nor am i going to accept that guys lame excuse for insults either. 

 He did what he did knowing the consequences that would follow, and the muslims extremist are muslim extremists doing what they do best. If this comes across as justification to you then you are either just being an idiot for the sake of it, or actually cant counter my point about his intentions and dont want to accept that he may actually have been partially to blame for the environment he created for himself. oh well...

Drawing: not a problem, i have no problem with art i actually enjoy it. What I dont appreciate is some dipshit that goes out of his way to make a point with a drawin of prophet, its uncalled for and unnacceptable even to the most accepting,liberal muslims amongst us.

and as proof, 3 years on it has added nothing of benefit to anyone nor contributed to any debate or bring an understanding between anyone, it has helped the the very people he was trying to highlight however by reinforcing their views and making the jobs of most decent muslims who work to help young muslims who have yet get the reasons for all these trouble in the world, much much harder. welldone.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> the thing is he put himself in that position. obviously i dnt want him to die but im not feeling for sorry him as in the situation his in.



Shooting someone is a crime.  You don't shoot someone when they express their opinion.  That's equivalent to throwing a temper tantrum when you don't get your way.  Civilized people and uncivilized people alike are all subject to the law whether they know the consequences or not.  If you don't believe this simply because someone disrespects YOUR religion, then there's either something wrong with you or your religion.  You don't believe in equality, because if you did then you'd have the same reaction whenever you see the thousands of inflammatory remarks or pictures about Judaism, Christianity, or what have you.  Justice is blind, it doesn't care what creed you come from, personal reasons aren't going to exempt you from its wrath.  Now your statement on "I don't feel sorry for him because he had this coming" means you either don't understand the law or that you're delusional.  

Another thing STOP STICKING UP FOR PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE MUSLIM.  THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE ACTIONS THAT THEY MAY CAUSE FOR HURTING OTHER PEOPLE.  Every time you make a post on extremism you try to justify or condone their actions.  Be warned, this can get you into a lot of trouble in real life.


----------



## kingcombo (Jan 2, 2010)

Well they feel that drawing him is disrespectfull and there doing the right thing so i can understand that. Unlike some christians who worship statues and pray to the cross i don't think muslims do any of that themselves.

Also they make fun of Jesus all the time on family guy and southpark, when they do that i usually just change the channel (unless the joke is funny). I don't know why the cartoonist did something he knew would piss of alot of people who are very emotional


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:
			
		

> No, what he did was insult almost every muslim on the face of this earth by his cartoons knowingly, a side effect being he also ruffled the feathers of the violent few amongst that majority. We as muslims already live tagged lives, and are used to the daily 'terrorist' stereotyping and name calling but most people get on with their lives, it may surprise you but we actually do tolerate it.
> 
> But now its not enough for you to stereotype us to make a 'point', it's not enough you have programmes after programmes highlighting jihadis and the west, lecture after lecture explaning the muslim conspiracies and thread after thread of how evil and intolerant we are, but now you take it a step further by not only repeating the same crap we hear everyday, but do it in a way no muslim would ever dream of doing in the open by intentionally and openly insulting us via our prophet, by drawing him as a ticking time bomb?
> 
> ...


Since you seem to be so against 'indoctrinating' insult to another group.

You as a Muslim must therefore definitely leave Islam because Islam teaches non-muslim's deserve hell right?

Oh that's right, its only when someone 'insults' your religion that its bad, but when your religion insults everyone else, that's ok.

Come back with a reply once you can tell me your God is an asshole for insulting people, like you think the cartoonist is an asshole.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 2, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Since you seem to be so against 'indoctrinating' insult to another group.
> 
> You as a Muslim must therefore definitely leave Islam because Islam teaches non-muslim's deserve hell right?
> 
> ...



You do know Islam  as a religion is tolerant? 
Muslims were integrated with Jews and  Christians in  Spain, in Sicily, the first muslim communities tolerated Jewish and Christian enclaves in their territories, they recognize Moses and Jesus as their prophets, heck Jesus is even depicted as the the saviour of mankind in their own version of the apocalypse.  Your previous post does not only prove your ignorance but also how focused you are on a stereotype.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> No one died and no Molotov Cocktails were thrown at Western embassies, if you really want a comparison to the butthurt of some Muslims.



Alright, let's talk about fucking insane Christians who bomb abortion clinics. It's just as crazy to bomb someone for removing something that amounts to a parasitic (and possibly socially hazardous) tumor.


----------



## abcd (Jan 2, 2010)

N120 said:


> This isnt a competition of who performs better against insults, the indians  arent without their troubles with fundamentalist hindus, vs fundamentalist muslims. Im sure we can pull out sources for both sides like the gujarat massacre for example by the hindus or the multiple bombings in mumbai by extremist muslims. so such example and arguments mean very little.


U still dpnt seem to get the point do u  ... There are fundamentalist hindus fighting fundamentalist muslims for decades -- but not over cartoons .. ITs because of bigger issues lie u now kashmir, Jama masjid mosque destruction etc , Which I would consider as pretty serious crimes. The multiple bombings in mumbai could eventually be traced back to similar issues too.  They arent related to this ....  

What i was talking about was making use of mass media to degrade some big shot of some form , I chose Gandhi as an example cos he is an idol to people of all religions and atheists in India. I was not taking random examples.



N120 said:


> Now for your point about why muslims dont take it more seriously and use this cartoon as an example to promote tolerance.you said I repeated alot but it seems you skipped through the main portion of my argument, else you wouldnt be asking me this quetion. There are over a billion muslim in this world and believe it or not we actually are individuals and strangers to one another at the end of the day, we have our own identities and have our own views that differ from one another just like everyone else so we are a bound to come across people who will use violence thats just fact.



I am not telling u that this cartoon is used to promote tolerance. I am telling u that its only the muslim community that can correct them , not outsiders.... 


N120 said:


> Are we doing enough? Simple answer is theres 1.5 billion muslims in this world and you have at most a few hundred thousand muslims being dicks, i think thats showing a lot of restraint and a positive thing wouldnt you?



no I woudn't .. and I consider u being a bigger dick for accepting this as something normal and actually supporting them passively , I mean going all the way to another country to kill someone ???.... 



N120 said:


> Saying all that though, i agree more can be done by society as a whole to understand one another better so we can all just get along, BUT if you think we as muslims are going to use this crap, people brand as art and witty humour then your mistaken, its not gonna happen. MOST of us just tolerate it, but dont accept it and would never use it as a campaign slogan there are more sensible ways to go about it other than using these insults as our core motivations to act.



See u dont understand the problem .. The muslim community can condemn it,  Could do use whatever legal methods it has to stop this thing, Inform the world that they dont like such potrayals and would not mind removing their embassies from the country that supports it etc ... Of course lot of people might criticize these moves as stupid but in the end no one would get a bad image of the religion .... But breaking the law in the name of religion is something dangerous for civilized community, and supporting it as something normal cos there are bound to be extremists is not something good either.



Fuzzly said:


> Alright, let's talk about fucking insane Christians who bomb abortion clinics. It's just as crazy to bomb someone for removing something that amounts to a parasitic (and possibly socially hazardous) tumor.



 I would like to see people supporting them , It would be another fun thread


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Mofo said:


> You do know Islam  as a religion is tolerant?
> Muslims were integrated with Jews and  Christians in  Spain, in Sicily, the first muslim communities tolerated Jewish and Christian enclaves in their territories, they recognize Moses and Jesus as their prophets, heck Jesus is even depicted as the the saviour of mankind in their own version of the apocalypse.  Your previous post does not only prove your ignorance but also how focused you are on a stereotype.


9:30 And *the Jews* say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and *the Christians *say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old.* Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!*

Sure seems like the Islam your talking about contradicts the Quran.

And why the fuck are you talking about muslims being integrated with Jews and Christians in Spain? do you fucken even know history? muslims conquered Spain, which is what prompted the reconquistida's, retaking of Spanish land from Muslim conquerors.

Learn some history fool.

The Reconquista (a Spanish and Portuguese word for "Reconquest"; Arabic: الاسترداد al-ʼIstirdād, "Recapturing") was a period of 800 years in the Middle Ages during which several Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula succeeded in retaking (and repopulating) the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims.The Islamic conquest of the Christian Visigothic kingdom in the eighth century (begun 710–12) extended over almost the entire peninsula (except major parts of Galicia, the Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country). By the thirteenth century all that remained was the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada, to be conquered in 1492, bringing the entire peninsula under Christian leadership.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista


----------



## Darklyre (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> Alright, let's talk about fucking insane Christians who bomb abortion clinics. It's just as crazy to bomb someone for removing something that amounts to a parasitic (and possibly socially hazardous) tumor.



They don't bomb those places in the name of Christianity. They bomb them because they literally believe that fetuses are alive and that the doctors are committing murder.

If they bombed those places and screamed "Praise Jesus" then yes, I could understand. Even then, there isn't a PATTERN of it, whereas you have Muslim extremists committing terrorist acts daily.


----------



## abcd (Jan 2, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> They don't bomb those places in the name of Christianity.



Actually they do.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 2, 2010)

maj1n said:


> 9:30 And *the Jews* say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and *the Christians *say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old.* Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!*
> 
> Sure seems like the Islam your talking about contradicts the Quran.
> 
> ...


*Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.  Numbers 31:17 *


*The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3*

*The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked Psalms 58:10 *

Letteral interpretation of a 1400 years old book?  
I prefer to look at facts, facts are muslim existed peacefully with jew and christian communities.

I know story too well, Umayyad conquest of Spain  started in the 711, Christian  forces drove them out of the peninsula   during the 14**. Realize the campaign was a military one  before being  a religious one (despite the various claims from both sides).  

Nobody gave a crap about the well being of Jews and Christians under the muslim caliphates, they wanted the land, that's all.
While Muslim  caliphs were tolerant, Christian forces started a repressive campaign against Jews and moriscos. Open up a history book  and try avoiding further embarassment.

Search up Cordoba and Toulouse btw


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Mofo said:


> *
> I prefer to look at facts, facts are muslim existed peacefully with jew and christian communities.
> 
> I know story too well, Umayyad conquest of Spain  started in the 711, Christian  forces drove them out of the peninsula   during the 14**. Realize the campaign was a military one  before being  a religious one (despite the various claims form both side).
> ...


*
So you have Christians going to war against Muslim invaders, and you want to somehow state they were living peacefully?

Btw go on and explain the Jewish pogroms by Muslims in the 11th century Spain?

On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in Muslim-ruled al-Andalus, assassinated Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city


Sure sounds like a peaceful neighbourhood to me.




			
				Mofo said:
			
		


			While Muslim caliphs were tolerant, Christian forces started a repressive campaign against Jews and moriscos. Open up a history book and try avoiding further embarassment.
		
Click to expand...

How about we just go straight to the Islamic texts about the Caliphs huh?

If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294

Both Muslim and Christian 'forces' were repressive to Jews.

Under Sharia Islamic rule (Caliphates) Jews (and non-muslims generally) had to observe the following rules:
-Pay a discriminatory tax
-Dress differently to Muslims
-Cannot serve in Government
-Cannot practice their religion publicly
- legally they held less weight in a court of law then Muslims
- Cannot marry Muslims

Sure sounds like peace to me.*


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> Alright, let's talk about fucking insane Christians who bomb abortion clinics. It's just as crazy to bomb someone for removing something that amounts to a parasitic (and possibly socially hazardous) tumor.



Ah...a shitty comparison.

You wanna know why?

One involves abortion which could be considered a physically violent act, the other *A FUCKING CARTOON!*

God, you suck at relativism.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 2, 2010)

Again
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Numbers 31:17 


The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3

The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked Psalms 58:10 
------------------------------------------------


Are you retarded or  something? We are talking about tolerance.  Muslim conquered Spain? Right. Did they tolerate the Christians living there? Of course, they let them live  there, heck  they did even put Christians in important places of their administration.
  Of course the  Christians crowns did fight Islam  to get their land back, but it's about tolerance we're talking about. 
Muslims let Jews and Christians live peacefully in Spain. After they got Spain back Christians weren't so tolerant, Jews were persecuted, Moriscos (converted muslims) were discriminated, Muslims were killed. Who's more tolerant?







> How about we just go straight to the Islamic texts about the Caliphs huh?
> 
> If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
> -http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294
> ...


Wich is not much different from the situation non Christians lived in the rest of Europe
Do I have to remind you about the Inquisition? Heck they did even kill people of their own religion

Jewish massacre of York, search for it. And since you're in the mood search out for the mass expulsion and the repression set up by the Spanish crown during the XV century


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Mofo said:


> Are you retarded or  something? We are talking about tolerance.  Muslim conquered Spain? Right. Did they tolerate the Christians living there? Of course, they let them live  there, heck  they did even put Christians in important places of their administration.
> Of course the  Christians crowns did fight Islam  to get their land back, but it's about tolerance we're talking about.
> Muslims let Jews and Christians live peacefully in Spain. After they got Spain back Christians weren't so tolerant, Jews were persecuted, Moriscos (converted muslims) were discriminated, Muslims were killed. Who's more tolerant?



On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a *Muslim mob* stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in Muslim-ruled al-Andalus, assassinated Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and* massacred most of the Jewish population of the city*


Sounds pretty tolerant huh?



			
				Mofo said:
			
		

> Wich is not much different from the situation non Christians lived in the rest of Europe
> Do I have to remind you about the Inquisition? Heck they did even kill people of their own religion


*So you equate Muslim rule to European Christian rule which you kept fucken saying was oppressive and bad*

What is it mate? is it peaceful or as bad as European Christians?

Im not a fucken Christian you idiot, so why you keep bringing up the bible is beyond me.

European Christian rule was bad for many jews, that you now equate Muslim rule as similar to European Christian rule MEANS YOUR SAYING MUSLIM RULE WAS OPPRESSIVE.

Nice of you to contradict your own fucken position.


----------



## YukitheSakurafan (Jan 2, 2010)

JUST GET THE *HELL* OVER A _CARTOON._
And what the hell, a ax? >.>


----------



## I Я Reckless! (Jan 2, 2010)

lol ive read 3 posts in this thread and its already hilarious

i wish i could rep all of you


----------



## Mofo (Jan 2, 2010)

maj1n said:


> On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a *Muslim mob* stormed the royal palace in Granada, which was at that time in Muslim-ruled al-Andalus, assassinated Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and* massacred most of the Jewish population of the city*
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty tolerant huh?
> ...



Read up my post again, I edited, seach up for York's massacre  
You don't seem to grasp the point, I posted parts of the Bible to prove how  out of context your example was not to accuse you of practicing a religion instead of another. 
Pushing in a discussion fragments of a centuries old book to prove your point is dishonest especially since every major religion made a point about the use of violence.

Also there is no contradiction in my statement. 
My point was to prove that  Muslims are in no way less tolerant than Christians or any other religious community, you tried to disprove that with a storic example and I did the same, by doing this I highlighted   how my thesis still remains solid. Both parties commited atrocities therefore how can you say Christians are more tolerant than Muslims or the other way around? Considering also your ignorance about  the whole situation of Spain during the Islamic invasions, you seem to ignore the fact that by respecting some rules Christians were allowed to live in Spain while  Muslims weren't allowed to live in Christian countries without losing their indentity without even playing  the Inquisition card  in our little chat.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> Ah...a shitty comparison.
> 
> You wanna know why?
> 
> ...



Except the Muslims see the cartoon as a violent act against their god. Abortion is only viewed as a violent act by Christians who are retarded enough to believe life begins at conception, which is a concept created long before we had any understanding of human fetal development. So it fits quite well.

Both sides are imagining things and reacting violently.

I would say it is you who sucks at relativism. Also, I wish you'd stop asking me to eat dicks. Whenever you neg or bitch at me in the forums you go straight to eating dicks. Is this some kind of suggestion? Because I'm not attracted to you for one, and secondly Christians have been known to savagely beat or kill gay people for... well, being gay.


----------



## N120 (Jan 2, 2010)

abcd said:


> U still dpnt seem to get the point do u  ... There are fundamentalist hindus fighting fundamentalist muslims for decades -- but not over cartoons .. ITs because of bigger issues lie u now kashmir, Jama masjid mosque destruction etc , Which I would consider as pretty serious crimes. The multiple bombings in mumbai could eventually be traced back to similar issues too.  They arent related to this ....
> 
> What i was talking about was making use of mass media to degrade some big shot of some form , I chose Gandhi as an example cos he is an idol to people of all religions and atheists in India. I was not taking random examples.



I get your argument, Ghandi is just a universally respected figure for whome there isnt any restrictions on how you go about debating him, he did a great job and deserved respect, but again theres no restrictions on how we use his name or image.

 Islam however prohibits imagery or statues of prophets period! its part of our faith! it doesnt matter wether it be for celebrating their lives, trying to explore how they may have looked, glorying, well intended or wether its done with intentions to insult him, its all simply prohibited. end of story, we dont do it and dont accept images of such kind for any purpose.




> I am not telling u that this cartoon is used to promote tolerance. I am telling u that its only the muslim community that can correct them , not outsiders....



correct what? If i tell you not to draw images of our prophet to correct our understanding so we can move forward towards a more productive  form of debate, you tell me i cant do that and must accept it because you dont see a problem with it so why should we? If i tell you it distasteful and No one accepts this, you respond by telling me 'but its making a point'. and we should correct the problem of violence.  

The muslims have time and again condemned both, but if neither side is going to make an effort to cut violence and the other to stop patronising the community and insisting we should not be offended when offended then theres very little chance for anyone to fix anything.



> no I woudn't .. and I consider u being a bigger dick for accepting this as something normal and actually supporting them passively , I mean going all the way to another country to kill someone ???....



  how is stating that theres 1.5 billion muslims who have managed to keep cool and only a few bad eggs to deal with as being a good sign of toleranc amongt the majority, a statement of support for a guy who travels aboard to commit murder? i dont get your logic.

 also who said who said i supported it? I even highlighted my postion on the matter in red so its stands out more, making it easier to get through to you, maybe i shouldve tried a differnt colour 



> See u dont understand the problem .. The muslim community can condemn it,


we have and continue to do so 



> Could do use whatever legal methods it has to stop this thing, Inform the world that they dont like such potrayals and would not mind removing their embassies from the country that supports it etc ... Of course lot of people might criticize these moves as stupid but in the end no one would get a bad image of the religion .... But breaking the law in the name of religion is something dangerous for civilized community, and supporting it as something normal cos there are bound to be extremists is not something good either.



 I am not breaking any laws, majority of muslims arent breaking any laws, so why are you lumping me in with the acts of terrorist like i have something to do with it? it's like asking a random arab if he can persuade the gas company to lower the fuel price coz he's arab too. ..The end of the day i can only do what the law permits me to do and no one is obligated to follow my opinion,not you, not sedated peon, not hamza nor Ali at the local mosque. thats not my fault nor is their refusal or criminal acts an sign of muslims not doing anyting or their acceptance of criminal acts,rather when it gets to that stage it becomes police matter.

 but what can be done and where progress can be made is being made. 


 It seems you cant distinguish the difference between someone explaning the causes that help create an atmosphere of violence and someone who outright supports criminality.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 2, 2010)

Mofo, would it not have been possible that Muslims might have been accepted more if they hadn't invaded all of Spain first?


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> Except the Muslims see the cartoon as a violent act against their god. Abortion is only viewed as a violent act by Christians who are *retarded enough to believe life begins at conception*, which is a concept created long before we had any understanding of human fetal development. So it fits quite well.
> 
> Both sides are imagining things and reacting violently.



Wow.  Just wow.  That is HIGHLY open to interpretation.  When you look at it, a zygote is a living organism, so it can be said life begins at conception.  It might not be this soul-like being that overzealous Christians go batty for, but it's still a living organism.  You're still killing *something*, be it child or not.  It's not like you're aborting a piece of metal, it's living tissue that will develop into a child.  Granted I think abortion is necessary in terms of rape or i*c*st or if you are 100% incapable of raising a child, but it's not a retarded notion that what's inside the woman is living.

It's also almost as if you're trying to excuse Muslims for getting murderous over a cartoon.  That's pathetic.  It really is...along with your notions of activism and the like.



> I would say it is you who sucks at relativism. Also, I wish you'd stop asking me to eat dicks. Whenever you neg or bitch at me in the forums you go straight to eating dicks. Is this some kind of suggestion? Because I'm not attracted to you for one, and secondly Christians have been known to savagely beat or kill gay people for... well, being gay.



And now this is just chock-full-o-retard. 

Oh and for the record, check out Iran, an _Islamic_ republic if you want to call it that.  They hang homosexuals on a regular basis.  When was the last time a full-fledged government that was Christian hung a gay person just for being gay?

Honestly, get the fuck out of here with your nonsense.  You sit there and try to villainize Christians like they're the exact equivalent of Muslim terrorists.  Oh Lordy, the frequency of incidents right now is sooooooooooooo unequal it pains me.  Honestly, stop it.  You are embarrassing yourself.  I tell you to eat a dick because a.)it's a common vulgar dismissal, and b.)I just don't like you.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 2, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> Yeah, really pathetic if you can't get over people breaking into your house trying to murder you



Or the giant monster in a closet threatening to end your way of life. First the boogey man, then the reds, now mujahidin ( or h1N1 for your preference.) At any rate, anything to keep people scared, dumb, and more than willing to serve up any shread of control they have over themselves. Which once again brings forth the question  why the heck does the west care about what a couple of insulted muslims think when what they think brings about the same type of terror? Are crazy people from the middle east the only ones responsible for needless death?

The truth is that the insane muslim and the insane seculaist have more in common than we pretend. It is not religion that leads to murder, it is the justification of murder through ideas, whether it be fore Allah or the "Safety of the American People".


So, to finish this, why shouldn't we hold to the same accountability those that come intro our homes in the name of security?

I guess we're all boiled frogs. Why worry about the problems pending when we can worry about our safety now.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 2, 2010)

aquis45 said:


> Mofo, would it not have been possible that Muslims might have been accepted more if they hadn't invaded all of Spain first?



Who knows. But let me ask a question. Would Christianity have fared better if they integrated themselves in the Roman empire rather than subvert it?


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> Wow.  Just wow.  That is HIGHLY open to interpretation.  When you look at it, a zygote is a living organism, so it can be said life begins at conception.*  It might not be this soul-like being that overzealous Christians go batty for, but it's still a living organism.  You're still killing something, be it child or not.  It's not like you're aborting a piece of metal, it's living tissue that will develop into a child.*  Granted I think abortion is necessary in terms of rape or i*c*st or if you are 100% incapable of raising a child, but it's not a retarded notion that what's inside the woman is living.
> 
> It's also almost as if you're trying to excuse Muslims for getting murderous over a cartoon.  That's pathetic.  It really is...along with your notions of activism and the like.
> 
> ...



You are aborting a bunch of cells that can't live outside of the mother. So yeah, it's a bogus argument. At this point you're just so prejudice against Muslims (as noted by your continual use of the phrase to represent a whole religion) you're willing to give a handjob to any Christian terrorist because they aren't brown people.

Northern Ireland, the KKK, all examples of Christian terrorism.

George W Bush was a "Christian" president and his government committed huge human rights atrocities. 

See, the only thing that matters to you is whether a Christian or a Muslim threw the bomb. I'm telling you that all bomb throwing, fanatical behavior is wrong regardless of what pretend person you talk to before bed.

You don't have to like me. You've made it painfully clear you don't like anyone who doesn't agree %100 with your view on life.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 2, 2010)

Mofo said:


> Who knows. But let me ask a question. Would Christianity have fared better if they integrated themselves in the Roman empire rather than subvert it?



Romans persecuted the Christians...


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> *At this point you're just so prejudice against Muslims (as noted by your continual use of the phrase to represent a whole religion) you're willing to give a handjob to any Christian terrorist because they aren't brown people.*
> 
> Northern Ireland, the KKK, all examples of Christian terrorism.
> 
> ...



Oh my fucking God..........

Oh dear Lord...

This is so retarded I can't even begin to figure out how to reply to this.  You act as if I'm thinking Bush was acceptable.  News flash, I never voted for him nor did I ever support the invasion of Iraq.  Are you really that stupid?  Are you?  I think you are.  Now you're accusing me of racism which is an equally douchebag move.  Thanks.  You certainly are the winrar of this thread.

Where did I say I supported what the IRA, KKK, and other Christian terrorists do?   Point that out where I say it's ok for the IRA to bomb Protestant churches.  Point that out please.  Do it.  They still kill innocent people.  When George Tiller was shot, I wanted that evangelical fuck locked up or shot.  Murder is murder.  And FYI, I'm not really a big Christian so I don't feel some inherent need to defend anything, but rather condemn it.  You're just not getting it that what some Muslim fanatics (see?  I used the word "some" so you wouldn't throw a fucking hissy fit) are trying to do all for a cartoon is nothing short of idiocy.  Instead, you try to take what I say and thus make it sound like I'm all of a sudden excusing the KKK.  Sheer idiocy.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

Mofo said:


> Read up my post again, I edited, seach up for York's massacre
> You don't seem to grasp the point, I posted parts of the Bible to prove how  out of context your example was not to accuse you of practicing a religion instead of another.
> Pushing in a discussion fragments of a centuries old book to prove your point is dishonest especially since every major religion made a point about the use of violence.
> 
> ...


Your a fucken idiot, i never once supported nor said Christians were better then Muslims anywhere in this thread.

I object to your stupidity in saying that Jews and Christians *lived peacefully under muslim rule* and that somehow by consequence this means Islam is tolerant.

Now you admit that under Muslim rule MANY ATROCITIES WERE COMMITTED, so you completely contradict your position.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> Both Muslim and Christian 'forces' were repressive to Jews.


I explicitly said that both Muslim and Christian rule has been bad for Jews, so wipe your godam mouth next time you try to lie and state i said one side is better then the other.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> Oh my fucking God..........
> 
> Oh dear Lord...
> 
> ...



I'm just used to expecting idiocy from fanatics. You're the guy waving around LOLCAT like it's the next best meme. Do you really think we need it pointed out to us that killing over a picture is retarded? If your whole point was "fanatics are crazy" then good for you, little boy. You get a gold star for the day for being not completely mentally handicapped. 

Yes, it is important to make the distinction clear between fanatics and normal people. See how butthurt you got when I lumped Christians together?


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 2, 2010)

kingcombo said:


> Well they feel that drawing him is disrespectfull and _*there doing the right thing*_ so i can understand that. Unlike some christians who worship statues and pray to the cross i don't think muslims do any of that themselves.
> 
> Also they make fun of Jesus all the time on family guy and southpark, when they do that i usually just change the channel (unless the joke is funny). I don't know why the cartoonist did something he knew would piss of alot of people who are very emotional


FUCKING WRONG!  I don't see christians murdering people over jesus jokes wanna know why!?  BECAUSE AT LEAST THEY KNOW THAT DOING SO WOULD BE WRONG.

Also other people piss people off allt he time anyway such as with jesus jokes, should they stop doing that to because it might hurt their feelings?  Ya know what hurts my feelings?  Other wanktards getting upset over muhammed cartoons.  Therefore in order to not hurt other peoples feelings I think they should all stop it.


Please tell me that illustrated how idiotic that argument is.


----------



## Mael (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> I'm just used to expecting idiocy from fanatics. You're the guy waving around LOLCAT like it's the next best meme. Do you really think we need it pointed out to us that killing over a picture is retarded? If your whole point was "fanatics are crazy" then good for you, little boy. You get a gold star for the day for being not completely mentally handicapped.
> 
> Yes, it is important to make the distinction clear between fanatics and normal people. See how butthurt you got when I lumped Christians together?



You're not lumping Christians together.  You were simply accusing me of something I wasn't doing.  That's why I get pissed.  Congrats on trying to present yourself like a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform.


----------



## strangebloke (Jan 2, 2010)

Get over it.

I understand those Muslims who say that a portrayal of Mohammed is tantamount to sacrilege and feels like a slap in the face.  As a somewhat radical Christian, I know what its like to be mocked for what you believe.

However, who would you consider more mature? Someone who gets slapped in the face, looks his assailant in the eye, and walks away, or someone who jumps up and down, screams, and tries to kill whoever slapped him. The maturity of a religion is determined by how much ridicule they can suffer without reacting violently.  Violence is a juvenile reaction.

The facts are simple.  Islam has yet to integrate to the modern world.  Christianity did it through the Protestant Reformation and Vatican 2.  Hinduism did it through Ghandi and the New Age movement.  How will Islam do it?  

Just think of the huge changes both Hinduism and Christianity went through.  Christianity went from a largely superstitious and somewhat austere religion to a locally based religion with both deep theological discourse internally and a message of love to those on the outside.

Hinduism started as a religion that used eunuchs and enforced a rigid feudalistic caste system and spawned the new age movement, which above all things expressed freedom.

A holy book that personally insults whole races of people, and a feudal hierarchy of religious imams and Ayatollahs whose reaction to discourse is violence and insults, can not and will not survive modernization any more than Animism or tribalism did.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 2, 2010)

In before Ozzy Osbourne pees on Mohammad/Muhammad's grave.

Don't think he wouldn't do it, he peed on the Alamo.  He'd target anything.  :/


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 2, 2010)

strangebloke said:


> Get over it.
> 
> I understand those Muslims who say that a portrayal of Mohammed is tantamount to sacrilege and feels like a slap in the face.  As a somewhat radical Christian, I know what its like to be mocked for what you believe.
> 
> ...



Funny; tribalism is doing fairly well, from the look of this forum topic and grand generalizations people conclude from the single instance of a single man. I'm in the need of a Guilt by Association fallacy, so I suppose I should take some beloved symbols and desecrate them; then luckily the resulting mob should supply me with more than enough samples to direct my prejudices.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Jan 2, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> In before Ozzy Osbourne pees on Mohammad/Muhammad's grave.
> 
> Don't think he wouldn't do it, he peed on the Alamo.  He'd target anything.  :/



I don't think it's wise to do go to Saudi and do that... :S


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 2, 2010)

Mael said:


> You're not lumping Christians together.  You were simply accusing me of something I wasn't doing.  That's why I get pissed.  Congrats on trying to present yourself like a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform.



A Christian telling someone else they're a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform? I'd like you to meet my friend irony.

Christians terrorize just like the Muslims. It's ignored in our country because we're full of Christians. If we were full of atheists or another religion, you'd be hearing about how crazy ass Christians were blowing up abortion clinics.

How about before you go bitching about something that is obviously insane, you bitch about how _your own people_ (You said you were a Christian, even if not a "big one" whatever the fuck that means) bomb abortion clinics? That's right, _you think that in some convoluted way abortion could be viewed as a violent act and the bombings could be justified._



Mael said:


> Ah...a shitty comparison.
> 
> You wanna know why?
> 
> ...




That goes to show how biased and brainwashed you are. If you're going to associate yourself with a religion, you're putting yourself in a glass house. Don't throw stones.


----------



## Darklyre (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> A Christian telling someone else they're a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform? I'd like you to meet my friend irony.
> 
> Christians terrorize just like the Muslims. It's ignored in our country because we're full of Christians. If we were full of atheists or another religion, you'd be hearing about how crazy ass Christians were blowing up abortion clinics.
> 
> ...



You _might_ (and I emphasize *might*) have a point if there were abortion clinic bombings every week.

We have them maybe once a year or every other year. Muslim extremists bomb shit every goddamned day, sometimes multiple times a day. The scale isn't even fucking close. Get the Koran out of your ass and start thinking logically.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> A Christian telling someone else they're a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform? I'd like you to meet my friend irony.
> 
> Christians terrorize just like the Muslims. It's ignored in our country because we're full of Christians. If we were full of atheists or another religion, you'd be hearing about how crazy ass Christians were blowing up abortion clinics.
> 
> ...



Secularist too. If your going to associate to ANY idea prepair to bunk with a nut.


It's time that we stop this idea that one group has it.


----------



## strangebloke (Jan 2, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> A Christian telling someone else they're a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform? I'd like you to meet my friend irony.
> 
> Christians terrorize just like the Muslims. It's ignored in our country because we're full of Christians. If we were full of atheists or another religion, you'd be hearing about how crazy ass Christians were blowing up abortion clinics.
> 
> ...



This post is so colossally ignorant i laughed at it.  First of all, Christians who *are* minorities in Muslim  countries generally spend there time *avoiding* muslim extremists who want to kill them for converting or preaching to a different religion.

As to blowing up abortion clinics.

First of all that doesn't happen very often when you consider both the number of Christians in America and the number of abortion clinics.  It happens maybe once a decade.  im pretty sure muslims blow up embassies more often than that.

secondly abortion is very easy to construe as murder since the thing being killed would be a U.S. citizen with freedom of speech just nine months in the future. (duh...)


----------



## strangebloke (Jan 2, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Secularist too. If your going to associate to ANY idea prepair to bunk with a nut.
> 
> 
> It's time that we stop this idea that one group has it.



uh excuse me, but i included the three major RELIGIONS.  Secularism isn't technically a religion.  It is a WORLDVIEW that many religions will have to learn to live with and expect to find in their members.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 2, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> You _might_ (and I emphasize *might*) have a point if there were abortion clinic bombings every week.
> 
> We have them maybe once a year or every other year. Muslim extremists bomb shit every goddamned day, sometimes multiple times a day. The scale isn't even fucking close. Get the Koran out of your ass and start thinking logically.



Have you looked at the state those people live in? I'd be mad and crazy as shit too if I lived there. I would think we're holding America to higher standards of behavior.

Koran out of my ass? I think you have me mistaken with someone else.

Strange, the fetus doesn't have rights. It's a fetus. The whole "if it lives those first 9 months" doesn't have dick to do with the situation at hand. It's not a child, it's a < 3/4 month old fetus.

 Hell, by that argument males shouldn't masturbate because each sperm the potential to be a child as well.

How about we try to understand and fix the problem (religious fanaticism) instead of pointing out obvious atrocities and pretending like only one religion does them.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 2, 2010)

I dont like the blowing up of abortions.

But the scale of stupidity is different.

See Fetuses at least has that angle of a future life, or a collection of living cells.

A cartoon however is just ink, now unless that ink can actually become human, gto.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 2, 2010)




----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 2, 2010)

strangebloke said:


> uh excuse me, but i included the three major RELIGIONS.  Secularism isn't technically a religion.  It is a WORLDVIEW that many religions will have to learn to live with and expect to find in their members.



But I can just as easily kill for a secular idea as I can for a "religious" one.  Does it matter what category it falls under? If you say it does, I would ask: how is this not bias? The point is you should not allow semantics to give pass to one cluster ideas and not over another. Ideas are what we should be wary of, not the category in which they fall under. That's why we're all in glass houses...no matter what we believe.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 3, 2010)

aquis45 said:


> Bad analogy. Not to mention dressing up as a Nazi transcends just religion. I mean a man traveled to another continent to kill another man over a drawing, when compared to a douchebag going out of his way to go to another country and dress up as the man responsible for the genocide of an entire people it just does not match up whatsoever.



My intention was to show how people react if you hurt them. In reality, of course it would be a crime to dress as Hitler, but wouldnt he not be beaten to a pulp or maybe shot by the people there? Would they not commit a crime and use self-justice?

If you in your deepest heart believe in something and someone just comes and tries to break your foundations, wouldnt you feel that your existence is in danger? For the newspaper, it was just an article about caricatutes. But for the muslims, you could not have hurt them more! Thats what many people in the West dont care about. Maybe its because most are not that dedicated to their religion anymore like in the past. But religion was and is an important guide in their daily life. And even then many only protested, but the very least were violently. That is what it comes down to in the end.



Tokoyami said:


> Respect is not givin sir it is EARNED.



?Never take a person's dignity: it is worth everything to them, and nothing to you.? Frank Barron


----------



## callinginsane (Jan 3, 2010)

Muslims are fascinating.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 3, 2010)

very bored said:


> I forgot how Christians reacted to the chocolate Jesus and the cross in the bottle of urine.  How bad was it in relation to this?



Big deal, there was some bitching and "condemning". No fatwas, no nutfuck axe-murderers trying to kill the artist.

All these weak counter examples people pull out of their ass are pathetic  None of them begin to compare to the shit Islam pulls on a daily basis.


----------



## Borel (Jan 3, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> A Christian telling someone else they're a pretentious schmuck with an unstable platform? I'd like you to meet my friend irony.
> 
> Christians terrorize just like the Muslims. It's ignored in our country because we're full of Christians. If we were full of atheists or another religion, you'd be hearing about how crazy ass Christians were blowing up abortion clinics.
> 
> How about before you go bitching about something that is obviously insane, you bitch about how _your own people_ (You said you were a Christian, even if not a "big one" whatever the fuck that means) bomb abortion clinics? That's right, _you think that in some convoluted way abortion could be viewed as a violent act and the bombings could be justified._


Wait, religious folks aren't allowed to point out how stupid fanaticism based on religion is?

Sure, there are fanatic Christians, but the majority of Christians don't support bombing abortion clinics. Most religious people are completely rational, or do you think a small minority of humans have a monopoly on possessing a functioning brain?

This isn't a thread about Christian fanatics, it's about Muslim ones. Should Christians be prohibited from thinking it's stupid to bitch about a fucking cartoon just because there are fanatics in their religion as well? Sure, Christians who think it's awesome to blow up abortion clinics have little right to critisize fanaticism, but as mentioned previously this group isn't exactly a majority.

By the way, I'm an atheist (not that that's relevant).


----------



## Valtieri (Jan 3, 2010)

Religion  It makes the funniest stories in the cafe.


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 3, 2010)

Lol at people comparing lone nuts killing abortion doctors with terrorist organizations that kills thousands every year.


Only real Christian terrorist group that exist today is the LRA in Uganda.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> Lol at people comparing lone nuts killing abortion doctors with terrorist organizations that kills thousands every year.
> 
> 
> Only real Christian terrorist group that exist today is the LRA in Uganda.



i was gonna sat the IRA, but they're not christian, they're republican


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

If Christians killed people for drawing Jesus we'd have a long hunt on our hands. The stupid thing is these people don't seem to realize they can criticize someone's actions without _killing them_. 

If Bob goes to work and puts the outbox letters into the inbox his boss doesn't pull him aside and kill him--he uses his _words. _


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If Christians killed people for drawing Jesus we'd have a long hunt on our hands. The stupid thing is these people don't seem to realize they can criticize someone's actions without _killing them_.
> 
> If Bob goes to work and puts the outbox letters into the inbox his boss doesn't pull him aside and kill him--he uses his _words. _



These "people"? I see only the actions of a madman trying to fulfill his own distorted justice after 3 years. 
Generalization is bad.


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 3, 2010)

callinginsane said:


> Muslims are fascinating.



The Bubonic Plague was fascinating, too.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

Mofo said:


> These "people"? I see only the actions of a madman trying to fulfill his own distorted justice after 3 years.
> Generalization is bad.



You must be looking down a tunnel, more than one person called for his death.

What we can deduce from Pilaf and Mofo...

Muslims aren't people but are possible some sort of rat transmitted plague.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Mofo said:


> These "people"? I see only the actions of a madman trying to fulfill his own distorted justice after 3 years.
> Generalization is bad.


This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, all together),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats.[2][3] Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Whats sad is that it probably wouldn't surprise fucken anyone if a war broke out due to some cartoon on Islam.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You must be looking down a tunnel, more than one person called for his death.



"More" isn't a concept totally fulfilling the meaning behind the word "everyone".
 I do not feel like   covering the  gap your schooling  system  was cleary unable to fill   but  I think I'm ought to remind you the difference between words and actions. 



maj1n said:


> This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, all together),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats.[2][3] Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.
> -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
> 
> Whats sad is that it probably wouldn't surprise fucken anyone if a war broke out due to some cartoon on Islam.



Read up again, there is a subtle difference between words,protest and this case without mentioning  the fact that  not every Muslim took part in the open revolts (heck a minority protested).
 But this is not the subject, the thread   reason d'etre comes from  the actions of a single person.
 Are we going to build virtual concentration camps  to contain people believing in something  because  some of them commited a crime influenced by some distort vision?
  Please, do.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, all together),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats.[2][3] Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.
> -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
> 
> Whats sad is that it probably wouldn't surprise fucken anyone if a war broke out due to some cartoon on Islam.



Mofo's just trying to take cheap shots at me, sadly he forgot to bring his bag of facts along.



Mofo said:


> "More" isn't a concept totally fulfilling the meaning behind the word "everyone".
> I do not feel like covering the gap your schooling system was cleary unable to fill but I think I'm ought to remind you the difference between words and actions.



You want to challenge someone. I said "these people" I didn't say what people. Which could have meant "these people that are mad about this" (which is what it meant)

I suggest you find someone else's heels to nip at, you're not really saying much of anything and even a simple trip to Wikipedia as the above poster put up, proves you wrong. It's not one person, hence the word people.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Mofo's just trying to take cheap shots at me, sadly he forgot to bring his bag of facts along.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do not assume I want to take  you down  or anything, it would require me a shovel and an elephant gun, too much effort.
You give  yourself too much credit. I was commenting something you posted.
"These people" really leaves nothing to the imagination, even trying to be  open minded your own visions are cleary evident by the other posts in this section.  


By the way I realize your attempt at shifting the discussion to  a penis contest,  might it be you're searching for a "racial advantage"? 

As for Wiki, you do realize that these facts were common knowledge that really does not add anything to the table, the fact a minority of muslims is violent doesn't change the fact the majority isn't and that "these people" is offensive as  calling  them plague is.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

Mofo said:


> Do not assume I want to take  you down  or anything, it would require me a shovel and an elephant gun.
> ou cleary give  yourself too much credit. I was commenting something you posted.
> "These people" really leaves nothing to the imagination, even trying to be  open minded your own visions are cleary evident by the other posts in this section.
> 
> ...



Keep on digging that hole, if you draw an inference like that from the word people then that's your fault. And no its not a penis contest, its me burying your poor language skills. I've already explained how I meant it, if your imagination is such a shallow pond that you can't see how people can mean "the people who want this man dead" when that's what the article is talking about then *sigh* I'm afraid we're going to have to give you a lolly pop and send you on your way.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Mofo said:


> Read up again, there is a subtle difference between words,protest and this case without mentioning  the fact that  not every Muslim took part in the open revolts (heck a minority protested).
> But this is not the subject, the thread   reason d'etre comes from  the actions of a single person.
> Are we going to build virtual concentration camps  to contain people believing in something  because  some of them commited a crime influenced by some distort vision?
> Please, do.


For someone who claims we shouldn't presume the intentions of innocent Muslims because of the actions of the violent ones.

You sure love presuming the intentions of both me and CTK as professing some 'kill all muslims'.

I guess its too hard to point out how you are the very type of person you so despise.

Ironic really.

Next time try not to assume people are racist or prejudicial, it will help you avoid labelling all Muslims as evil because of the actions of a violent 'few'.

Oh but you were supposed to already know that right?

Btw you never did reply to how you said living under Muslim rule was peaceful then contradicting yourself and comparing muslim rule as akin to oppressive Christian European rule.

I guess getting your ass kicked in a proper discussion was too much for you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

Also funny to note that you jumped on me, when there were posts talking about the entire Muslim religion. 

Didn't you say you weren't targeting? Looks like you kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Keep on digging that hole, if you draw an inference like that from the word people then that's your fault. And no its not a penis contest, its me burying your poor language skills. I've already explained how I meant it, if your imagination is such a shallow pond that you can't see how people can mean "the people who want this man dead" when that's what the article is talking about then *sigh* I'm afraid we're going to have to give you a lolly pop and send you on your way.



Sadly you're the one unable to communicate  in a fashion capable of avoiding  misunderstandings.  Read your previous posts , from a neutral standpoint  everything you posted screams "fuck the Muslims".
 You can keep the lolly pop, I'm sure you need it more than me.

On a last note, I noticed you seem to have some trouble with noun count, I'm a foreigner but I'm sure "I" is the first singular person   while "we" is plural.  
It should have been: "I'm afraid I'm going to... way"

Given   your trouble with the aforementioned subject, I fully  understand why  you have a different concept of "these".
I'm sure we can keep the discussion as civil as possible 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Also funny to note that you jumped on me, when there were posts talking about the entire Muslim religion.
> 
> Didn't you say you weren't targeting? Looks like you kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one.


I'm not targeting you CTK, I don't know you therefore I wouldn't be able to develop any idiosyncrasy.
Excuse myself if it looks like, I might be a bit too violent with my comments and maybe go even a bit too far, but realize that I answer mostly because I find some opinion interesting even if  I think they are wrong.

That said: I was merely browsing various threads and   I was  struck  by many of your posts, some positions  I find really  offensive some other are much more tolerant, therefore I was moved to answer.
 Of course there might be many more challenged (yes challenged) opinions, but I found commenting yours much more interesting. 




maj1n said:


> For someone who claims we shouldn't presume the intentions of innocent Muslims because of the actions of the violent ones.
> 
> You sure love presuming the intentions of both me and CTK as professing some 'kill all muslims'.
> 
> ...


I answered, I edit my posts rather then use the post new reply button to avoid any confusion that might come. Reread my comments on the thread you're referring to.  Don't jump too fast on the boat.
The first part of the quote really shows how you bypassed entirely my answers (in this thread). You have to take into account everyone has a different perception and also relate your own posts to your previous discussion in this own section. 
I assumed your and CTK opinions were violent toward Muslims because from posts like CTK's one (the plague one, it wasn't really sarcasm) you really gave  me no reason to believe they were genuine.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

if i drew your mother naked getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 3, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Or the giant monster in a closet threatening to end your way of life. First the boogey man, then the reds, now mujahidin ( or h1N1 for your preference.) At any rate, anything to keep people scared, dumb, and more than willing to serve up any shread of control they have over themselves. Which once again brings forth the question  why the heck does the west care about what a couple of insulted muslims think when what they think brings about the same type of terror? Are crazy people from the middle east the only ones responsible for needless death?



The bogey man is kind of, you know, *not real*, whereas what happened here is very real.



> The truth is that the insane muslim and the insane seculaist have more in common than we pretend. It is not religion that leads to murder, it is the justification of murder through ideas, whether it be fore Allah or the "Safety of the American People".



Holy fucking shit on a shit sandwich, what the hell? When has secularism ever cost a single life?



> So, to finish this, why shouldn't we hold to the same accountability those that come intro our homes in the name of security?
> 
> I guess we're all boiled frogs. Why worry about the problems pending when we can worry about our safety now.



Try to get some logic into your ramblings, this is nonsensical and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.



Psycho said:


> if i drew your mother naked getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?



Would you travel across the globe and kill the guy who drew it? Besides, fucking horrible analogy, what the cartoonist did was satire, not a senseless insult.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> if i drew your mother naked getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?


Your comparing someone dead thousands of years to a living person who literally provides for you?

Try again friend.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Your comparing someone dead thousands of years to a living person who literally provides for you?
> 
> Try again friend.



are you going to answer the question or are afraid of what i may do with your answer?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> are you going to answer the question or are afraid of what i may do with your answer?


How can i answer the question when the comparison is wrong?

Lets make it a bit more realistic, if you drew the first prime minister of my country having gay sex.

I'd be amused.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> How can i answer the question when the comparison is wrong?
> 
> Lets make it a bit more realistic, if you drew the first prime minister of my country having gay sex.
> 
> I'd be amused.



no, because the prime minister of your country is not a symbol that lead you to be who you are now

if i drew your mother getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?

you mother means nothing to you when compared to what that religious symbol means to these people


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> if i drew your mother naked getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?



Yea, I would shut up and take it.  

Though it's a bad analogy, because the picture was of Muhammad with a bomb on his head. Not naked getting fucked by some random guy. 
A direct comparision to that would be a picture of Muhammad naked getting fucked by some random guy. 

If you posted a picture of my mother with a bomb on her head, I would also do nothing.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> no, because the prime minister of your country is not a symbol that lead you to be who you are now


Yeh he is.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> if i drew your mother getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?
> 
> you mother means nothing to you when compared to what that religious symbol means to these people


Because something is important to you does not at all validate your response.

I'm sure alot of nazi's thought it was important for the Jews to wear the star of david to single them out, should i perhaps be sympathetic for these feelings of importance?

Try again my friend.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> How can i answer the question when the comparison is wrong?
> 
> Lets make it a bit more realistic, if you drew the first prime minister of my country having gay sex.
> 
> I'd be amused.



The comparison was right.
 What most of us foreigners do not understand is that Islam has different values, trying to analyze a different prospective with  our philosophical categories  will lead to nothing.
Religion and  public sphere are not separated, the latter comes from the former, calling shots at Mohammed for many integralists is like raping their own women.
Of course I live in a society where freedom of expression is set into stone, but wouldn't it be more mature to respect others, even if  I think they are wrong, after all my sensibility comes from my culture and my ideas are not absolute.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Yeh he is.
> 
> 
> Because something is important to you does not at all validate your response.
> ...



wow, godwin's law is in fact applicable to every single situation!

no, it does not validate someone killing other people, i'm not trying to say "it's ok to kill other people if they disrespect you", i'm trying to say he did something stupid she shouldn't have done and will suffer for it his whole life

and no, your prime minister will be gone in not much time, and he will fade from your memory, if not completely, soon you won't be able to remember his face, maybe not even his name, i sure can't remember my last president

now stop acting like this cartoonist did nothing and didn't have it coming, he did, he doesn't deserve to die, but he did disrespect a religion considered a lightning rod of violence and radicalism and he will most likely die because of it


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Mofo said:


> The comparison was right.
> What most of us foreigners do not understand is that Islam has different values, trying to analyze a different prospective with  our philosophical categories  will lead to nothing.


No the comparison is not right, if i felt a rock was as important as you did to your mum, would it look even sensible if i got upset if someone mocked the rock?

No.

Your argument is 'anyones feeling of importance can arbitrarily protect anything from satire, humour or insult'.

Obviously such a stupid argument doesn't hold water in reality.



			
				Mofo said:
			
		

> Religion and  public sphere are not separated, the latter comes from the former, calling shots at Mohammed for many integralists is like raping their own women.
> Of course I live in a society where freedom of expression is set into stone, but wouldn't it be more mature to respect others, even if  I think they are wrong, after all my sensibility comes from my culture and my ideas are not absolute.


Nope, because if you seriously took your idea of 'respect' seriously, you would instantly outlaw humour itself.

Would it be a nice world where no one could make fun of anything, anywhere, at any time, because we have to respect everything?

What if i think reality itself is the most important thing, you gonna respect everything and never make a joke?

You know what is the stupidest thing about 'respect', anyone who argues for respect, never actually does it himself.

You say we should respect Muslims beliefs right? yet Muslims don't respect non-Islamic religious beliefs? they sure don't seem to respect me since im apparently supposed to go to hell.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> and no, your prime minister will be gone in not much time, and he will fade from your memory, if not completely, soon you won't be able to remember his face, maybe not even his name, i sure can't remember my last president



So to you some religious guy who's been dead for over 1000 years can mean as much as your mother but it's impossible that the prime minister means as much as aforementioned religious guy to somebody else?

wat


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> and no, your prime minister will be gone in not much time, and he will fade from your memory, if not completely, soon you won't be able to remember his face, maybe not even his name, i sure can't remember my last president


Wow its almost like your trying to say what im going to remember in the future so as to try and justify your argument.

Thats pretty godamn stupid imho, its even more stupid when if i apply your exact argument to you and Muslims and Muhammad, suddenly you'd contradict your own argument.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> now stop acting like this cartoonist did nothing and didn't have it coming, he did, he doesn't deserve to die, but he did disrespect a religion considered a lightning rod of violence and radicalism and he will most likely die because of it


So i suppose Muslims have it coming for supporting a religion that says non-muslims go to hell right?

Should we start treating Muslims as assholes then?

No? weird how respect only goes one way huh?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> No the comparison is not right, if i felt a rock was as important as you did to your mum, would it look even sensible if i got upset if someone mocked the rock?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



this is not an argument, all you did was say "this is not what i think", the argument isn't "anyone's feeling of importance and arbitrarily protect anything from satire, humor or insult", it's "anyone's feeling of importance may lead to be offended by certain satires, humorous personifications and insults" and depending on how offended someone is, it may lead to violence

if some guy on the street calls your mother a whore, your sister a slut and your father a pederast, you'll be offended, and most people will respond with violence, but what your mother, sister and father represent to you don't even come close to what muhammad represents to more radical muslims



maj1n said:


> Nope, because if you seriously took your idea of 'respect' seriously, you would instantly outlaw humour itself.
> 
> Would it be a nice world where no one could make fun of anything, anywhere, at any time, because we have to respect everything?
> 
> ...



that's the thing about respect, in your culture it's earned, you can go around calling people ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and stuff like that; in their culture, respect is mandatory unless lost

westerners lost muslim respect, while they never earned your's. it's a vicious circle, either you start respecting them without them earning it (which is unlikely) or they start respecting it without you apologizing (which is even more unlikely)



Saufsoldat said:


> So to you some religious guy who's been dead for over 1000 years can mean as much as your mother but it's impossible that the prime minister means as much as aforementioned religious guy to somebody else?
> 
> wat



please, what is the meaning of the word "your"?

is it "relative to everyone"? no
is it "relative to people in general"? no
is it "relative to every single thing"? no

it's relative to YOU AND ONLY YOU

he wouldn't care if someone posted an image of this prime minister having gay sex, clearly he does not respect or love his prime minister as much as a radical muslim respects and loves his prophet


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> if i drew your mother naked getting fucked by some random guy and posted it all over the internet would you shut up and take it?



And with this abortion of an analogy you thus wipe all intellectual credibility from your name.

It's completely different, as Sauf said, between satire and crude insults.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> No the comparison is not right, if i felt a rock was as important as you did to your mum, would it look even sensible if i got upset if someone mocked the rock?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


By using your own example

If I felt  my rock was as important  as your own mother,  I'd have all the rights in the world to defend by  own belief, of course you could think I'm wrong but that wouldn't authorize yourself to mock my own belief.

But we're not talking about rocks here, we're talking about a Prophet viewed by millions of people as an example, in countries were Religion and Law are the same thing. 
Their Prophet  stands to them as your mother stands to you, the fact the former is a dead person turned ideal doesn't really make your claim  hold more worth. 

The cartoon was set to ridiculize at best and to create the analogy Muhammad=terrorim  in the worst case scenario, it was meant to offend from the start.
 Considering the way of life  many Muslim chose, wouldn't have been more mature and coherent with  our values  avoid such confrontation at all?

You again didn't get my reasoning at all, first because Islam is not an arbitrary  tables of rules but it stems from a centuries  old evolution, second because you still  approach the subject with a westerner forma mentis.


The second part.
There is a difference between humor, critics, and open offense. The matter has been covered widely in many juridical systems. Your example really wants to turn extreme a situation  normally  solved by most judges by balancing the  involved interests.

"If you say I'm a moron."  you express an opinion
"If you say   constitutional judicial review does create a flexible system" you criticize a system albeit positively

"If you say every X is a moronic terrorist"  you're  offending

And no, this is not relativity nor nihilism, that's why your  conclusions are far fetched.



For the last part
Ad litteram interpretation of religions never does well. Every major monotheistic cult treats the other as inferior, the solution is respect, the fact many countries are not as open minded shouldn't be an excuse for us, two wrongs don't make a right. 
We do have  freedom  here, let's set up an example.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Mael said:


> And with this abortion of an analogy you thus wipe all intellectual credibility from your name.
> 
> It's completely different, as Sauf said, between satire and crude insults.



not really, you're just saying that from your point of view, what if i find people getting fucked funny? does that excuse my actions?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> please, what is the meaning of the word "your"?
> 
> is it "relative to everyone"? no
> is it "relative to people in general"? no
> ...



Or, here's another idea, he's simply above such petty insults and thus doesn't give two shits about it?

Anyway, there's still the problem that this whole thing is an extremely slippery slope. Hindus think of cows as holy animals, still people make fun of cows all the time and even eat them. Is that inconsiderate towards Hindus?



Psycho said:


> not really, you're just saying that from your point of view, what if i find people getting fucked funny? does that excuse my actions?



There is always a deeper meaning to satire. A problem that exists in reality is exaggerated in a cartoon. Not everything that somebody finds funny is satire.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> not really, you're just saying that from your point of view, what if i find people getting fucked funny? does that excuse my actions?



Nice defense, also piss-poor.  It has nothing to do with humor or the lack thereof.  What criticism to modern day religion or society does your analogy offer?  What deep insight does your shitty analogy provide?  It's not satire and it's not a political cartoon, it's just a crappy shot at porn art that's intended to crudely insult someone's family.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> Or, here's another idea, he's simply above such petty insults and thus doesn't give two shits about it?
> 
> Anyway, there's still the problem that this whole thing is an extremely slippery slope. Hindus think of cows as holy animals, still people make fun of cows all the time and even eat them. Is that inconsiderate towards Hindus?



are you saying it's part of out culture to consider muslims terrorists? around here it isn't, and i can say that there are many member of this forum who don't think so

eating cow meat, considering cows animals and food is part of our culture, a secular tradition, on the other hand, disrespecting muslims, calling them terrorists and drawing muhammad as a suicide bomber is not, it's something a few people do with the main intention of offending other people


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> *are you saying it's part of out culture to consider muslims terrorists? around here it isn't, and i can say that there are many member of this forum who don't think so*
> 
> eating cow meat, considering cows animals and food is part of our culture, a secular tradition, on the other hand, *disrespecting muslims, calling them terrorists and drawing muhammad as a suicide bomber is not, it's something a few people do with the main intention of offending other people*





Wow...you have completely missed the mark with the cartoon to begin with.  It's merely to portray the dangers of militancy in a religion and how it's unfortunately growing, not to tag an entire fucking culture.


----------



## Mofo (Jan 3, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> Or, here's another idea, he's simply above such petty insults and thus doesn't give two shits about it?
> 
> Anyway, there's still the problem that this whole thing is an extremely slippery slope. Hindus think of cows as holy animals, still people make fun of cows all the time and even eat them. Is that inconsiderate towards Hindus?


Eating a cow isn't per se offensive, eating a big Mac in front of a Hindu while talking about his deliciousness might be inconsiderate to say the least.

Anyway a better analogy would be despising Krishna in Guruvayur. Wouldn't that be offensive? 
Anyway there are hindu's fundamentalists as well.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Mael said:


> Wow...you have completely missed the mark with the cartoon to begin with.  It's merely to portray the dangers of militancy in a religion and how it's unfortunately growing, not to tag an entire fucking culture.



yeah, my argument was sort of rushed, neither of us can talk about what the artist was thinking when he drew that


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> yeah, my argument was sort of rushed, neither of us can talk about what the artist was thinking when he drew that



Good way to escape you being wrong...say both of us are.

Classy.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Mael said:


> Good way to escape you being wrong...say both of us are.
> 
> Classy.



i'm not saying you're wrong neither admitting to being wrong, i'm just saying there's no way to confirm either argument


----------



## N120 (Jan 3, 2010)

Mael said:


> Wow...you have completely missed the mark with the cartoon to begin with.  It's merely to portray the dangers of militancy in a religion and how it's unfortunately growing, not to tag an entire fucking culture.



It isnt the message or criticism the cartoonist was trying to get across thats the problem, its his use of the prophet in his artwork, twisted to insult the muslims, that has caused problems. 

You have to understand that Islam doesnt permit images or statues of any kind of its prophets for ANY purpose, its part of the faith. So the moment this cartoonist thought it'd be a good idea to get across to the muslims by doing something prohibited to muslims themselves, he pretty much was bound to fail and what ever his point or message was became redundant at the point his pen touched paper.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 3, 2010)

Transgender Jesus



How was the response on this one?


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> wow, godwin's law is in fact applicable to every single situation!



Mofo already said Hitler pages ago...


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 3, 2010)

N120 said:


> You have to understand that Islam doesnt permit images or statues of any kind of its prophets for ANY purpose, its part of the faith. So the moment this cartoonist thought it'd be a good idea to get across to the muslims by doing something prohibited to muslims themselves, he pretty much was bound to fail and what ever his point or message was became redundant at the point his pen touched paper.



Actually he hasn't failed. He has succeeded to a ridiculous extent by proving the corrupting potential of religion and its defiling influence on human minds.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> are you saying it's part of out culture to consider muslims terrorists? around here it isn't, and i can say that there are many member of this forum who don't think so



Pretty much what mael said: wat.

Trying reading instead of making stuff up.



> eating cow meat, considering cows animals and food is part of our culture, a secular tradition, on the other hand, disrespecting muslims, calling them terrorists and drawing muhammad as a suicide bomber is not, it's something a few people do with the main intention of offending other people



Free speech and satire are also part of our culture since the enlightenment. Muslims try to take that away from us. And no, the main intention was not to offend, but of course - since you're the one who feels offended - you claim that the cartoon was drawn just for you.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> Pretty much what mael said: wat.
> 
> Trying reading instead of making stuff up.
> 
> ...



2 things:

1- just 'cause something is part of your culture doesn't oblige you to enact it, i could simply say now that it's part of a muslim's culture to punish people who disrespect their religion with death and you couldn't argument against it without contradicting yourself

2- you are not the cartoonist to say what the cartoonist wanted to do with that drawing, i already said my argument was rushed, now you just rushed an argument too



Saufsoldat said:


> but of course - since you're the one who feels offended - you claim that the cartoon was drawn just for you.



funny, i could swear you said something about this kind of thing



Saufsoldat said:


> Trying reading instead of making stuff up.


----------



## vivEnergy (Jan 3, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If Christians killed people for drawing Jesus we'd have a long hunt on our hands. The stupid thing is these people don't seem to realize they can criticize someone's actions without _killing them_.
> 
> If Bob goes to work and puts the outbox letters into the inbox his boss doesn't pull him aside and kill him--he uses his _words. _



This. 
I'd like to add that a claim of barbarism is very recurrent in how the "west" define cultures that go frontly against the ideals of freedom and freedom of religion. "Nekulturny" (uncultured) was a good insult against the soviets. And i'm sure it works great against people like arabs and chinese.

Oh the irony when someone says :
"Beheading people because they draw some pictures is part of my culture and i'm proud of my beautiful culture".


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 3, 2010)

z this the RESPECT u're talking about ppl of earth ?!

RESPECT others Prophets !!

u know nothing about the real Peaceful Islam 

terrorists r not Muslims but acting wrongly in the name of Islam  

Proud 2 be a Muslim


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> z this the RESPECT u're talking about ppl of earth ?!
> 
> RESPECT others Prophets !!
> 
> ...



No True Scotsman?


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 3, 2010)

what do you mean ?


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> what do you mean ?



Basically the logical defense that anyone who commits such atrocities can't possibly be Muslim, based upon a thought that a Scottish man once said that anyone who doesn't like Haggis regardless of actual Scottish ethnic background is "No True Scotsman."  Now if you meant these people are perverse Muslims who horribly misconstrue what the Koran says than yes that's about it.

In Pakistan for example, there are many who claim that Muslims couldn't possibly commit suicide bombings and so many civilian murders, claiming that they were probably stooges, Indians, and foreigners, not Muslims...because "no true Muslim" could do such a thing.  That's what is known as No True Scotsman.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 3, 2010)

ay caramba

this is still going on

to alot of ppl it may be a satire or something amusing but for some muslims it was offensive to the core

i found it offensive but i wouldnt go around killing the guy

both the extremist and the cartoonist was wrong to act.

if the cartoonist wanted to be smart why he couldnt he draw osoma or the king of saudi ? the cartoonist is just as ignorant as the extremist


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> 2 things:
> 
> 1- just 'cause something is part of your culture doesn't oblige you to enact it, i could simply say now that it's part of a muslim's culture to punish people who disrespect their religion with death and you couldn't argument against it without contradicting yourself



You came up with the culture argument, I just showed you where that reasoning leads you...



> 2- you are not the cartoonist to say what the cartoonist wanted to do with that drawing, i already said my argument was rushed, now you just rushed an argument too



You claim his motives were something that you see in the picture, I claim his motives were what he gets paid for doing. Whose argument is more rational, I wonder.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jan 3, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> what do you mean ?



A proud Scots man picks up a copy of the Glasgow Herald in it he reads that their has been a particularly brutal murder in London "Those bloody English" he exclaims "No Scots man would do such a thing".

The next day he reads in his copy of the Glasgow Herald and finds that the killer has been caught and identified as Hamish McDonald of Aberdeen. "No _true_ Scotsman would do such a thing." the proud Scots man says.

simply because someone does not live up to your ideals of what a Muslim should be does not mean they are not Muslim.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 3, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> The bogey man is kind of, you know, *not real*, whereas what happened here is very real.
> 
> *Reality of the boogeyman is not even the issue as I clearly list some entities that are/were "real". The problem comes when these entities are taken advantage of to push some unassociated agenda, such as legal justification for tyranny, or discrimination.*
> 
> ...





.......................


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 3, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Actually he hasn't failed. He has succeeded to a ridiculous extent by proving the corrupting potential of religion and its defiling influence on human minds.



Which is sad if he only can do it by insulting them. And again: Out of over one billion people, a laughable minority did that stuff. So I could prove any corruptious potential within any group of people only by insulting them? 

By the way: It is not only the content, which bears always issues in them. Its the way HOW people do it. Especially, the Western world always tries to lecture islamic states with such an arrogance that its failed from the start. When Bush talked to the people in the Middle East, they were spitting and insulting him. When Obama talked to them, they were cheering at him. So it is not only the way people react, it is the people how people act....*cause-and-effect-chain, right...*


----------



## Elias (Jan 3, 2010)

Saw this on CNN. These people need to chill the fuck out.


----------



## Toby (Jan 3, 2010)

Anyone who complains about what the cartoonist did better tell me they read the article he made that cartoon for. The article was actually pointing out the obvious contradiction in young muslims' behaviour when they resort to violence in the name of their god. It seems that this part goes completely unnoticed in the debate. Not surprised, both media-outlets are hopelessly anti-educational. CNN, Al Jazeera and the whole lot have completely neglected this part. When the cartoonist and the author wrote to the New York Times about it and explained the relevancy of the article it featured once on American news, but after that it only remained a debate on freedom of speech. It's hopeless because the cartoonist isn't a muslim so he can draw whatever he pleases, and there are no laws forbidding the press in Denmark from making these sort of drawings. It's a free press.

But the point of course, was completely lost, because some people with an agenda of their own served the drawing alone to muslims in the Middle East who, in turn, saw it entirely out of context. It's not as if these cartoons were published in Syria or any of the other countries which rampaged the Danish embassy. 

Not impressive.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 3, 2010)

I find it rather hypocritical for Muslims not to act upon the regular 'ridicule' of their prophet Jesus in the West but only for Muhammad, to the extent of attempted murder. 

It's highly ironic that the supposed reason for not portraying Muhammad in images is the risk of idolatry.


----------



## Mael (Jan 3, 2010)

I'm sorry.  I had to.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 3, 2010)

Most people who follow any religion are idiots by nature. Add in to the mix that they think they will get brownie points for killing people who criticise Islam then this is what you get.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 3, 2010)

Hmm... the cartoons saga continues. 

Isn't there more important stuff going on?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 3, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Most people who follow any religion are idiots by nature. Add in to the mix that they think they will get brownie points for killing people who criticise Islam then this is what you get.



And most idiots by nature speak in vast swooping generalities because the prospect of under-abstraction forces them to discern objectively, and that's hard work. Gosh, you must be religious.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 3, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Hmm... the cartoons saga continues.
> 
> Isn't there more important stuff going on?



wat do u expect from the nf brigade

one muslim commits crime and all of a sudden all muslims are at fault


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 3, 2010)

N120 said:
			
		

> I agree, but trying to provoke a reaction out of the blue, knowing some of it could be violent simply for your own amusement or to show how macho you are = stupid.
> it's also uncalled for. I dont walk down the street and pick fights with people just show them im not scared, thats not how heroism it supposed to work.


Good thing this had nothing to do with trying to provoking a reaction out of the blue, simply for your own amusement or to show how macho you were. 

You seem to want to attack this person character with ad hominem attacks, it must be easier for you to justify your defense of people killing him if you dehumanize him and demonize him. 

My comment was about how the extremist muslims use violence and fear to suppress a population, STANDING UP TO FEAR ON VIOLENCE IS NOT *PICKING A FIGHT*. It is not in ANY WAY picking a fight. 

It is standing up for yourself when you are doing something that is a HUMAN RIGHT!


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> No, what he did was insult almost every muslim on the face of this earth by his cartoons knowingly, a side effect being he also ruffled the feathers of the violent few amongst that majority.


And?
As I have mentioned before Muslims insult me constantly, they have the constantly belief that I am going to hell. That I deserve to suffer eternal torture for my beliefs. 

The willingness to inflict violence upon you for insults does not show the level of the insult, only the level of barbarism of the person inflicting violence. 

You have no place to talk about insults, no one does. The conflicts in cultures and opinions means that insults are CONSTANT. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> We as muslims already live tagged lives, and are used to the daily 'terrorist' stereotyping and name calling but most people get on with their lives, it may surprise you but we actually do tolerate it.
> 
> But now its not enough for you to stereotype us to make a 'point', it's not enough you have programmes after programmes highlighting jihadis and the west, lecture after lecture explaining the muslim conspiracies and thread after thread of how evil and intolerant we are, but now you take it a step further by not only repeating the same crap we hear everyday, but do it in a way no muslim would ever dream of doing in the open by intentionally and openly insulting us via our prophet, by drawing him as a ticking time bomb?


Not the victim BS again. 

You looking for me for sympathy about being called terrorist when you are in this thread defending their actions. Defending the murder of a innocent man because you feel offended by something he did. 

You take you animosity of being labeled and turn that into a justification for murder. WAKE UP! We are all labeled every single one of us. You are NOT SPECIAL, Muslims are not a special case. Every faith, every race, every single one of us has to deal with perceptions of this world. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> misunderstanding i can handle, jokes i can laugh at, debates i can add to, but intentional trouble starting and insults? no thanx.
> 
> You've excercised your right to offend people and succeeded, well done.


This is only only part here that even came CLOSE to my argument above, which is not saying much. 

I can only assume that your avoidance of my point is because you can't answer it. That you understand that there is a problem with violence of extremist Muslims, and you understand that the cartoon illustrates this. 
All you can do is fall back on your personal attacks and claims of victimization. 


			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Double standards: None, Its not DS pointing out that the guy got the reaction he was looking for.
> It's not double standards pointing out that the extremist exist and will go after him.
> It's not DS pointing out understanding has to come from BOTH sides to create tolerance, not one side insulting the other hiding behind the excuse of art and the other resolving to violent means. its mutual not one sided.


1) The guy got the reaction he expected, he did not WANT the reaction. But it was a consequence of standing up against the fear and violence. 
2) It is a double standard to say that he is stupid for standing up to extremists, and at the same time saying it is not stupid to do so when you agree with the people standing up!
3) Muslims insult the non-Muslims ALL THE FUCKING TIME, this isn't ONE side insulting the other. It is BOTH SIDES have a cultural interaction in which beliefs the separate beliefs conflict. 
The difference here is that YOU expect not to be insulted and justify violence if it happens. Yet insult without concern and demand respect while you insult. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Justifying murder or would be criminals: Nope, . Im just pointing out the obvious, im not condoning any of that shit extremist get upto nor am i going to accept that guys lame excuse for insults either.


Lets identify the difference. 
Saying Muslims attack this guy because of the cartoon = stating the obvious. 
Saying This guy is an "idiot" because he "invited" them to attack him = justifying the attack. 

Does you practicing your religion invite death by the british government? No, because there is no justification for killing you for practicing your religion. 
By saying "invite" by saying he is "stupid" you are saying that him drawing the cartoon is REASON to kill him. 

*YOU ARE PLACE BLAME ON THE CARTOONIST INSTEAD OF THE EXTREMISTS!*



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> He did what he did knowing the consequences that would follow, and the muslims extremist are muslim extremists doing what they do best. If this comes across as justification to you then you are either just being an idiot for the sake of it, or actually cant counter my point about his intentions and dont want to accept that he may actually have been partially to blame for the environment he created for himself. oh well...


consequences that are NOT justified are NOT the fault of the person doing the action. Once again you believe they ARE JUSTIFIED consequences so you defend the extremist actions. 

I have countered your point about his intentions MANY TIMES, the intention was to illustrate that the Muslim extremist use the violent passages from the Quran as fuel for their violence. 

He is not blame, NOT AT ALL. That you claim he is partially to blame is PROVES you are justifying the actions of the extremists. He is NOT AT ALL TO BLAME TO ANY HARM THAT COMES TO HIM, because there is NO justification for harm to come to him!



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Drawing: not a problem, i have no problem with art i actually enjoy it. What I dont appreciate is some dipshit that goes out of his way to make a point with a drawin of prophet, its uncalled for and unnacceptable even to the most accepting,liberal muslims amongst us.


Your level of acceptance (tolerance) is the problem. Because in free society it is acceptable. That you find it unacceptable proves your double standard because you are unwilling to accept restriction on YOUR desired actions as unnacceptable. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> and as proof, 3 years on it has added nothing of benefit to anyone nor contributed to any debate or bring an understanding between anyone, it has helped the the very people he was trying to highlight however by reinforcing their views and making the jobs of most decent muslims who work to help young muslims who have yet get the reasons for all these trouble in the world, much much harder. welldone.


You think this cartoon was responsible for the reinforcing their views? What view would that be? That western nation are not going to respect their rights and laws over the demands of an extremist population?

Please do tell WHAT VIEW IT HAS REINFORCED?

If you want to lie to young muslims about the west placing its own rights and laws above offending muslims, it is better that it is clearly known that western government EXPECT Muslims to follow its LAWS and respect the RIGHTS of its citizens. 

No what your angry about is that the laws and rights of the west were respected, and were not compromised for the muslim population. What you want to change is the destruction of those laws and rights so that you can place Islam ahead of all people.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 3, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> wat do u expect from the nf brigade
> 
> one muslim commits crime and all of a sudden all muslims are at fault


I don't blame all muslims for trying to kill this man. 

I will criticize you for what you say in this forum, and for the justification you make for this extremist actions.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

mofo said:
			
		

> But we're not talking about rocks here, we're talking about a Prophet viewed by millions of people as an example, in countries were Religion and Law are the same thing.
> Their Prophet stands to them as your mother stands to you, the fact the former is a dead person turned ideal doesn't really make your claim hold more worth.


According to Muslims and Islam, Muhammad preached that non-muslims deserve to suffer in hell.

Since Muhammad insulted every non-muslims, there shouldn't be any problem if people insult muhammad.

Like to see how you get out of this one.



			
				mofo said:
			
		

> The cartoon was set to ridiculize at best and to create the analogy Muhammad=terrorim in the worst case scenario, it was meant to offend from the start.


No it wasn't, why don't you wikipedia the cartoons? i'm sure you don't want me to embarrass you again.



			
				mofo said:
			
		

> Considering the way of life many Muslim chose, wouldn't have been more mature and coherent with our values avoid such confrontation at all?


not at all, considering Islam insults non-muslims, i have no problem giving it some of its own medicine.



			
				mofo said:
			
		

> You again didn't get my reasoning at all, first because Islam is not an arbitrary tables of rules but it stems from a centuries old evolution, second because you still approach the subject with a westerner forma mentis.


I'm not a westerner.
Sorry fail again huh?



			
				mofo said:
			
		

> The second part.
> There is a difference between humor, critics, and open offense. The matter has been covered widely in many juridical systems. Your example really wants to turn extreme a situation normally solved by most judges by balancing the involved interests.
> 
> "If you say I'm a moron." you express an opinion
> ...


You completely failed to rebut the point that if you were really serious about respect, your own argument would be saying not to teach or spread Islam or the Quran.

Because it is immature to spread beliefs that insult non-muslims.

If you want to be consistant with your 'respect' go and say you support muslims never teaching Islam.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 3, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> wat do u expect from the nf brigade
> 
> one muslim commits crime and all of a sudden all muslims are at fault



nf brigade? Do we get some cool berets for that?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 3, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> wat do u expect from the nf brigade
> 
> one muslim commits crime and all of a sudden all muslims are at fault



Include a religion in the thread title, and NF = 

Include monetary policy (infinitely more important), and NF = :sleepy


----------



## Mider T (Jan 3, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I don't blame all muslims for trying to kill this man.
> 
> I will criticize you for what you say in this forum, and for the justification you make for this extremist actions.



Pretty much this.  Because unlike al-Yasa statement (not ALL), this actually is fully true.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 3, 2010)

Religion, rights, freedom, violence, culture, crime, West-Islam relations...

I think these things are pretty important


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 3, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Religion, rights, respect, freedom, understanding, culture, West-Islam relations...
> 
> I think these things are pretty important



definitely!


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> You came up with the culture argument, I just showed you where that reasoning leads you...



no, you hinted that your culture was superior to theirs because yours doesn't incentive violence, you showed no actual reasoning



Saufsoldat said:


> You claim his motives were something that you see in the picture, I claim his motives were what he gets paid for doing. Whose argument is more rational, I wonder.



people who choose to commit suicide are considered irrational, suicidal behavior is considered irrational, going out to a forrest and punching a bear is considered irrational, walking up to a known murderer with a gun and saying "shoot me" is considered irrational

this man drew a picture he knew would offend radical muslims, who are known to respond to offenses with violence, pardon me if i don't find him that rational


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 3, 2010)

Recalls the incident with the Satanic Verses...


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> no, you hinted that your culture was superior to theirs because yours doesn't incentive violence, you showed no actual reasoning
> 
> people who choose to commit suicide are considered irrational, suicidal behavior is considered irrational, going out to a forrest and punching a bear is considered irrational, walking up to a known murderer with a gun and saying "shoot me" is considered irrational
> 
> this man drew a picture he knew would offend radical muslims, who are known to respond to offenses with violence, pardon me if i don't find him that rational


You must have no problem when women get acid thrown in their face for not wearing the veil in Afghanistan.

Obviously they knew they'd piss off the extremists right?

Nice argument you have there.


----------



## Jen (Jan 3, 2010)

pffft rad'ena??


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> no, you hinted that your culture was superior to theirs because yours doesn't incentive violence, you showed no actual reasoning



Ummm, no. No, I didn't. I compared an islam caricature to eating an animal sacred to hindus.

You said it's not comparable since eating cows is part of our culture.

I said that free speech and satire is also part of our culture to show that the comparison is indeed valid.

You then go ahead and pretend I was the one who brought up culture.



> people who choose to commit suicide are considered irrational, suicidal behavior is considered irrational, going out to a forrest and punching a bear is considered irrational, walking up to a known murderer with a gun and saying "shoot me" is considered irrational
> 
> this man drew a picture he knew would offend radical muslims, who are known to respond to offenses with violence, pardon me if i don't find him that rational



Maybe he didn't think that radical muslims would care about something happening half a world away? It was one caricature in one little news paper. Hell, South Park (which is way more popular than any danish news paper) showed muhammed years before that and nobody gave two shits.


----------



## N120 (Jan 3, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Actually he hasn't failed. He has succeeded to a ridiculous extent by proving the corrupting potential of religion and its defiling influence on human minds.



Not really. All it proved was that this guys personal pursuit for 5 minute fame and hero status landed him in hot waters.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 3, 2010)

N120 said:


> Not really. All it proved was that this guys personal pursuit for 5 minute fame and hero status landed him in hot waters.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> You must have no problem when women get acid thrown in their face for not wearing the veil in Afghanistan.
> 
> Obviously they knew they'd piss off the extremists right?
> 
> Nice argument you have there.



yes, because comparing having to live everyday with a veil over your face is perfectly comparable to not drawing something nobody's asking you to draw



Saufsoldat said:


> Ummm, no. No, I didn't. I compared an islam caricature to eating an animal sacred to hindus.
> 
> You said it's not comparable since eating cows is part of our culture.
> 
> ...



yes, free speech is a part of your culture, i never said it wasn't, but free speech doesn't mean "say everything" it means "you can say everything", the problem with free speech is that someone will always say something stupid and get someone angry, that's why you have good sense

good sense tells us to no go around doing things that will most likely (read: most likely) irritate extremists known for being violent, it doesn't validate murder, but hey, so doesn't walking up to a person, giving them a gun and ordering them to shoot you right?



maj1n said:


> Maybe he didn't think that radical muslims would care about something happening half a world away? It was one caricature in one little news paper. Hell, South Park (which is way more popular than any danish news paper) showed muhammed years before that and nobody gave two shits.



yes, 'cause that makes sense, after a bunch of fundamentalist muslims threw planes against towers for feeling offended by a culture, i'd imagine they'd completely ignore a far more direct affront to them

and how should i know how they did nothing about south park? i'm not a fundamentalist muslim, who am i to know what goes on inside their radical little minds?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> yes, because comparing having to live everyday with a veil over your face is perfectly comparable to not drawing something nobody's asking you to draw


It is to you.
Didn't you compare these drawings as 'your mum being raped and shown pictures of'?
Well many Muslims consider muslim women going against Allah as an incredible insult as Allah to them is the highest thing they revere.

So with your shitty argument, you would be saying that these women were asking for acid to be thrown in their face.

These women also were publicly condemning the attitudes of women in Islam, so according to your above argument 'no one was asking for them to say shit about Islam in public'.

Nice argument you have there.


----------



## Juno (Jan 3, 2010)

N120 said:


> Not really. All it proved was that this guys personal pursuit for 5 minute fame and hero status landed him in hot waters.



You haven't a clue, have you? The guy is a political cartoonist, his _job _is to churn out satirical cartoons on commission. In this case, he was commissioned by a paper, along with several other artists, as part of an editorial about censorship regarding criticism of Islam. Some of the artists refused, and some would only do it anonymously. Real fame-seekers, huh?

But OF COURSE they only did it for fame and glory in the hopes that they and their families would be threatened and murdered! That was obviously what they wanted all along. Certainly none of them could possible have had any strong principles about freedom of speech and expression that they felt were being threatened by extremists who had already killed another artist who criticised the treatment of islamic women. Principles about being able to condemn violence without fear of being murdered, something they might have felt was a pretty important issue.

So stop trying to characterise the artists as trouble-makers - you're beginning to sound like an apologist justifying the murder of dissenters. These guys were drawing for a Dutch readership, not a muslim readership in the heart of islamic theocracies, which is where the cartoons ended up _only_ after some imams took them there, and added a few fakes to stir up outrage the originals had failed to elicit, long after the cartoons had been published without much incident in the Netherlands. Only after the imams stepped in did the trouble really kick off, so who are the trouble-makers here really?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> It is to you.
> Didn't you compare these drawings as 'your mum being raped and shown pictures of'?
> Well many Muslims consider muslim women going against Allah as an incredible insult as Allah to them is the highest thing they revere.
> 
> ...



no, i would be not, you are comparing going out of your way to do something to not going out of your way for someone else

basically: it's easier to not draw a picture that a sane person would know to be offensive then to draw one

whereas it's harder to wear a veil covering your face everyday then to not do so


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> no, i would be not, you are comparing going out of your way to do something to not going out of your way for someone else
> 
> basically: it's easier to not draw a picture that a sane person would know to be offensive then to draw one
> 
> whereas it's harder to wear a veil covering your face everyday then to not do so


You didn't really address my point, some muslim women GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to criticize Islam's attitude towards women.

With your argument their doing the wrong thing.

So you definitely would agree that Muslims should burn their qurans and not circulate them, or teach Islam.

Because circulating material that states non-muslims deserve to be tortured in hell is pretty damn insulting, far more insulting then this cartoon.

Its easier not do circulate that stuff and teach children Islam.

Yes/no? ban quran  and Islam?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> yes, because comparing having to live everyday with a veil over your face is perfectly comparable to not drawing something nobody's asking you to draw



"_these women didn't wear a viel they_ knew would offend radical muslims, who are known to respond to offenses with violence, pardon me if i don't find him that rational"

this is your rational. DEFEND YOUR *RATIONAL*.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> So you definitely would agree that Muslims should burn their qurans and not circulate them, or teach Islam.
> 
> Because circulating material that states non-muslims deserve to be tortured in hell is pretty damn insulting, far more insulting then this cartoon.
> 
> ...



do you make suppositions like this all the time?

yes, it is pretty damn insulting, but we aren't insulted as easily as most radical muslims (and now you're gonna call me prejudiced and accuse me of saying that muslims all have a short temper)

it is easier not to circulate that stuff, but hey, i'm not in charge of distributing korans around the world

no, don't ban islam and the koran, wasn't it you and saufsoldat talking about free speech? well, i have the good sense to keep my opinion that are likely to be offensive to myself until they come up in a discussion, if you don't, just hope you don't offend the wrong person, like this cartoonist did



sadated_peon said:


> "_these women didn't wear a viel they_ knew would offend radical muslims, who are known to respond to offenses with violence, pardon me if i don't find him that rational"
> 
> this is your rational. DEFEND YOUR *RATIONAL*.



my *RATIONAL* is "don't go out of your way when you know it's gonna bite you in the ass"

the cartoonist knew someone would be offended, we all knew, and even so, he went out of his way to do something extremely dumb and we can all agree that is not the rational thing to do

now, when you refuse to go out of your way to please someone who you owe nothing to, that's really fucking different, if you can't see the difference, there's no use in discussing this with you


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> do you make suppositions like this all the time?
> 
> yes, it is pretty damn insulting, but we aren't insulted as easily as most radical muslims (and now you're gonna call me prejudiced and accuse me of saying that muslims all have a short temper)
> 
> ...


So on the one hand you want the cartoonist to not do what he did, but you don't mind muslims circulating the quran and teaching Islam, of which includes that non-muslims deserve to be tortured in hell.

Thanks for showing your double-standard, have a good day.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> So on the one hand you want the cartoonist to not do what he did, but you don't mind muslims circulating the quran and teaching Islam, of which includes that non-muslims deserve to be tortured in hell.
> 
> Thanks for showing your double-standard, have a good day.



really? double standards?

you mean when i say that it's ok to distribute a book of teachings related to a thousand year old religion that is a part of the history of the world, but it's not ok to distribute a 5 year old drawing of which, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain groups of people?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> really? double standards?
> 
> you mean when i say that it's ok to distribute a book of teachings related to a thousand year old religion that is a part of the history of the world, but it's not ok to distribute a 5 year old drawing of which, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain groups of people?


When that book of teachings repeatedly say non-muslims deserve to be tortured in hell.

yep.

You only just compounded your double standard.
And i haven't even gone into the whole Jihad->history of bloody war angle either.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Jan 3, 2010)

wow, an ax seriously, im a little surprised though , i thought after the van Gogh situation they essentially stopped allowing a lot of people into the country


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> When that book of teachings repeatedly say non-muslims deserve to be tortured in hell.
> 
> yep.
> 
> ...



and, oh yeah, when did i say to ban his drawing?

i argued that it was stupid of him to draw it, i argued that it will probably lead to his death and i argued that it was a dumb idea to publish it

never said it should be banned, now prove me wrong and show me my double standards


----------



## OrochiSui (Jan 3, 2010)

Does Islam kills common sense? =3


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> and, oh yeah, when did i say to ban his drawing?
> 
> i argued that it was stupid of him to draw it, i argued that it will probably lead to his death and i argued that it was a dumb idea to publish it
> 
> never said it should be banned, now prove me wrong and* show me my double standards*


Ok.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> you mean* when i say that it's ok* to distribute a book of teachings related to a thousand year old religion that is a part of the history of the world, but* it's not ok* to distribute a 5 year old drawing of which, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain groups of people?


So to you its ok if Muslims circulate a book and teach a religion that advocates non-muslims go to hell and be tortured, homosexuality is evil, apostates need to be killed, warfare is encouraged.

But a cartoon of that religion shouldn't be circulated.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 3, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> So to you its ok if Muslims circulate a book and teach a religion that advocates non-muslims go to hell and be tortured, homosexuality is evil, apostates need to be killed, warfare is encouraged.
> ...



hey, i'm not the one that takes the book literally and it's not my fault that someone is offended by it, but the point of the book was never to offend anyone

and doesn't the bible do much of that too? non-followers of jesus will go to hell and burn, homosexuality is evil, apostates need to die and warfare in the name of god is encouraged! i got the whole bunch!

but as i said, i'm not saying the cartoon should be banned, i'm saying it was a stupid idea to circulate it in the first place. damn, if i had a say of gets published or not on MY newspaper, i'd say "damn, this is offensive, no way i'm printing this"


----------



## N120 (Jan 3, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Good thing this had nothing to do with trying to provoking a reaction out of the blue, simply for your own amusement or to show how macho you were.
> 
> You seem to want to attack this person character with ad hominem attacks, it must be easier for you to justify your defense of people killing him if you dehumanize him and demonize him.
> 
> ...



 Okay lets get his backstory then, i'd like to hear about his stuggle against the evil tide of extremism that held him back before this cartoon, please go ahead.


> And?
> As I have mentioned before Muslims insult me constantly, they have the constantly belief that I am going to hell. That I deserve to suffer eternal torture for my beliefs.



 No they dont, your generalising peoples thoughts and opinions, but then again i expect that from you . 

Anyways I find alot of things offensive too, like racism for example but i tolerate it. People are allowed to hold their own views and i have no problem with that as long as it isnt directed towards me, but if you racially attack me then I have a right to be offended and respond.



> The willingness to inflict violence upon you for insults does not show the level of the insult, only the level of barbarism of the person inflicting violence.



agree.


> You have no place to talk about insults, no one does. The conflicts in cultures and opinions means that insults are CONSTANT.



 lol, so im not allowed to talk about insults...what happened to standing up for yourself and HUMAN RIGHTS you were talking about? hypocracy 



> You looking for me for sympathy about being called terrorist when you are in this thread defending their actions. Defending the murder of a innocent man because you feel offended by something he did.
> 
> You take you animosity of being labeled and turn that into a justification for murder. WAKE UP! We are all labeled every single one of us. You are NOT SPECIAL, Muslims are not a special case. Every faith, every race, every single one of us has to deal with perceptions of this world.



sympathy from you? no thanx. I was just giving a backdrop, a reflection of the environment we live in and an example of tolerance of other peoples opinions including attacks and insults, its also there to highlight the difference of our reaction towards those kind of attacks and this cartoon, now why would that be? 

and can you please drop that silly accusations, ive dealt with that already. If I wanted him dead i would say it clearly, the fact that i havent done so and have condemned extremism shouldve been enough to show my views are actually quite the opposite .



> This is only only part here that even came CLOSE to my argument above, which is not saying much.
> 
> I can only assume that your avoidance of my point is because you can't answer it. That you understand that there is a problem with violence of extremist Muslims, and you understand that the cartoon illustrates this.
> All you can do is fall back on your personal attacks and claims of victimization.



 If this is as close ive come to covering your points, then it either means:
 A)  theres very little points worth covering
 B) You need glasses.
 C) all of the above.

Ive already covered the points about violence and extremist behaviour, ive even discussed the cartoon and why its offensive, Ive also condemned criminal acts 

Yep Im definatley going for option C.



> 1) The guy got the reaction he expected, he did not WANT the reaction. But it was a consequence of standing up against the fear and violence.
> 2) It is a double standard to say that he is stupid for standing up to extremists, and at the same time saying it is not stupid to do so when you agree with the people standing up!
> 3) Muslims insult the non-Muslims ALL THE FUCKING TIME, this isn't ONE side insulting the other. It is BOTH SIDES have a cultural interaction in which beliefs the separate beliefs conflict.
> The difference here is that YOU expect not to be insulted and justify violence if it happens. Yet insult without concern and demand respect while you insult.



1. what kind of reaction was he after by attacking the prophet via the cartoons which are forbidden in islam? 
2. already covered it, i'd like to see what he was fighting.
3. Dont be stupid, Ive been here for 2-3 years and have responded to many insults and tolerated many more, i accept it as a norm. yet i havent used or called for violence on anyone in all that time, instead ive spent time responding with words. so again another baseless accusation..atleast your good at it 



> Lets identify the difference.
> Saying Muslims attack this guy because of the cartoon = stating the obvious.
> Saying This guy is an "idiot" because he "invited" them to attack him = justifying the attack.


 
 Both are obvious, neither is justification. If i call him an idiot *for* stirring up trouble then it is obvious.
 If i say he deserves what he got because so and so then its justification.

so no i didnt justify it, only criticized his choice of action.



> Does you practicing your religion invite death by the british government? No, because there is no justification for killing you for practicing your religion.
> By saying "invite" by saying he is "stupid" you are saying that him drawing the cartoon is REASON to kill him.
> 
> *YOU ARE PLACE BLAME ON THE CARTOONIST INSTEAD OF THE EXTREMISTS!*



Saying he is inviting attention from extremist elements = justification? i would of thought its more like a warning, something to be aware of?

the rest answered above.



> consequences that are NOT *justified *are NOT the fault of the person doing the action. Once again you believe they ARE JUSTIFIED consequences so you defend the extremist actions.



never said they were justified, please learn to read.



> I have countered your point about his intentions MANY TIMES, the intention was to illustrate that the Muslim extremist use the violent passages from the Quran as fuel for their violence.
> 
> He is not blame, NOT AT ALL. That you claim he is partially to blame is PROVES you are justifying the actions of the extremists. He is NOT AT ALL TO BLAME TO ANY HARM THAT COMES TO HIM, because there is NO justification for harm to come to him!




Again your holding onto this non-existant 'justication' as a lifeline as to avoid my argument, i have asked you many times already how does insulting a whole group of people highlight any of his points about extremists? If your having problem with extremist then attack them by all means, but why attack everyone else along with them to? and why would you go out of your way to pick a figure to depict that no muslim can accept due to faith?  Im not going to give up my beliefs just to appreciate his artwork.


> Your level of acceptance (tolerance) is the problem. Because in free society it is acceptable. That you find it unacceptable proves your double standard because you are unwilling to accept restriction on YOUR desired actions as unnacceptable.



 i was right your not from this world at all. 



> Tolerance
> 2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices *differing from or conflicting with one's own* b : the act of allowing something : toleration



not double standards.

 If he is allowed to insult because he is 'free' then why am i not allowed to excercise that freedom too? double standard? yes, but on your part not mine.



> You think this cartoon was responsible for the reinforcing their views? What view would that be? That western nation are not going to respect their rights and laws over the demands of an extremist population?
> 
> Please do tell WHAT VIEW IT HAS REINFORCED?



  maybe something like: "The west hates you, its why they bomb muslims over there and are insulting you and treating you like a second class citizens over here"



> If you want to lie to young muslims about the west placing its own rights and laws above offending muslims, it is better that it is clearly known that western government EXPECT Muslims to follow its LAWS and respect the RIGHTS of its citizens.
> 
> No what your angry about is that the laws and rights of the west were respected, and were not compromised for the muslim population. What you want to change is the destruction of those laws and rights so that you can place Islam ahead of all people.



Again more generalisations, more baseless arguments and even more baseless accusations. whats the matter? 

 you've pretty much just disregarded everything said untill now, countered nothing, added nothing and are now desperatly resorting to making up your own argument to argue against as if somehow it holds any merit. it's fuckin insane, but what a creative tactic, genius! :rofl


 dont bother replying, im done with this topic. just going round in circles.


----------



## Quincy James (Jan 3, 2010)

Well that's unfortunate. Talk about holding a grudge. 
Although they were in very poor taste, to be fair.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 3, 2010)

Psycho said:


> hey, i'm not the one that takes the book literally and it's not my fault that someone is offended by it, but the point of the book was never to offend anyone


Your just grasping straws now.

The 'point' of the cartoon was not to offend either, the cartoonist had a clearly good intention with it.

And you know your argument now holds no water, because the whole crux of your argument before was not its intention but the fact it shit on someone whom people consider important (Muslims).

Well i don't think torture is good either, so Islam is clearly offensive to me.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> and doesn't the bible do much of that too? non-followers of jesus will go to hell and burn, homosexuality is evil, apostates need to die and warfare in the name of god is encouraged! i got the whole bunch!


Im not christian.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> but as i said, i'm not saying the cartoon should be banned, i'm saying it was a stupid idea to circulate it in the first place. damn, if i had a say of gets published or not on MY newspaper, i'd say "damn, this is offensive, no way i'm printing this"


You said you were not ok with the cartoon being published, but you were ok with Islam and the Quran being circulated.

You explicitly stated this.

I think even you are aware of your double standard now.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

FYI: There's nothing you can say to defend these attackers. The people who are so outraged they would kill someone over this are idiots and better off chucked in a volcano. There's no right you have to kill someone over a drawing no matter what the subject is. You can argue about it, make laws to try and ban it or even come to blows...but killing is out of the question and is a knee jerk reaction to what amounts to basically nothing.


----------



## kumabear (Jan 3, 2010)

oh religious extremists.

how i love you so.


----------



## Noitora (Jan 4, 2010)

He should have strangled him with a rope of tied foreskins.

Most powerful weapon.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> yes, free speech is a part of your culture, i never said it wasn't, but free speech doesn't mean "say everything" it means "you can say everything", the problem with free speech is that someone will always say something stupid and get someone angry, that's why you have good sense
> 
> good sense tells us to no go around doing things that will most likely (read: most likely) irritate extremists known for being violent, it doesn't validate murder, but hey, so doesn't walking up to a person, giving them a gun and ordering them to shoot you right?



So basically appeasement is the way to go? If Al-Qaeda decides that it doesn't like pictures of trees being drawn, we should stop that, too, because it's suicidal in your opinion? No, thank you. I'd rather defy assholes than do their every bidding.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> my *RATIONAL* is "don't go out of your way when you know it's gonna bite you in the ass"
> 
> the cartoonist knew someone would be offended, we all knew, and even so, he went out of his way to do something extremely dumb and we can all agree that is not the rational thing to do


For example, Martin Luther King Jr was really fucking dumb.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Your just grasping straws now.
> 
> The 'point' of the cartoon was not to offend either, the cartoonist had a clearly good intention with it.
> 
> ...



please, read. and when i say read, i mean actually read, not make up stuff

i said it was not ok to publish something intentionally offensive (btw, fuck his good intentions, it's still a horribly idiotic idea to publish a cartoon which, like i said, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain group of people)

and yes, it's ok to publish a koran since a koran has no intention to offend, just like it's ok to have a controversial opinion, but it's not ok to troll

and please, in order for me to have double standards, your's would have to be much worse, as i have stated, it's not ok to intentionally offend people (now you're gonna say that he didn't want to offend anyone), but it is not ok to distribute a part of human history

hell, i don't see any problems with distributing bibles, korans, torahs, mein kampf, the communist manifesto, the prince, atlas shrugged or any other book that mat offend someone, you know why? 'cause they aren't meant to offend anyone, unlike that cartoon


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

impersonal said:


> For example, Martin Luther King Jr was really fucking dumb.



martin luther king was standing up to oppression, i guess then the cartoonist was standing up to the oppression we suffer of not being allowed to draw offensive cartoons of religious figures, yes, 'cause that makes sense



Saufsoldat said:


> So basically appeasement is the way to go? If Al-Qaeda decides that it doesn't like pictures of trees being drawn, we should stop that, too, because it's suicidal in your opinion? No, thank you. I'd rather defy assholes than do their every bidding.



when al-qaeda starts complaining about picture of trees, then it's come to a whole new level

is it that important that you show yourself to in in every single way impervious to al-qaeda influence? must you intentionally taunt them in order to feel better about yourself?

drawing pictures of trees is in no way offensive, trees are in no way sacred to muslims, and even if they were, art portraying nature is a part of our history, we couldn't just give it up all of the sudden

on the other hand, drawing muslim prophets was never a part of our history, prophets are sacred to some muslims in a way you could never understand and drawing sacred symbols in a offensive fashion is offensive, no matter what you say


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 4, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> So basically appeasement is the way to go? If Al-Qaeda decides that it doesn't like pictures of trees being drawn, we should stop that, too, because it's suicidal in your opinion? No, thank you. I'd rather defy assholes than do their every bidding.



Freedom of Speech bears responsibility and mockery of religious groups is definitely not part of the tolerance and responsibility that comes within our society.

By the way: Did you ever officially mock your employer for any reason? If you did, you probably were fired afterwards. Are you proclaiming freedom of speech and the possibility to criticize your boss or do you just stfu because you know its wrong and has nothing to do with self-censoring but with common sense?
Freedom of Speech is not a complimentory ticket for insult and intolerance.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> martin luther king was standing up to oppression, i guess then the cartoonist was standing up to the oppression we suffer of not being allowed to draw offensive cartoons of religious figures, yes, 'cause that makes sense


Indeed. He was standing for freedom of speech. Besides, the cartoons weren't actually very offending; the one this cartoonist made was probably the most agressive of all, and in the end it was pretty inoffensive.

None of this was gratuitous provocation. Every drawing had a message. 

Cartoons are usually a bit provocative. Some groups won't handle it reasonably; too bad for them; some people won't bow down the way you do. That's the real issue here - you're surrendering to the crazies.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 4, 2010)

impersonal said:


> Indeed. He was standing for freedom of speech.



Nah, he wasnt standing for anything. Except maybe for higher sells of their newspaper.


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

Mael said:


> Basically the logical defense that anyone who commits such atrocities can't possibly be Muslim, based upon a thought that a Scottish man once said that anyone who doesn't like Haggis regardless of actual Scottish ethnic background is "No True Scotsman."  Now if you meant these people are perverse Muslims who horribly misconstrue what the Koran says than yes that's about it.
> 
> In Pakistan for example, there are many who claim that Muslims couldn't possibly commit suicide bombings and so many civilian murders, claiming that they were probably stooges, Indians, and foreigners, not Muslims...because "no true Muslim" could do such a thing.  That's what is known as No True Scotsman.





Sarutobi sasuke said:


> A proud Scots man picks up a copy of the Glasgow Herald in it he reads that their has been a particularly brutal murder in London "Those bloody English" he exclaims "No Scots man would do such a thing".
> 
> The next day he reads in his copy of the Glasgow Herald and finds that the killer has been caught and identified as Hamish McDonald of Aberdeen. "No _true_ Scotsman would do such a thing." the proud Scots man says.
> 
> simply because someone does not live up to your ideals of what a Muslim should be does not mean they are not Muslim.



No True Muslims would do terrorism i told you they're NOT Muslims but doing wrongly in the name of Islam !!

killing innocent people is a murder in Islam !!

and i want to ask one question : why it's all about Islam ?! isn't there anything else you can talk about this way ?! ( i mean saying it's bad and bla bla bla when it's not actually !! )


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> martin luther king was standing up to oppression, i guess then the cartoonist was standing up to the oppression we suffer of not being allowed to draw offensive cartoons of religious figures, yes, 'cause that makes sense



You don't get it - his carton was not designed to offend, it was designed to provoke debate over the censorship everyone has to go through to appease extremist Muslims.

It is the choice of a person to be offended by something or not - no item is inherently offensive, because offence is such a subjective term. As we've seen with this very cartoon, there are people who don't care, people who find it funny, people who think it was in bad taste, people who are outraged and protest peacefully, and then the BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM crowd.

It's impossible to simply state this is an offensive cartoon, because people choose for themselves whether an item offends _them_ or not. To you, it may be an offensive cartoon; that does not mean that it is flat-out offensive and was made solely to offend people. Your insistence that this is the case just highlights your ignorance of the matter at hand.

It *is* oppression to not be able to draw a satirical cartoon or write a book critical of Islam without having to worry about a guy flying from a different continent to try to break into your house and behead you with an axe.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Kimimarox said:


> Freedom of Speech bears responsibility and mockery of religious groups is definitely not part of the tolerance and responsibility that comes within our society.
> 
> By the way: Did you ever officially mock your employer for any reason? If you did, you probably were fired afterwards. Are you proclaiming freedom of speech and the possibility to criticize your boss or do you just stfu because you know its wrong and has nothing to do with self-censoring but with common sense?
> Freedom of Speech is not a complimentory ticket for insult and intolerance.



You realize that the people strongly raging at this are foreigners with their asses in the middle east or africa

The guy attempting to murder him was only there on a staying permit and already under surveillance

Basically you're telling me I have to consider the feelings of a malaysian jungle tribe when publishing a cartoon in a local newspaper

Does that make sense? No.

*These people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.*


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Watchman said:


> You don't get it - his carton was not designed to offend, it was designed to provoke debate over the censorship everyone has to go through to appease extremist Muslims.
> 
> It is the choice of a person to be offended by something or not - no item is inherently offensive, because offence is such a subjective term. As we've seen with this very cartoon, there are people who don't care, people who find it funny, people who think it was in bad taste, people who are outraged and protest peacefully, and then the BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM crowd.
> 
> ...





I KNOW, LET'S MOCK HIS BELIEFS, i'm sure he'll see how dumb is his point of view and change it


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 4, 2010)

While Freedom of speech isn't freedom from responsibility of what speech can do (because its obvious that people yelling "Fire" or slandering others with lies can get int trouble). There's no justification to kill someone over a drawing, the fact that people are so mad about this that they want to kill it shows some level of them being out of touch with the rest of reality.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> While Freedom of speech isn't freedom from responsibility of what speech can do (because its obvious that people yelling "Fire" or slandering others with lies can get int trouble). There's no justification to kill someone over a drawing, the fact that people are so mad about this that they want to kill it shows some level of them being out of touch with the rest of reality.



i've been trying to say this for 3 pages and and every time i get close to they ask me if i want freedom of speech and korans banned


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> I KNOW, LET'S MOCK HIS BELIEFS, i'm sure he'll see how dumb is his point of view and change it



Again, you're missing the fucking point. It wasn't to convince extremists they're being silly; the purpose of the illustration was to create debate over censorship with regards to Islam (see Impersonal's quote).


----------



## perman07 (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> No True Muslims would do terrorism i told you they're NOT Muslims but doing wrongly in the name of Islam !!
> 
> killing innocent people is a murder in Islam !!
> 
> and i want to ask one question : why it's all about Islam ?! isn't there anything else you can talk about this way ?! ( i mean saying it's bad and bla bla bla when it's not actually !! )


It's ironic that when Sarutobi Sasuke pointed out your use of the No true scotsman fallacy, you just nodded and agreed.

Please, read about the fallacy here:


The definition of the fallacy is that someone redefines a term when presented with a counter-example.
You say: No muslim would murder an innocent man.
Sarutobi Sasuke said: This muslim murdered an innocent man.
You say: No _true_ muslim would murder an innocent man.

What you implicitly did in that conversation was redefine what being a muslim is. According to wikipedia, "A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam." While it could be argued that what he did doesn't adhere to Islam, if breaking one rule is enough to make you not a muslim, then I reckon that would mean there isn't a single muslim in the world since every muslim probably has broken a rule at least once

Please explain your definition of what being a muslim is, I don't think people  will accept that you have the sole definition power in your hand when you don't explain what definition you use.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i've been trying to say this for 3 pages and and every time i get close to they ask me if i want freedom of speech and korans banned



The point is, that was not provocation. The point was not to produce muslim anger; that was a risk, sure; the point was to show that criticism of Islam could be done, that it just requires a bit of courage. Obviously, due to the fanatics and the appeasers, it now requires a lot of courage, and freedom of speech is seriously undermined. Thanks.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Jan 4, 2010)

*sigh* Everytime I read about Islamic people getting hyped up over the littlest things it reminds me of the middle ages for some reason.

You get pissed at someone and you go and kill them. How smart.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

impersonal said:


> The point is, that was not provocation. The point was not to produce muslim anger; that was a risk, sure; the point was to show that criticism of Islam could be done, that it just requires a bit of courage.



you can criticize islam as you wish, it's just not cool to be straight out offensive


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> you can criticize islam as you wish, it's just not cool to be straight out offensive



It is the choice of a person to be offended by something or not - no item is inherently offensive, because offence is such a subjective term. As we've seen with this very cartoon, there are people who don't care, people who find it funny, people who think it was in bad taste, people who are outraged and protest peacefully, and then the BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM crowd.

It's impossible to simply state this is an offensive cartoon, because people choose for themselves whether an item offends them or not. To you, it may be an offensive cartoon; that does not mean that it is flat-out offensive and was made solely to offend people. Your insistence that this is the case just highlights your ignorance of the matter at hand.


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

perman07 said:


> It's ironic that when Sarutobi Sasuke pointed out your use of the No true scotsman fallacy, you just nodded and agreed.
> 
> Please, read about the fallacy here:
> 
> ...



alright sorry for the No True thing but i'm weak at English and i didn't got it :S

i didn't say that breaking one rule is enough to make you not a Muslim !! then as you said there'll be no Muslims !! i wanted to say that killing innocent people ( not accidentally ) ( you planned to kill them ) ( Terrorism ) YES THAT MAKES YOU NOT A MUSLIM because this is a very very big mistake but small mistakes everyone makes don't get you out of Islam ..

i hope you got my idea ..


----------



## Akatora (Jan 4, 2010)

The cartoon proved it's point

And so it is about for people to distance themself from it or to prove it by acting violently.


Religion doesn't justify violence 


It's just as bad as a person in love with a person called XXX reading a cartoon with a guy named XXX being killed and then wanting to kill the author for it

It's kinda how dumb i see the reaction done by many muslims, hopefuly not the majority acting or thinking violently for something like that


Else a person could make a religion or a sect where the word rain is tabu and justify any action by saying he did so in the name of his religion 

Who is to judge if one religion is more right than another?
you are to chose your own beliefs, and if you break sorcietys rules should be punished the same way as anyone else


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Watchman said:


> It is the choice of a person to be offended by something or not - no item is inherently offensive, because offence is such a subjective term. As we've seen with this very cartoon, there are people who don't care, people who find it funny, people who think it was in bad taste, people who are outraged and protest peacefully, and then the BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM crowd.
> 
> It's impossible to simply state this is an offensive cartoon, because people choose for themselves whether an item offends them or not. To you, it may be an offensive cartoon; that does not mean that it is flat-out offensive and was made solely to offend people. Your insistence that this is the case just highlights your ignorance of the matter at hand.



it was clear that this crowd would choose to be offended by such display and even so he published that drawing, if he did that in the forums, we'd call him a troll


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:
			
		

> my RATIONAL is "don't go out of your way when you know it's gonna bite you in the ass"
> 
> the cartoonist knew someone would be offended, we all knew, and even so, he went out of his way to do something extremely dumb and we can all agree that is not the rational thing to do
> 
> now, when you refuse to go out of your way to please someone who you owe nothing to, that's really fucking different, if you can't see the difference, there's no use in discussing this with you



?my RATIONAL is "don't go out of your way when you know it's gonna bite you in the ass"

the woman who didn?t wear the veil knew someone would be offended, we all knew, and even so, she went out of his way to do something extremely dumb and we can all agree that is not the rational thing to do?

I don?t see drawing a cartoon as ?went out of his way to do something extremely dumb? and as extremist are willing to throw acid on the woman, they would say that she ?went out of her way to do something extremely dumb?


Basically you answer to me is 
Bwhaaaaa, I see no problem with not wearing a veil so it?s not stupid, but I have a problem with a picture of Muhammad so it?s stupid. 

It?s a double standard, and why you rational fails, because it cannot be applied universally. It is completely dependent on what YOU feel is acceptable.


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

Akatora said:


> It's kinda how dumb i see the reaction done by many muslims, hopefuly not the majority acting or thinking violently for something like that



i live in an Islamic country and i tell you NO ONE thought of killing the drawers !! it's as you say not the majority .. to be exact it's less than 1% of Muslims who thinks of killing and as i said if they did it's a very very big mistake ..

but u know as a Muslim i just got crazy to see my Prophet drawn like that and you say it's freedom of speech ?! then where's the RESPECT ?!

by the way it's not allowed in Islam to draw Jesus or any other Prophet like that because Islam RESPECTS ALL RELIGIONS ..


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> by the way it's not allowed in Islam to draw Jesus or any other Prophet like that because Islam RESPECTS ALL RELIGIONS ..


Islam says I deserve to be tortured for all eternity for my beliefs, how is that respect?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> ?my RATIONAL is "don't go out of your way when you know it's gonna bite you in the ass"
> 
> the woman who didn?t wear the veil knew someone would be offended, we all knew, and even so, she went out of his way to do something extremely dumb and we can all agree that is not the rational thing to do?
> 
> ...



please, stop changing my posts to change the meaning, you don't know how irritating it is to debate with you when you're acting like peter griffin


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> i live in an Islamic country and i tell you NO ONE thought of killing the drawers !! it's as you say not the majority .. to be exact it's less than 1% of Muslims who thinks of killing and as i said if they did it's a very very big mistake ..



0,001% of muslims would still be millions of crazy bastards trying to Jihad your supposedly offensive ass.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> please, stop changing my posts to change the meaning, you don't know how irritating it is to debate with you when you're acting like peter griffin



I am pointing out your double standard. I am using your rational in a different context to show you that your rational is flawed. 

If you don't like your rational put into a different context it is a problem with the YOUR RATIONAL!


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Islam says I deserve to be tortured for all eternity for my beliefs, how is that respect?



and Christianity says so because you think Christianity is right and i think Islam is right ( so people should join the right religion ) ( God sent Prophets to show you the right path and you have all your life time to get the right idea man it's a long period of time you should be able to find the right path and after all of that if you didn't then you deserve to be tortured ) but as i said all religions share this thing with Islam so it's not Islam alone !! )

it's really unbelievable how you say those drawings are freedom of speech it's really sooo unbelievable !!

Show Some Respect Idiots !! !! !!


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I am pointing out your double standard. I am using your rational in a different context to show you that your rational is flawed.
> 
> If you don't like your rational put into a different context it is a problem with the YOUR RATIONAL!



I am pointing out your double standard. I am using your penis in a different context to show you that your penis is flawed. 

If you don't like your penis put into a different context it is a problem with the YOUR PENIS!

apparently your rational is failed too, you are taking my arguments and inverting it, i'm saying that wearing a veil is going out of your way, you then comment that i said it wasn't going out of your way

context is means a lot to a situation, if it was a picture of muhammad in a world where there is no islamism, there would not be this reaction

rationales are not universal and absolute rules, i cannot apply this rational to a situation where radicals become offended by women in swimsuits

by your rational, any time someone is offended, the person who is offended is wrong


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> 0,001% of muslims would still be millions of crazy bastards trying to Jihad your supposedly offensive ass.



i said it's NOT right Terrorism is NOT Islam ..

the wrong is not in Islam but how they do it ..

and remember you were the wrong one first by drawing such draws saying it's freedom of speech !!

How Offensive you are !!


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> i said it's NOT right Terrorism is NOT Islam ..
> 
> the wrong is not in Islam but how they do it ..
> 
> ...



why is this is a no true scotsman: to be a muslim is to follow islam, and these people follow islam, even if the wrong way

why this is not a no true scotsman: to follow islam is to obey it codes, and one of it's codes to to offer shelter to non-believers and to try and convince them through peace into conversion, this is not something these people do


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> why is this is a no true scotsman: to be a muslim is to follow islam, and these people follow islam, even if the wrong way
> 
> why this is not a no true scotsman: to follow islam is to obey it codes, and one of it's codes to to offer shelter to non-believers and to try and convince them through peace into conversion, this is not something these people do



FINALLY someone who understands me 

" and one of it's codes to to offer shelter to non-believers and to try and convince them through peace into conversion " THAT'S SO TRUE

and those people are misunderstanding Islam because they're stupid !! but one more thing : IF U KILL AN INNOCENT MAN YOU ARE FUCKING NOT A MUSLIM GO SEE THAT IN OUR QURAN YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM YOU ARE A TERRORIST !!

so i agree with you : Terrorists SUCKS 00100 !! i hate them more than you do !! i swear to God !!


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

because they make you believe that Islam is bla bla bla :S

FUCK THEM !!


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

> it was clear that this crowd would choose to be offended by such display and even so he published that drawing, if he did that in the forums, we'd call him a troll



And once a-fucking-gain you miss the point. I'm getting really tired of this. I answer your point, and you switch to another tack, and then after I answer that, you switch back to the topic I'd just answered. Here's a copy-pasta of the answer I used the last time you brought this up:

"Again, you're missing the fucking point. It wasn't to convince extremists they're being silly; the purpose of the illustration was to create debate over censorship with regards to Islam (see Impersonal's quote)."

Now, to use your silly NF forums analogy, it would be as if someone in, let's say, a pairing FC posted a piece of fanart for that FC, and someone in an entirely different pairing FC saw that piece of fanart and harassed/flamed/trolled the person who drew it, and was then shocked when they got banned - after all, that piece of fanart _offended_ them, never mind that it was designed for an entirely different audience, they'd have to have gone out of their way to even see it, and their response was totally out of proportion.

And I hate this analogy already. 



Sasuke RULES said:


> i said it's NOT right Terrorism is NOT Islam ..
> 
> the wrong is not in Islam but how they do it ..
> 
> ...



Did you just ignore Impersonal when he pointed out that the cartoon was drawn as part of a piece in response to censorship of views critical of Islam?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> I am pointing out your double standard. I am using your penis in a different context to show you that your penis is flawed.
> 
> If you don't like your penis put into a different context it is a problem with the YOUR PENIS!
> 
> ...



i'd like to reformulate this whole post due to a violent misuse of words:

you not applying my rational in another context, you are applying my rational to another subject, the wearing of veils by islamic women is not the same thing as the drawing of likely offensive cartoons by non-muslims

when you draw a cartoon of which you know it's chance to offend someone is close to 100%, not to conquer freedom of speech since you already have it, not to conquer the right to freedom of religion because you already have it, but to spark a debate that is already in motion, it is a stupid idea

on the other hand, muslim women, living under sharia law, do not have freedom of speech, do not have freedom of religion, and there is no debate within their world to if they should have

please, tell me how can you compare the situation of this cartoonist to the situation of people living in sharia law?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Now, to use your silly NF forums analogy, it would be as if someone in, let's say, a pairing FC posted a piece of fanart for that FC, and someone in an entirely different pairing FC saw that piece of fanart and harassed/flamed/trolled the person who drew it, and was then shocked when they got banned - after all, that piece of fanart _offended_ them, never mind that it was designed for an entirely different audience, they'd have to have gone out of their way to even see it, and their response was totally out of proportion.



i see what you're saying, but you don't see what i'm saying

i'm not saying she should be killed, i'm not saying he deserved to be killed, i'm not saying anyone should be killed

why is your analogy wrong: opinions about pairings are limited mostly to their FCs, while religion isn't, if the world was like your analogy there would have to be no muslims in this guy's country (which i forget what country is), where there are muslims; unless the news paper was meant for a strictly atheist, christian, or whatever else crowd, the muslim that originally saw this and felt offended had all the reason to be reading that news paper in that country

the response is out of proportion, i'm not giving reason to the muslim extremist that tried to kill that guy, but i'm not giving reason to the cartoonist either, i'm saying he had no reason to be drawing that cartoon and that it will probably lead to his death by the hands of a radical even though it's not what he deserves


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> you can criticize islam as you wish, it's just not cool to be straight out offensive



It wasn't very offensive... Christianism is subject to much harsher depictions.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

impersonal said:


> It wasn't very offensive... Christianism is subject to much harsher depictions.



i don't like them either, but that's not what we're talking about


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

i got to go i want to have lunch ( man i'm starving after all this talk  )

i really wish you read about the real Islam and if you don't it's ok we're not asking for much but please don't hurt Muslims and show some Respect to people


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> i got to go i want to have lunch ( man i'm starving after all this talk  )
> 
> i really wish you read about the real Islam and if you don't it's ok we're not asking for much but please don't hurt Muslims and show some Respect to people



Real islam can suck my hairy nostrils, this isn't about peaceful people praying 6 times a day, it's about crazy fanatics that light up their torches faster than you can say "denmark"


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i see what you're saying, but you don't see what i'm saying
> 
> i'm not saying she should be killed, i'm not saying he deserved to be killed, i'm not saying anyone should be killed



No, I'm not sure you see what I'm saying - my argument wasn't simply "he doesn't deserve to be killed", it was "There was no offence in the picture that was not self-inflicted by people going out of their way searching for a reason to be offended"; similar to, say, me going on a rampage because some local Iranian newspaper is saying bad things about Atheism.



> why is your analogy wrong



I did say it was a crappy analogy. 




> opinions about pairings are limited mostly to their FCs, while religion isn't, if the world was like your analogy there would have to be no muslims in this guy's country (which i forget what country is), where there are muslims; unless the news paper was meant for a strictly atheist, christian, or whatever else crowd, the muslim that originally saw this and felt offended had all the reason to be reading that news paper in that country



Fair enough so far, and if all that had occurred was a group of Danish Muslims writing complaints or engaging in peaceful protest, there'd have been no problem.



> the response is out of proportion, i'm not giving reason to the muslim extremist that tried to kill that guy, but i'm not giving reason to the cartoonist either, i'm saying he had no reason to be drawing that cartoon and that it will probably lead to his death by the hands of a radical even though it's not what he deserves



But once again you fail to note here the purpose of the article that featured that picture. And I'm sick of having to repeat myself when you're clearly not reading my posts. I mentioned the reason for the cartoon in my previous post; go look it up yourself.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 4, 2010)

impersonal said:


> It wasn't very offensive... Christianism is subject to much harsher depictions.



Despite Christians for being far less extreme on average.


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Real islam can suck my hairy nostrils, this isn't about peaceful people praying 6 times a day, it's about crazy fanatics that light up their torches faster than you can say "denmark"



yeah yeah whatever i was talking to real people who have brains to think and read not to emotional dumps


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> please, read. and when i say read, i mean actually read, not make up stuff
> 
> i said it was not ok to publish something intentionally offensive (btw, fuck his good intentions, it's still a horribly idiotic idea to publish a cartoon which, like i said, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain group of people)
> 
> ...


You specifically stated it is NOT OK to print this cartoon, but you specifically stated IT IS OK to print and circulate the Quran, which is a text FULL OF verses saying disbelievers deserve to be tortured in hell.


_
2:24 And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.

2:39 But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.

2:126 And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!

2:221 Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire, and Allah inviteth unto the Garden, and unto forgiveness by His grace, and expoundeth His revelations to mankind that haply they may remember. 

3:10 (On that Day) neither the riches nor the progeny of those who disbelieve will aught avail them with Allah. They will be fuel for Fire. 

3:12 Say (O Muhammad) unto those who disbelieve: Ye shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell, an evil resting-place. 

3:131 And ward off (from yourselves) the Fire prepared for disbelievers. 

4:14 And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.

4:56 Lo!* Those who disbelieve* Our revelations, *We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment.* Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise. 

22:19 These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for *those who disbelieve,* garments of fire will be cut out for them; *boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,*
22:20 *Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;*
22:21 And for them are* hooked rods of iron.*
22:22 Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning._



Sure sounds like the quran isn't trying to insult people huh?



			
				Psychi said:
			
		

> i said it was not ok to publish something intentionally offensive (btw, fuck his good intentions, it's still a horribly idiotic idea to publish a cartoon which, like i said, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain group of people)


WOW ok so your objection is 'based on the likelihood it will offend people' well fuck i think telling non-muslims that they deserved to be tortured with fire is likely to offend.

I think telling homosexuals their evil is likely to offend.

Double-standard is painfully evident.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> yeah yeah whatever i was talking to real people who have brains to think and read not to emotional dumps



Hey I'm not the one being like "don't attack islam be peaceful also muslims are super humans that can't ever do anything wrong  " in a thread that hardly even mentions the average muslim


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Watchman said:


> No, I'm not sure you see what I'm saying - my argument wasn't simply "he doesn't deserve to be killed", it was "There was no offence in the picture that was not self-inflicted by people going out of their way searching for a reason to be offended"; similar to, say, me going on a rampage because some local Iranian newspaper is saying bad things about Atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



all self-inflicted sense of offense comes from a cultural background, people of a more fundamental islamic background consider paintings, drawings, sculpture and any other form of displaying their prophets and god to be offensive, and we all know that, that's why i'm saying

the problem isn't the danish muslim, it's the danish atheist/christian that find it funny and spreads it all over the internet where radical, bitchy and uptight muslims can see it and be really fucking offended


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> You specifically stated it is NOT OK to print this cartoon, but you specifically stated IT IS OK to print and circulate the Quran, which is a text FULL OF verses saying disbelievers deserve to be tortured in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ahem, well then, i guess now we have to prohibit every single piece of literature, don't we?

the koran is an extreme book, but it's aimed at a muslim demographic, if you're a non-muslim reading a muslim book and feel offended, it's like watchman's analogy, which didn't that example but fits this one perfectly

EDIT: sorry, i just noticed something



maj1n said:


> when Abraham prayed



funny you say that


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> the koran is an extreme book, but it's aimed at a muslim demographic, if you're a non-muslim reading a muslim book and feel offended, it's like watchman's analogy, which didn't that example but fits this one perfectly



And these cartoons are aimed at a demographic that (supposedly) laughs over such cartoons.

That they somehow end up somewhere where they offend people is an entirely different story.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:
			
		

> and Christianity says so because you think Christianity is right and i think Islam is right ( so people should join the right religion )


That it does, as it also doesn’t respect other peoples beliefs. 



			
				Sasuke RULES said:
			
		

> ( God sent Prophets to show you the right path and you have all your life time to get the right idea man it's a long period of time you should be able to find the right path and after all of that if you didn't then you deserve to be tortured ) but as i said all religions share this thing with Islam so it's not Islam alone !! )


Yes, all religions share this lack of respect.
SO DON’T CLAIM THAT ISLAM RESPECTS ALL BELIEFS. 

Islam doesn’t respect, it believes that it is correct and if you don’t accept you deserved to be tortured for all eternity. It is MUCH more insulting than the picture. 



			
				Sasuke RULES said:
			
		

> it's really unbelievable how you say those drawings are freedom of speech it's really sooo unbelievable !!
> 
> Show Some Respect Idiots !! !! !!


You accept that your religion doesn’t respect others, and then demand that other people respect it?



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> I am pointing out your double standard. I am using your penis in a different context to show you that your penis is flawed.
> 
> If you don't like your penis put into a different context it is a problem with the YOUR PENIS!


Those sentences are incoherent. 



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> apparently your rational is failed too, you are taking my arguments and inverting it, i'm saying that wearing a veil is going out of your way, you then comment that i said it wasn't going out of your way


No, actually you kind of just proved it true. 
Because when you tried to argue do it you made sentences that were incoherent. 

As I said before
“I don’t see drawing a cartoon as “went out of his way to do something extremely dumb” and as extremist are willing to throw acid on the woman, they would say that she “went out of her way to do something extremely dumb””

That this is 
“Basically you answer to me is 
Bwhaaaaa, I see no problem with not wearing a veil so it’s not stupid, but I have a problem with a picture of Muhammad so it’s stupid. 

It’s a double standard, and why you rational fails, because it cannot be applied universally. It is completely dependent on what YOU feel is acceptable.”



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> context is means a lot to a situation, if it was a picture of muhammad in a world where there is no islamism, there would not be this reaction
> 
> rationales are not universal and absolute rules, i cannot apply this rational to a situation where radicals become offended by women in swimsuits
> 
> by your rational, any time someone is offended, the person who is offended is wrong



No, being “offended” isn't wrong. 
Acting out against those they feel “offended” them using violence is wrong. 

It doesn’t matter what the offense the ACTING OUT IS WRONG!

You can be offended all you want, but the acting out because you were offended is wrong. 

*The excusing of others acting out because you were offended is wrong. *


Because of the subjective nature of taking offense that CAN be applied to say, a woman not wearing a veil, AS WELL AS drawing a picture of Muhammad. 
You cannot say, this one is dumb, this one isn’t, because this is nothing but your subjective opinion on the situation. 

But if you want to do that they, I have a counter for your argument. 
Wearing a veil isn’t dumb, nor is drawing a picture of Muhammad. As you argument is based solely on your opinion on what is dumb, and NOT anything else, I will do the same.


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> all self-inflicted sense of offense comes from a cultural background, people of a more fundamental islamic background consider paintings, drawings, sculpture and any other form of displaying their prophets and god to be offensive, and we all know that, that's why i'm saying



Irrelevant. If they'd published this newspaper article in the more fundamentalist regions of the Middle East, you'd have a point. But why *should* a local paper in Denmark have to consider the potential feelings of people from an entirely different country that would normally have no reason to read their newspaper? It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that a state should tailor its news outlets in case they offend someone on the other side of the world.



Psycho said:


> ahem, well then, i guess now we have to prohibit every single piece of literature, don't we?
> 
> the koran is an extreme book, but it's aimed at a muslim demographic, if you're a non-muslim reading a muslim book and feel offended, it's like watchman's analogy, which didn't that example but fits this one perfectly



Not really. If anything, the Koran, being such an influential and widespread book, and if we go by terms of offence, *far* more offensive than the Danish cartoon, to *far* more people, should be considered for being banned far more than this Danish newspaper article.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> And these cartoons are aimed at a demographic that (supposedly) laughs over such cartoons.
> 
> That they somehow end up somewhere where they offend people is an entirely different story.



then don't distribute it in a danish newspaper aimed at danes, distributed it in a danish newspaper aimed at atheists or christians or pastafarians or whatever

there are muslim danes you know


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> ahem, well then, i guess now we have to prohibit every single piece of literature, don't we?


According to your warped logic, you would.

Your the one against things that are 'insulting'.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> the koran is an extreme book, but it's aimed at a muslim demographic, if you're a non-muslim reading a muslim book and feel offended, it's like watchman's analogy, which didn't that example but fits this one perfectly


Then you shouldn't have any problem with the cartoon, as it is published in a society and culture that values FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

But you do have a problem while you don't for the koran, so once again double-standard.



			
				Psychi said:
			
		

> then don't distribute it in a danish newspaper aimed at danes, distributed it in a danish newspaper aimed at atheists or christians or pastafarians or whatever
> 
> there are muslim danes you know


So what your suggesting is that Muslim rules and sensibilities of their religion have to now be applied on western societies.

I thought you said these books and their shit had to be kept to their community?

Why do we have to make way for Muslim feelings if you contend that Muslims don't have to for ours, since apparently its ok for them to circulate texts that mandate non-muslims deserved to be tortured in hell.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Irrelevant. If they'd published this newspaper article in the more fundamentalist regions of the Middle East, you'd have a point. But why *should* a local paper in Denmark have to consider the potential feelings of people from an entirely different country that would normally have no reason to read their newspaper? It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that a state should tailor its news outlets in case they offend someone on the other side of the world.



there are danish muslims, you that right?



Watchman said:


> Not really. If anything, the Koran, being such an influential and widespread book, and if we go by terms of offence, *far* more offensive than the Danish cartoon, to *far* more people, should be considered for being banned far more than this Danish newspaper article.



i'm never said to ban it, i just said it should be distributed, stop acting like i said "any possible offense to islam should be banned", i said that it is a stupid cartoon with too much potential to be offensive, and it's really not funny at all, you can make a point about the violence linked to islam without something like this


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> That they somehow end up somewhere where they offend people is an entirely different story.



Actually, it was some Danish mullahs that took those drawings, and even included pictures that no editor would have dreamt of printing(such as an image of Muhammed being sodomized by an animal), and went on a tour around the Middle East to deliberately stir things up a good while after the drawings were originally published. 

These clerics also spread lies to inflame passions, such as the claim that the Newspaper that first printed it was owned by the government.

So in a ironic twist, it wasnt the cartoonists that tried to stir things up, but rather the Islamic clergy in Denmark


----------



## Sasuke RULES (Jan 4, 2010)

some of you still call the insulting drawings " freedom of expression " ?! oh my God it's no use you don't know Respect at all !! why to argue with such bastards then ?! 

and @zaru : if you want to know who are the killing machines then go see what those bastards do in Palestine & Iraq .. they killed millions of people you peace lovers 

i'm outta here pfff !!


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i'm never said to ban it, i just said it should be distributed, stop acting like i said


Quoting you.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> you mean when i say that it's ok to distribute a book of teachings related to a thousand year old religion that is a part of the history of the world, but it's *not ok to distribute* a 5 year old drawing of which, one of the reasons of it's very existence is it's likelihood to offend a certain groups of people?


If your saying we shouldn't distribute it, that means to ban it.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> Actually, it was some Danish mullahs that took those drawings, and even included pictures that no editor would have dreamt of printing(such as an image of Muhammed being sodomized by an animal), and went on a tour around the Middle East to deliberately stir things up a good while after the drawings were originally published.
> 
> These clerics also spread lies to inflame passions, such as the claim that the Newspaper that first printed it was owned by the government.
> 
> So in a ironic twist, it wasnt the cartoonists that tried to stir things up, but rather the Islamic clergy in Denmark


But of course, such facts (assuming they are) never make it to those places that raged so much since it'd make them look like fools


----------



## Watchman (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> there are danish muslims, you that right?



No, I didn't know that, despite pointing out that I'd be perfectly fine with the situation if it was just *Danish Muslims* protesting against it within legal boundaries. Despite my acknowledgement of that, I clearly am not aware of the existence of Danish Muslims. 



> i'm never said to ban it, i just said it should be distributed



I'm assuming that was a typo and you meant "should not be distributed", in which case what do you think is the difference between banning something and not allowing it to be distributed? (alternatively, if there was no typo, wat?)




> stop acting like i said "any possible offense to islam should be banned", i said that it is a stupid cartoon with too much potential to be offensive, and it's really not funny at all, you can make a point about the violence linked to islam without something like this



Already addressed issues of offence elsewhere.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> According to your warped logic, you would.
> 
> Your the one supporting banning things because of whether it will insult someone.



ban 1  (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban?ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.
2. South African Under the former system of apartheid, to deprive (a person suspected of illegal activity) of the right of free movement and association with others.
3. Archaic To curse.

please tell me, which one of this is "to not distribute because common sense tells that it might offend someone"? 



maj1n said:


> Then you shouldn't have any problem with the cartoon, as it is published in a society and culture that values FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
> 
> But you do have a problem while you don't for the koran, so once again double-standard.



freedom of expression does not give you the right to be an asshole



maj1n said:


> So what your suggesting is that Muslim rules and sensibilities of their religion have to now be applied on western societies.
> 
> I thought you said these books and their shit had to be kept to their community?
> 
> Why do we have to make way for Muslim feelings if you contend that Muslims don't have to for ours, since apparently its ok for them to circulate texts that mandate non-muslims deserved to be tortured in hell.



no, i'm suggesting that after we've been shown a thousand times that things like this offend a whole population, we avoid doing that, not because they oppress us, no because they oblige us, but because we are not jackasses, we do not enjoy going around offending people

i'm not gonna say we are better then them, 'cause the cartoon shows we're not, how can we talk shit about what they do to us, how they disrespect our culture when we disrespect theirs? either we set the standard and show fundamentalists and radicals that we are not monster, we are respectful people who do not go around judging people, or we give them reason: right now you're giving them reason


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Watchman said:


> No, I didn't know that, despite pointing out that I'd be perfectly fine with the situation if it was just *Danish Muslims* protesting against it within legal boundaries. Despite my acknowledgement of that, I clearly am not aware of the existence of Danish Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that was a typo and you meant "should not be distributed", in which case what do you think is the difference between banning something and not allowing it to be distributed? (alternatively, if there was no typo, wat?).



yes there was a typo, i never said people shouldn't be allowed to publish such a thing, i'm just saying it's not something you should do

it's legal to own guns in my country, but even so i don't have any guns in my house

freedom of speech doesn't make it right for you to be an asshole


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i don't like them [anti-christian cartoons] either, but that's not what we're talking about


Well, firstly you ignored the core of my argument, which is that these cartoons weren't very offensive at all, and clearly not insulting. They all had a message - the only one that was actually purely offensive was the fake one (with the pig) used by the fanatics.

Secondly, the harsh anti-christian cartoons also have a good reason usually. For example, when the pope reiterates his opposition to condoms, he usually gets severe criticism. When the church lets pedophiles do, it gets criticized. 

When many imams preach violence, people should shut up according to you... Or at least pretend that they don't see the link between religion and suicide bombings. It's not about blaming all muslims for what some do; but people should be able to criticize a religion the way they criticize political parties. 

And with Islam, it is not the case, for two reasons: fanatics and those who accept to play by their rules.



			
				psycho said:
			
		

> no, i'm suggesting that after we've been shown a thousand times that things like this offend a whole population, we avoid doing that, not because they oppress us, no because they oblige us, but because we are not jackasses, we do not enjoy going around offending people


They (the fanatics) _still_ oppress us and oblige us. Islam should be criticized the way Christianism is.

Today, it is difficult to get moderate people to speak their mind about Islam - because they're afraid ! Only the extremists will talk, because, well, they're the extremists. Everybody hates them already. 

It's not a good idea to let them do all the talking.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> ban 1  (bn)
> tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
> 1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.
> 2. South African Under the former system of apartheid, to deprive (a person suspected of illegal activity) of the right of free movement and association with others.
> ...


To prohibit is equivalent to you saying it is not ok to distribute it.

In other words, you endorse prohibiting its distribution.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> freedom of expression does not give you the right to be an asshole


Umm actually it does.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> no, i'm suggesting that after we've been shown a thousand times that things like this offend a whole population, we avoid doing that, not because they oppress us, no because they oblige us, but because we are not jackasses, we do not enjoy going around offending people


And the Islamic religion offends many people, as were seeing by the constant demonstrations against such things as homsexuality, WOMENS PLIGHT UNDER ISLAM.

Why are you ok with distributing qurans and generally teaching Islam?

Double-standard.



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> i'm not gonna say we are better then them, 'cause the cartoon shows we're not, how can we talk shit about what they do to us, how they disrespect our culture when we disrespect theirs? either we set the standard and show fundamentalists and radicals that we are not monster, we are respectful people who do not go around judging people, or we give them reason: right now you're giving them reason


Western culture is better because it does not demand respect like a child.

It is because Western culture does not DEMAND respect that Islam is even allowed to be taught and spread, if Western culture was DEMANDED to be respected, by virtue of Islam endorsing slavery, inferiority of women to men, non-muslims deserve to be tortured etc.

it would be banned.

A culture that demands respect is a foolish and barbaric culture.

Respect is EARNED, not given out freely.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Western culture is better because it does not demand respect like a child.
> 
> It is because Western culture does not DEMAND respect that Islam is even allowed to be taught and spread, if Western culture was DEMANDED to be respected, by virtue of Islam endorsing slavery, inferiority of women to men, non-muslims deserve to be tortured etc.
> 
> ...



and this is why i won't argue with you any longer: you are incapable of accepting the equality of cultures, there are no superior or inferior cultures only different ones

in islam, respect is obliged until lost; in most western cultures (specially that protestant american shit), respect is inexistent until earned

and there are verbal assault laws, no free speech does not give you the right to be an asshole



maj1n said:


> To prohibit is equivalent to you saying it is not ok to distribute it.
> 
> In other words, you endorse prohibiting its distribution.



read it, that's a dictionary reading; i'm not for the prohibition of distribution, i never even said that, i'm for not distributing it out of common and good sense, just like i won't punch someone in the face out of pure common and good sense


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> and this is why i won't argue with you any longer: you are incapable of accepting the equality of cultures, there are no superior or inferior cultures only different ones
> 
> in islam, respect is obliged until lost; in most western cultures (specially that protestant american shit), respect is inexistent until earned
> 
> and there are verbal assault laws, no free speech does not give you the right to be an asshole


So what your suggesting is that women who argue not to be mistreated under Islam, don't have any basis to do so because the culture of 'women shouldnt be subjugated' is equivalent to a culture of 'women should be subjugated'.

Shit mate do you even think before you type?



			
				psycho said:
			
		

> read it, that's a dictionary reading; i'm not for the prohibition of distribution, i never even said that, i'm for not distributing it out of common and good sense, just like i won't punch someone in the face out of pure common and good sense


You said its not ok do distribute it.

Same as prohibiting it.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> So what your suggesting is that women who argue not to be mistreated under Islam, don't have any basis to do so because the culture of 'women shouldnt be subjugated' is equivalent to a culture of 'women should be subjugated'.
> 
> Shit mate do you even think before you type?



clearly i don't, so why do you insist in arguing with me?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> clearly i don't, so why do you insist in arguing with me?


Convincing people your viewpoint is wrong.


----------



## Juno (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> freedom of speech doesn't make it right for you to be an asshole



No, having freedom of speech doesn't make it an _obligation_ to be an asshole, but you're not obligated to be perfectly respectful towards murderous thugs either. Being able to say even unpopular things without fear of censorship is the POINT of freedom of speech, genius.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Juno said:


> No, having freedom of speech doesn't make it an _obligation_ to be an asshole, but you're not obligated to be perfectly respectful towards murderous thugs either. Being able to say even unpopular things without fear of censorship is the POINT of freedom of speech, genius.



there is no censorship in denmark, press is 100% free, so why did he publish that?

and maj1n: no one cares about your opinion on my viewpoints, if i clearly don't think before typing stop arguing with me


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> there is no censorship in denmark, press is 100% free, so why did he publish that?


Do you know that freedom of speech (no censorship) is maintained by actions?



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> and maj1n: no one cares about your opinion on my viewpoints, if i clearly don't think before typing stop arguing with me


I think they do.

So once again, why are you ok with distributing the koran and Islam, but not ok with distributing this cartoon?

Both have more then enough to insult some group of people, the Koran more so.


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> But of course, such facts (assuming they are) never make it to those places that raged so much since it'd make them look like fools



True, but i wrote that primarilly in refernce to the people on this site that imply that they believe in the canard that the Cartoonists basically did this as an act of provacation to the Muslim world.


----------



## Juno (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> there is no censorship in denmark, press is 100% free, so why did he publish that?



Murdering critics of islam is about as censorous as you can get. Duh. 

The editorial was written in the wake of another artist's murder after he criticised islam's treatment of women, and another artist involved had to flee the country in fear of her life. When criticising a religion can get you murdered, how can you say with a straight face that there was no censorship?


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2010)

Juno said:


> Murdering critics of islam is about as censorous as you can get. Duh.
> 
> The editorial was written in the wake of another artist's murder after he criticised islam's treatment of women, and another artist involved had to flee the country in fear of her life. When criticising a religion can get you murdered, how can you say with a straight face that there was no censorship?



Wait what

A guy getting mad over what you wrote isn't censorship


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 4, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> True, but i wrote that primarilly in refernce to the people on this site that imply that they believe in the canard that the Cartoonists basically did this as an act of provacation to the Muslim world.



Doesn't matter why he wrote it, they don't have any reason to get so pissy over it. It's a fucking drawing. People draw Jesus and other religious figures all of the time and no one gets blown up. 

They have to understand everyone doesn't care about their feelings and they can't always kill people over it.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> clearly i don't, so why do you insist in arguing with me?



He's right, claiming that cultures are all equal is nonsensical.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jan 4, 2010)

Muslim extremism proves to have enough grounds for concern once again. 

Good the cartoonist and his 5 year old grandchild survived...


Large parts of Islam are still stuck in the Middle Ages...or regressed even.


----------



## Juno (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Wait what
> 
> A guy getting mad over what you wrote isn't censorship



The article was about self-censorship. Artists and others were refusing to critique Islam publicly out of fear of death warrants being issued by muslim leaders and having to go into hiding. That was the censorship the artists were responding to, and ironically had to go into hiding for doing so. Psycho tried to throw out a red-herring about there being no government censorship in Denmark so it wasn't necessary to write the article, ignoring that this wasn't the kind of censorship being discussed, and the threat from islamic followers was deterring people from condemning that a such threat even exists.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 4, 2010)

Zaru said:


> You realize that the people strongly raging at this are foreigners with their asses in the middle east or africa
> 
> The guy attempting to murder him was only there on a staying permit and already under surveillance
> 
> ...



I did not say that. I only talked about tolerance and respect. And yes, you can critizice everything, but its the way you do it. Nowadays, its rather unusual that there isnt a single newspaper which is NOT critizicing muslims or the islams, but that doesnt make the people violently for every piss they read. You are from Austria, so you probably know the german magazine "Spiegel". They critizise the Islam nearly every week, but its not like they get any threatings from anyone except some idiotic radicals who do not represent the major belief anyway. 
But they do feel hurt once people overstep the border, which in my eyes, was clearly the case here. 
People pretend to protect the freedom of speech here, but sorry I just have the feeling that they search another reason to express their aggravated feelings against muslims. Most of them are not even interested in getting to know the facts, its just about the bad muslims and their potential danger for the civilized world.


----------



## Toby (Jan 4, 2010)

*Everyone can calm down. Last few pages were very:* 



Kimimarox said:


> People pretend to protect the freedom of speech here, but sorry I just have the feeling that they search another reason to express their aggravated feelings against muslims. Most of them are not even interested in getting to know the facts, its just about the bad muslims and their potential danger for the civilized world.



Well yes and no. It's true that people use freedom of speech as an outlet for hate crimes and in many cases they do succeed. Usually racism is pretty serious in Scandinavia, whereas religion was not as big a topic. The media was also rather neutral in Scandinavia prior to these cartoons, whereas you'd find a much more critical view in other European countries. Since the incident of the cartoons however the negative media-coverage of Muslims in northern Europe is all but guaranteed because many embassies, like the Norwegian and Danish ones in Syria, were torched and attacked in places like Syria - because people were outraged about the drawings.

No one can claim that they have a right to act like that. That is an outright declaration of war. Defaming a flag is a serious thing too, but instead Denmark and the other countries involved swallowed the insult. There's a lot to be said about their attempt to solve the situation. They refuse to apologise for the cartoons because they were not made to be published in Syria, and the fact that they were distributed there is not the fault of the Danish people and certainly not the cartoonist. 

Of course he would never have made these drawings for a Syrian newspaper. People have treated him like shit for what he's done, which is fully ordinary in European news-coverage. This culture-clash should be blamed on the idiots who brought hte drawings out of Denmark and who presented them without the article for which they were made. I'd be outraged if I were a Muslim in Denmark, and I'd complain about it, but burning down an embassy and attempting to kill a cartoonist is disgusting behaviour and Denmark did its best to solve the situation. But you can't expect them to surrender their freedom of speech.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

impersonal said:


> He's right, claiming that cultures are all equal is nonsensical.



first thing we learn when studying sociology is that all cultures are equal, as if they are not, the culture you are adept to will always be superior to the others


----------



## Distance (Jan 4, 2010)

They are not called extremists for nothing.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Jan 4, 2010)

extremists of any type don't have nuch of a sense of humor and will froth at the mouth over every single slight intentional or not.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> first thing we learn when studying sociology is that all cultures are equal, as if they are not, the culture you are adept to will always be superior to the others



Then explain weaboos. Or anybody else that thinks a culture that is not their own is superior, while having no real grasp of it.


----------



## Black Wraith (Jan 4, 2010)

Question said:
			
		

> How should we react to the cartoon that that has been made of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam? What is the sunnah way of acting in this situation?





			
				Answer said:
			
		

> [.....]Muslims living as Muslim minorities around the world should act in a responsible manner and the following is suggested:
> 
> 1. Consult with Ulama and responsible people before doing anything. Do not do anything by yourself. Shura and consultation is vital in such an issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## timmysblood (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> freedom of expression does not give you the right to be an asshole



yes, yes it dose.


you cannot have freedom of speech without the right to hate speech, if muslims do not support freedom of speech then they should not move to country's which have it. This is coming from a liberal.

"either you can joke about everything or about nothing"


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Jan 4, 2010)

Toby said:


> *Everyone can calm down. Last few pages were very:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree with you. 
Just to add: Radicals in countries like Italy and the Netherlands immediately used the hype to create a negative mood against muslims whereas fanatics who hate the West anyway ran around with the pictures and told wrong stories with additional pictures the cartoonist never created to heaten the atmosphere. Even arabic media showed that some of the violent protesters seemed to be *organized* which lead to the presumption that someone paid them to destroy the embassies, which is obvious in the case of Hezbollah, but I would not dare to say that some higher politicians were also involved to use the cartoons for their purpose.....But like I said in earlier posts, in my opinion the depicture of the prophet was not appropriate, but the opinions of both sides wont change anyway so I leave it with that.


----------



## N120 (Jan 4, 2010)

Toby said:


> *Everyone can calm down. Last few pages were very:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This argument that the cartoon was only meant for 'europeans' and not 'syrians' only works if muslims only came from syira. 

 The fact that your overlooking muslims are multicultural,multiethnic and multilingual communities only held together by belief in islam as the common grounds is not even taken into consideration, I know your not racist but that kind of statement seperating them and us in an artifical manner is very close to it.

There are european muslims, danish muslims, british muslim, german muslims, and not all are butt hurt immigrants from syria.

and the fact that most european muslims found it just as distasteful as those syrians muslims shouldve highlighted that theres something in the cartoon as to provoke a wide-spread condemnation.

I understand the message of the cartoonist, I also accept and understand the value of freedom of speech, even so I found the use of the prophet as his subject distasteful why? because the drawing of a prophet regardless of message or intent is forbidden thats the point.

 asking me to accept the message is fine,but asking me to accept something that is against my beliefs because of the underlying message is not ok.


----------



## perman07 (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> first thing we learn when studying sociology is that all cultures are equal, as if they are not, the culture you are adept to will always be superior to the others


I've heard that one before.. Sociologists can say whatever the fuck they want, but there are plenty of cultures I have no qualms with declaring to be inferior to my own.

Any culture that condones any of the following is inferior to the cultures in the Western world:
Slavery, oppression of women, racism, honor killings and so on.

What you just said is the perfect example of taking political correctness too far.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

perman07 said:


> I've heard that one before.. Sociologists can say whatever the fuck they want, but there are plenty of cultures I have no qualms with declaring to be inferior to my own.
> 
> Any culture that condones any of the following is inferior to the cultures in the Western world:
> Slavery, oppression of women, racism, honor killings and so on.
> ...



up too a few hundred years ago, the normal american culture condoned all of those

as much as i am influenced by my own culture, i always try to keep a strictly humane point of view, meaning that independent of your culture, you are entitled the same rights any other human being is

for an instance, is a culture that condones respect in ALL cases superior to american culture that says respect must be earned?


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> why is this is a no true scotsman: to be a muslim is to follow islam, and these people follow islam, even if the wrong way
> 
> why this is not a no true scotsman: to follow islam is to obey it codes, and one of it's codes to to offer shelter to non-believers and to try and convince them through peace into conversion, this is not something these people do





Sasuke RULES said:


> FINALLY someone who understands me
> 
> " and one of it's codes to to offer shelter to non-believers and to try and convince them through peace into conversion " THAT'S SO TRUE
> 
> ...



The reason it is a no true Scotsman to claim that Islamic terrorists are not Muslims is because you are redefining Muslim from "a follower of Islam in general" to "a follower of Islam as I have been taught to view it."

To you the victims of terrorists are innocent. but do the terrorists see them as innocent? i doubt they do. Do the terrorist seem them selves as terrorists? i doubt they do. The Quran and hadith like any religious texts are ambiguous and leave a lot of room for interpretation yes there are verses forbidding the killing of innocents but there are also verses justifying the killing invaders, criminals, apostates, etc.


----------



## aquis45 (Jan 4, 2010)

N120 said:


> and the fact that most european muslims found it just as distasteful as those syrians muslims shouldve highlighted that theres something in the cartoon as to provoke a wide-spread condemnation.
> 
> I understand the message of the cartoonist, I also accept and understand the value of freedom of speech, even so I found the use of the prophet as his subject distasteful why? because the drawing of a prophet regardless of message or intent is forbidden thats the point.
> 
> asking me to accept the message is fine,but asking me to accept something that is against my beliefs because of the underlying message is not ok.



Finding it distasteful is fine. It's the going apeshit crazy that we are complaining about. Drawing the prophet is forbidden in Islam. He isn't Muslim. Your freedom of religion ends when it impedes on someone else's freedom. I honestly didn't know it was forbidden until this whole story initially broke out.


----------



## perman07 (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> up too a few hundred years ago, the normal american culture condoned all of those


A perfect examples of how cultures change. I never said that these inferior cultures couldn't improve.


Psycho said:


> as much as i am influenced by my own culture, i always try to keep a strictly humane point of view, meaning that independent of your culture, you are entitled the same rights any other human being is


Which is a cultural thing. You don't support racism, discrimination and other shit. Good for you.

But these are western values though, in the old nationalistic cultures where people were way more xenophobic, you couldn't expect these things. But just because a culture deems itself superior to another culture, that doesn't mean that culture would deny human beings of another culture the same rights. I think you confuse superiority with malevolence.


Psycho said:


> for an instance, is a culture that condones respect in ALL cases superior to american culture that says respect must be earned?


What? A culture can't be defined as specifically as you do here.

I actually agree that ranking cultures is an exercise one normally shouldn't do, but there are exceptions when there are large discreprancies between them.


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2010)

It'd be better for those who say that the terrorists aren't Muslms to actually acknowledge them as Muslims, but just mentally ill and perverting what is universally acknowledged are the acceptable forms/teachings of Islam.  That way, you avoid the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.  You have to man up and recognize them as Muslims no matter how much they're smearing your name.  The crazies who protest at military funerals or plan to shoot abortion doctors may be fucked-up Christians, but we begrudgingly acknowledge them as Christians.


----------



## αce (Jan 4, 2010)

These people take the qu'ran too literally and feel it is their "muslim duty" to "protect" Islam. It's lucky people don't take the bible literally, or we'd have stock piles of bodies across the U.S.


----------



## vivEnergy (Jan 4, 2010)

Muslims telling other muslims they ain't no true muslim. But who's telling the truth ? Let's wait for one's of Allah heavenly messengers to tell us. Because there shall be no greater truth than the one from Allah.

_"And those who disbelieve say: You are not a messenger. Say: Allah is sufficient as a witness between me and you and whoever has knowledge of the Book." _


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> first thing we learn when studying sociology is that all cultures are equal, as if they are not, the culture you are adept to will always be superior to the others


wrong.

Sociology does not posit cultures are equal, if it did, then studying any aspect of society would be fruitless and pointless.

The aim of those who study sociology is to better understand societies so they can improve it, if sociology posited all cultures are equal, there would be no use in studying any society.

*Sociology australia*
_Description
Sociology gives us the tools we need to understand our life and the lives of the people around us.* It reveals that our commonsense view of the world isn't always right, *and enables us to find out what actually shapes our experiences._
-http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=305&book=9781741750164

If sociology posited all cultures are equal, this book would be wrong in trying to show us we are wrong.
_

What is Sociology?
Sociology enables us to understand the structure and dynamics of society, and their intricate connections to patterns of human behavior and individual life changes. It examines the ways in which the forms of social structure -- groups, organizations, communities, social categories (such as class, sex, age, or race), and various social institutions (such as kinship, economic, political, or religious) affect human attitudes, actions, and opportunities.

The discipline also explores how both individuals and collectivities construct, maintain, and alter social organization in various ways. Sociology asks about the sources and consequences of change in social arrangements and institutions, and about the satisfactions and difficulties of planning, accomplishing, and adapting to such change. Areas studied in examining social dynamics include: culture, values, socialization, cooperation, conflict, power, exchange, inequality, deviance, social control, violence, order and social change._
-http://www.dartmouth.edu/~socy/intro.html

Nothing about cultures being equal.

Sociology is like a discipline of science, it does not make ANY statement of a cultures worth, it merely studies it objectively.

Don't lie next time.
_
Sociological research and sociological concepts can help to explain many dimensions of social life. It can help explain the day-to-day interactions that occur in families, between men and women, as well as the larger social problems including poverty and other forms of inequality.* As such Sociology gives a systematic and disciplined approach to the problems, conflicts *and dynamics of contemporary society. In doing so it provides a rigorous understanding of the causes and consequences of social order and social change.    _
-http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/study/whatis_overview.htm


----------



## Toby (Jan 4, 2010)

I wish sometimes that people could read Danish because then they could read the article with the cartoons and understand what actually took place, but since you can't, there is this article which was written by the editor of the JyllandsPosten, which was printed in the Washington Post, and you should all read it before even thinking about regurgitating the same crap you see in the media which is all the same from different angles. 

This article was all-round ignored and it shouldn't be. In it you will see that from the Danish perspective they were hoping to include Muslims in the debate rather than exclude them. 

Here is the article: 



N120 said:


> This argument that the cartoon was only meant for 'europeans' and not 'syrians' only works if muslims only came from syira.



Actually you're a bit wrong. They burned down more than one embassy in several countries in the Middle East and trashed other countries' embassies. A Norwegian embassy was trashed too. I just mentioned Syria in particular because I can still recall the image of a picture in the Norwegian embassy being stepped on and burned by an angry mob. 

And of course not all Syrian Muslims act this way, but the fringe groups got away with it there. This is important to note since it reveals what political liberties and conditions are allowed in an environment. I must reiterate the gravity of this situation: In Danish law you have the freedom to make these images. You can protest about them too. But nowhere in Syrian law will you find a tenant allowing the destruction of a foreign embassy. That's a violation of international law and an engagement before declaring war. No person in this thread seems to either know about this or give a shit about it. You want to talk about the value of protecting Islam's integrity but it seems like this national insult is being buried beneath it. It shouldn't be. 

Denmark acted with prudence when they decided to attempt creating a dialogue across their governments rather than responding with indignance over the embassies being destroyed. So should those offended by the drawings. 

So finally I made a tl;dr post again.

I'll have all you foreigners know that the royal family itself was ridiculed quite a few times in the papers in Denmark, and it's sort of a cultural thing which the Muslims will have to get used to there too, since the social democratic norms of Scandinavia predicates that we should all receive the same political rights. And believe me, Christians there have to bear with a lot of 'blasphemy'. These cartoons are the beginning of the steps towards integration.

EDIT


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> wrong.
> 
> Sociology does not posit cultures are equal, if it did, then studying any aspect of society would be fruitless and pointless.
> 
> ...





> cul⋅ture  [kuhl-cher]  Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
> Use culture in a Sentence
> –noun
> 1.	the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
> ...



the really big thing i pointed out in your text is the very definition of culture


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 4, 2010)

maj1n said:


> wrong.
> 
> Sociology does not posit cultures are equal, if it did, then studying any aspect of society would be fruitless and pointless.
> 
> ...



You know,you could've just said that the study of cultures is anthropology and that in any decent anthro course,relativism is only one of the methods to look at cultures instead the norm,instead of making a tl;dr post


----------



## Psycho (Jan 4, 2010)

Diceman said:


> You know,you could've just said that the study of cultures is anthropology and that in any decent anthro course,relativism is only one of the methods to look at cultures instead the norm,instead of making a tl;dr post



anthropology is more of a study of an individual in a social group, while sociology is the study of the social group itself, at least that's the definition i find it to have, maybe i'm just misinterpreting what i've read


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 4, 2010)

Psycho said:


> anthropology is more of a study of an individual in a social group, while sociology is the study of the social group itself, at least that's the definition i find it to have, maybe i'm just misinterpreting what i've read



It's not,take this from someone who actually takes Anthropology courses


----------



## N120 (Jan 4, 2010)

Toby said:


> I wish sometimes that people could read Danish because then they could read the article with the cartoons and understand what actually took place, but since you can't, there is this article which was written by the editor of the JyllandsPosten, which was printed in the Washington Post, and you should all read it before even thinking about regurgitating the same crap you see in the media which is all the same from different angles.
> 
> This article was all-round ignored and it shouldn't be. In it you will see that from the Danish perspective they were hoping to include Muslims in the debate rather than exclude them.
> 
> Here is the article:



 seeking to balance out rising self-censorship on islam to conform with the norm doesnt excuse taking an extreme measure as a counter balance.

 The argument that you were allowed to piss on the bible but didnt want to do the same with qu'ran is laughable, why would you do it in the first place? and somehow because you dared not to, that somehow it required a push by the editors to seek alternative methods to offend is ridiculous.



> Actually you're a bit wrong. They burned down more than one embassy in several countries in the Middle East and trashed other countries' embassies. A Norwegian embassy was trashed too. I just mentioned Syria in particular because I can still recall the image of a picture in the Norwegian embassy being stepped on and burned by an angry mob.



 whose 'they'? again your lumping anyone and everyone aslong they fall into the subcatogory of muslim as one and the same.

 The burnign of flags and embasies was done by retards and they're actions isnt a valid counter to these pictures nor is their actions a valid counter to generalise every muslim and therefore create an argument of 'we' vs 'you'.



> And of course not all Syrian Muslims act this way, but the fringe groups got away with it there. This is important to note since it reveals what political liberties and conditions are allowed in an environment. I must reiterate the gravity of this situation: In Danish law you have the freedom to make these images. You can protest about them too. But nowhere in Syrian law will you find a tenant allowing the destruction of a foreign embassy. That's a violation of international law and an engagement before declaring war. No person in this thread seems to either know about this or give a shit about it. You want to talk about the value of protecting Islam's integrity but it seems like this national insult is being buried beneath it. It shouldn't be.



 As you said the danish law allows both the rights to individual to produce images and the right of individuals to protest which im happy with, and you rightfully stated that the individuals who caused violence in syria broke the law, but it wasnt a state action but individual criminal act in the syrian case.

 If you want the syrian govt. to apologise for criminal acts of its citizens because it caused offence and could be seen as a declaration of war, then the danish govt. should also take similar steps to apologise for the cartoons as it could also be seen as a hostile attack on muslims across the globe.



> Denmark acted with prudence when they decided to attempt creating a dialogue across their governments rather than responding with indignance over the embassies being destroyed. So should those offended by the drawings.



what do you think i'm doing? many have done this especially in the UK to condemn and counter the extremists reaction to it aswell as make ways forward to enlighten those who didnt know why it caused such a fuss.



> I'll have all you foreigners know that the royal family itself was ridiculed quite a few times in the papers in Denmark, and it's sort of a cultural thing which the Muslims will have to get used to there too, since the social democratic norms of Scandinavia predicates that we should all receive the same political rights. And believe me, Christians there have to bear with a lot of 'blasphemy'. These cartoons are the beginning of the steps towards integration.
> 
> EDIT



Integration doesnt mean the removal of individuality nor conforming individual political and social attitudes into one dictated by the govt. or of those who seem to believe they are holding the mainstream view to which others must adopt.
 Intergration is about tolerance and adding the differences between us into one working body to work with one another, And yes muslims in denmark have responsibilty to work towards that as do the others so they can achieve that goal.


----------



## strangebloke (Jan 4, 2010)

The point remains, that as a group, Muslims have a higher concentration of fanatics than any other religion.  Perhaps it is for cultural reasons.  The point remains.


----------



## Toby (Jan 4, 2010)

N120 said:


> seeking to balance out rising self-censorship on islam to conform with the norm doesnt excuse taking an extreme measure as a counter balance.
> 
> The argument that you were allowed to piss on the bible but didnt want to do the same with qu'ran is laughable, why would you do it in the first place? and somehow because you dared not to, that somehow it required a push by the editors to seek alternative methods to offend is ridiculous.



You need to be way more coherent than this because now I don't know what you're saying. I'll try to respond but you're making it difficult and I find it annoying because it looks like you're pissed with me for insulting you somehow - and I haven't really, because I do try to be polite, and I've got a genuine reason to be annoyed since very few people on NF are from Denmark or one of the affected countries, so I don't think you all know what happened, and I more or less get quite pissy when people don't even look at the information I'm offering you.

Now for what you wrote: I did not present an argument to piss on the Bible. I presented the fact that freedom of speech and democracy is in the culture of the Danish people. Blasphemy laws are not. There are laws concerning preservation of the public peace, and some argue that the cartoons disturbed the public peace. Others argue that they didn't, and if you look at internal Danish politics, cleaning up the Blitz-house in Copenhagen was more of a brawl than this affair.

You seem to fear that the editor of Jyllands-Posten used freedom of speech to target Muslims, but you don't know that he intended this. I provided you with the editor's honest opinion behind the whole ordeal but you've apparently neglected to read it. Look at it. There are 12 cartoons, and they didn't all make it to the Middle East where the trouble began. A whole year later if I might add too. The people who brought them there wanted to start a fight. If they'd brought them all 12 with them, things might have turned out differently. They also left out the article on the front page which they were printed for. Now that is not a coincidence. In terms of abusing the media, these Egyptians are clearly worse than the editor, because they did try to create a fight.



N120 said:


> whose 'they'? again your lumping anyone and everyone aslong they fall into the subcatogory of muslim as one and the same.



Do be careful when comparing our use of diction. I don't know how I've lumped anyone in a group other than those I've specifically referred to as Syrian, Syrian Muslims or Danish and Danish Muslims - all of which are inoffensive groupings. I made it very clear whenever I referred to a group who I am referring to. You've made much worse generalisations and claimed that all Muslims found those cartoons outrageous. I know for a fact that that is a branch-generalisation on your part because not all Muslims agree on this matter no more than all the Danes agree on it. For example, Danish Muslims didn't riot. Middle Eastern ones did. The difference is cultural and political, not religious. And in any case, a generalisation is at worst a mistake, not a fallacy. It doesn't take away from my argument that most poeple here are hopelessly uninformed of what transpired.

I also pointed out that I know the Syrian rioters were a fringe group. How much more specific should I get to avoid this "generaliser"-label? It's an impossible standard, and I don't go calling people out on generalising because ultimately it's a subjective competition of political correctness, and it's obvious that I mean no harm. You've made egregious generalisations of Danes yourself, and I fancy that you don't even know a single one of them. Don't see me caring about that. But when people act like they know better than me, they really should have something to back it up. And I know Danes.



N120 said:


> The burnign of flags and embasies was done by retards and they're actions isnt a valid counter to these pictures nor is their actions a valid counter to generalise every muslim and therefore create an argument of 'we' vs 'you'.



And if you look over my post you'd see that I don't believe in the us versus you perspective - you're confusing me with somebody else. It's pretty obvious that I'm pissed about a very particular group of idiots who should have been imprisoned for disturbing the peace. Those you referred to as retards. But that is an offensive term for people with Downs Syndrome, and I'm not going to have to tell you that it's a childish term and a deplorably popular word that really should be done away with in this context. And I mean I can make this part much more uncomfortable, so do dispense with that.



N120 said:


> As you said the danish law allows both the rights to individual to produce images and the right of individuals to protest which im happy with, and you rightfully stated that the individuals who caused violence in syria broke the law, but it wasnt a state action but individual criminal act in the syrian case.
> 
> If you want the syrian govt. to apologise for criminal acts of its citizens because it caused offence and could be seen as a declaration of war, then the danish govt. should also take similar steps to apologise for the cartoons as it could also be seen as a hostile attack on muslims across the globe.



Individual actions which cumulated in attacking a government building are vastly different from a newspaper making an article which offended some Muslims in Denmark. The Danish Muslims can sue the newspaper, but it will be protected under freedom of speech. The Muslims outside of Denmark have no right to sue the state of Denmark since those drawings were distributed by Egyptian clerics. It was their fault, not the Danes'. The newspaper can't be held responsible outside of this matter. Moreover, Muslims aren't a single legal group. The Syrian government could sue them, but there is no law which would protect the Muslims' case, since freedom of speech is a universal right in the universal declaration of human rights. The law is quite clear on this. I wouldn't bring up international law unless it mattered. In this case it does.

But here's what I find interesting. Like most of the other Muslims I've met outside of Scandinavia, you've don't even know what transpired after the cartoons were spread to Muslims in the Middle East by those morons in Egypt. It's because you probably weren't in Europe or any of the affected countries.

You see, the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the Danish government had already issued open letters of apology to the Syrian government and several other countries on behalf of the Danish people immediately after the controversy. As I wrote, they opened a dialogue with them. Did the Syrians reciprocate the favour? Absolutely not. 

So why did the Danes do it? It's Scandinavian diplomacy, and it has had to stick up with these misunderstandings for years because they've been active in trying to resolve the Palestine-issue and don't want to lose Arab countries' trust and favour. It's funny that this part of the Nordic countries' foreign policy isn't given much credit in the Muslim world, but these charicatures do not dwarf the work they've done on the Palestine-issue. They really don't.

You know what, you can find all those letters on wikipedia. It's right there under the article on this topic. It's late though and I won't bother looking for them. Search for jyllands-posten or cartoons on wikipedia and you'll find them.



N120 said:


> what do you think i'm doing? many have done this especially in the UK to condemn and counter the extremists reaction to it aswell as make ways forward to enlighten those who didnt know why it caused such a fuss.



That's nice of you.



N120 said:


> Integration doesnt mean the removal of individuality nor conforming individual political and social attitudes into one dictated by the govt. or of those who seem to believe they are holding the mainstream view to which others must adopt.
> Intergration is about tolerance and adding the differences between us into one working body to work with one another, And yes muslims in denmark have responsibilty to work towards that as do the others so they can achieve that goal.



Goodness man I didn't propose you give up your identity. You've placed those words in my mouth. I've spoken out against the illegal destruction of a foreign government's property and unjust violence. I've actually spoken up for the free press, which is more than you can say for the Syrian government. As for tolerance, I haven't insulted anyone but those who claim to know all there is to know about this story but who in fact don't. I've done my better part of respecting both Muslims in Denmark and those abroad.



strangebloke said:


> The point remains, that as a group, Muslims have a higher concentration of fanatics than any other religion.  Perhaps it is for cultural reasons.  The point remains.



I see those numbers as rather unimportant, actually. They matter if they're going to fight anyone, but if there's fanatics in two opposing countries locked in a war, then both need to be disarmed. Numbers doesn't make one more right than the other.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jan 4, 2010)

Toby said:


> I wish sometimes that people could read Danish because then they could read the article with the cartoons and understand what actually took place, but since you can't, there is this article which was written by the editor of the JyllandsPosten, which was printed in the Washington Post, and you should all read it before even thinking about regurgitating the same crap you see in the media which is all the same from different angles.
> 
> This article was all-round ignored and it shouldn't be. In it you will see that from the Danish perspective they were hoping to include Muslims in the debate rather than exclude them.
> 
> ...



Trashing an embassy is pretty serious and a violation of international norms, but I'm not quite sure it counts as an engagement before war. Didn't Chinese mobs trash the Japanese embassy a couple of years ago over the Yasukuni shrine?

I don't see what the big deal about burning flags are either. I mean that shit happens to US flags all the time everywhere in the world. It was all the rage in the USA during the 90s as well. Now nobody in the US really gives a shit anymore. Freedom of expression and all that. It might be something of a shock to the Europeans but this is really old hat in regards to protests and all that.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 4, 2010)

> first thing we learn when studying sociology is that all cultures are equal, as if they are not, the culture you are adept to will always be superior to the others


O'rly!?

So the violent barbarian cultures on some islands that allow cannabilism are equal to yours eh?


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 4, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> O'rly!?
> 
> So the violent barbarian cultures on some islands that allow cannabilism are equal to yours eh?



What's so wrong with cannibalism again? It's just eating human meat. I mean, sure, there are some possible side-effects, but compared to smoking it's hardly a bad habit.


----------



## perman07 (Jan 4, 2010)

hcheng02 said:


> Trashing an embassy is pretty serious and a violation of international norms, but I'm not quite sure it counts as an engagement before war. Didn't Chinese mobs trash the Japanese embassy a couple of years ago over the Yasukuni shrine?


Whether or not it's interpreted as a hostile act or not probably depends on whether or not the state had anything to do with. Because, let's face it, a government is perfectly capable of protecting embassies. That Syria wasn't able to stop the burning of the Norwegian embassy was always suspicious to me. This whole thing escalated for weeks before the embassy was burned. It was the most important topic everyday in the papers and on the news, that no steps were taken to prevent this isn't something I buy.

Anyways, if a state is involved in the attack on an embassy (either directly with support or indirectly through lack of defence), that is most certainly a hostile act against the affected nation though.


hcheng02 said:


> I don't see what the big deal about burning flags are either. I mean that shit happens to US flags all the time everywhere in the world. It was all the rage in the USA during the 90s as well. Now nobody in the US really gives a shit anymore. Freedom of expression and all that. It might be something of a shock to the Europeans but this is really old hat in regards to protests and all that.


I think he was comparing it to the cartoons. Flag-burning is way more offensive than some satirical comics.

I don't think people in Europe care that much about flag-burning either, but it's possible you Americans are more used to it.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 4, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> What's so wrong with cannibalism again? It's just eating human meat. I mean, sure, there are some possible side-effects, but compared to smoking it's hardly a bad habit.


I was trying to go for the extreme barbarity of some to illustrate a point.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jan 4, 2010)

perman07 said:


> Whether or not it's interpreted as a hostile act or not probably depends on whether or not the state had anything to do with. Because, let's face it, a government is perfectly capable of protecting embassies. That Syria wasn't able to stop the burning of the Norwegian embassy was always suspicious to me. This whole thing escalated for weeks before the embassy was burned. It was the most important topic everyday in the papers and on the news, that no steps were taken to prevent this isn't something I buy.
> 
> Anyways, if a state is involved in the attack on an embassy (either directly with support or indirectly through lack of defence), that is most certainly a hostile act against the affected nation though.



Well the thing is that the Chinese government was more or less allowing the mob to trash the Japanese embassy. Anti-Japanese sentiment is one of the few acceptable outlets that the Chinese government allows for popular rage, although they are trying to combat that now.



> I think he was comparing it to the cartoons. Flag-burning is way more offensive than some satirical comics.
> 
> I don't think people in Europe care that much about flag-burning either, but it's possible you Americans are more used to it.



Flag burning is generally considered more offensive than cartoon in the US too. There was a point when they try to make it illegal, but it was ruled unconstitutional. After that, people just learned to shrug it off. I haven't heard any comparable cases of Europeans - Danes burning Danish flags, French burning French flags, etc -  burning their own country's flags though.


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

hcheng: The Danish put up with having their embassy trashed because it's not worth starting an argument over something like this. What it boils down to is actually a petty squabble because not all Danes read that paper, nor do they all like what happened, and it probably scared them more than it insulted people. It's quite clear that this issue has caused massive collateral damage to Muslims and other non-Muslims from the Middle East who are trying to integrate themselves in Denmark, because these rioteers ruin years of work in Denmark. 

It's also obvious that Denmark wants to be there for countries like Syria in other disputes, and therefore they had to bite their tongue and accept what happened, which is pretty hard to explain to your voters who are not accustomed to seeing this. I don't want to make a comparison but I can imagine that Americans have seen their flags burned more than the Danish people have, so the reactions change over time.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> hcheng: The Danish put up with having their embassy trashed because it's not worth starting an argument over something like this. What it boils down to is actually a petty squabble because not all Danes read that paper, nor do they all like what happened, and it probably scared them more than it insulted people. It's quite clear that this issue has caused massive collateral damage to Muslims and other non-Muslims from the Middle East who are trying to integrate themselves in Denmark, because these rioteers ruin years of work in Denmark.
> 
> It's also obvious that Denmark wants to be there for countries like Syria in other disputes, and therefore they had to bite their tongue and accept what happened, which is pretty hard to explain to your voters who are not accustomed to seeing this. I don't want to make a comparison but I can imagine that Americans have seen their flags burned more than the Danish people have, so the reactions change over time.


Given the extreme and seriousness of what happened.

Have the Danish attitudes changed?


----------



## Borel (Jan 5, 2010)

Muslim extremists are ridiculous.


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Given the extreme and seriousness of what happened.
> 
> Have the Danish attitudes changed?



Depends, it's only one issue in Danish politics, but if you mention immigration and the Danish people's party, it's agiven you'll have a brawl with someone about it. Most people in Denmark are liberal or social democrats/labour, so it seems they are overlooking the incident and trying to reconcile the differences between immigrants and the nationalists there. Many Danes are bothered that after being so liberal towards immigrants, some people have still asked for new blasphemy laws.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> Depends, it's only one issue in Danish politics, but if you mention immigration and the Danish people's party, it's agiven you'll have a brawl with someone about it. Most people in Denmark are liberal or social democrats/labour, so it seems they are overlooking the incident and trying to reconcile the differences between immigrants and the nationalists there. Many Danes are bothered that after being so liberal towards immigrants, some people have still asked for new blasphemy laws.


So it polarized people?


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

No, most people there are still liberal about immigration.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 5, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> I was trying to go for the extreme barbarity of some to illustrate a point.



barbarity is a point of view, culture is a combination of rituals (for lack of better word) and ideas shared by a group of people with certain similarities (be it origins or residence)

every culture considers barbaric the differences in culture between each other; americans find cannibalism to be barbaric, while cannibal tribes may find your mistrust of neighbors and those with whom you share your world (in a manner of speaking) to be barbaric

it's very hard to put one culture over the other when they all consider each other to be barbaric and monstrous


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> Depends, it's only one issue in Danish politics, but if you mention immigration and the Danish people's party, it's agiven you'll have a brawl with someone about it. Most people in Denmark are liberal or social democrats/labour, so it seems they are overlooking the incident and trying to reconcile the differences between immigrants and the nationalists there. Many Danes are bothered that after being so liberal towards immigrants, some people have still asked for new blasphemy laws.



Maybe because the guy still lives. 

Things have changed quite a bit in Holland. 
Though a history of overly political correctness and politics ignoring problems with the ""multi-cultural paradise"" is partly cause of the shift we have seen.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 5, 2010)

Psycho said:


> barbarity is a point of view, culture is a combination of rituals (for lack of better word) and ideas shared by a group of people with certain similarities (be it origins or residence)
> 
> every culture considers barbaric the differences in culture between each other; americans find cannibalism to be barbaric, while cannibal tribes may find your mistrust of neighbors and those with whom you share your world (in a manner of speaking) to be barbaric
> 
> it's very hard to put one culture over the other when they all consider each other to be barbaric and monstrous


You say that because the different subjective approaches contradict one another, the objective approach is to accept them all as "equal".

In this case, there is simply no objective way to tell which morality/culture is better. The best you can get is _inter-subjectivity_, which is a synoym for _consensus_ and still essentially different from "objective truth" as you probably define it.

There is no _objective_ way at all to tell which morality/culture is superior, or inferior, _or equal_... _Equality_ is still a value judgement, and thus by definition determined by morality/culture.

That's the mistake you're making here, and it's leading you into a quagmire of logical contradictions : how can you decide to do one thing rather than another, if everything is just the same? You've negated the very possibility of subjectivity and thus of your own life! How can you decide that cultures are equal without comparing them, evaluating them beforehand, _and how do you evaluate them if not using your own culture's standards_? 

The solution is simple: accept that there's no such thing as a culture that can be accepted equally by people with different moral axioms, that there's no such thing as a neutral, objective point of view. Also accept that you have a personal morality and have to act according to it.

If a bear is trying to kill your friend, it certainly has a good reason for doing it, in bear culture, but it doesn't fit into your own culture. Thus you shoot the bear.

Same goes for shooting nazis and cannibals. You have to accept that morality is subjective; but nevertheless, it is absolute. And cannibals , like nazis, need to be stopped in the name of this subjective yet absolute morality.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 5, 2010)

Sasuke RULES said:


> some of you still call the insulting drawings " freedom of expression " ?! oh my God it's no use you don't know Respect at all !! why to argue with such bastards then ?!



They ARE freedom of expression.

Saying anything else is applying the term freedom of expression selectively in order to only further your own interests.

Freedom of expression has NOTHING to do with showing respect. We can't have "respect" codified in law. That would be completely ridiculous and blatantly offensive to a civilized free society.


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> Maybe because the guy still lives.
> 
> Things have changed quite a bit in Holland.
> Though a history of overly political correctness and politics ignoring problems with the ""multi-cultural paradise"" is partly cause of the shift we have seen.



Of course that could change things, like if we have a van Gogh incident as in the Netherlands. Incidentally, the bounty on his head was upped to 5.5 million DKK / just under 1 million USD, approximately. The power of this bounty however seems to be rather weak if it only incites a mentally ill man to seek out the cartoonist. Van Gogh on the other hand was much more of an active figure. We'll just have to see what happens, and now the cartoonist has a body-guard 24/7 around him. 

I think the myth of the multi-cultural state is dying, people talk of a multi-ethnic state in my neighbourhood. The change of tone is quite noticeable, and these cartoons' controversy has probably sped up the process towards finding a rational solution. We have to teach our children what is right and wrong after all, and multi-culturalism has been tightly linked with cultural relativism by politicians in northern Europe. And the fear associated with it is undeniable. I really wouldn't mind speaking up for Muslims and 1st generation immigrants if they identified by nationality first, and not by their religion first. Just the sound of a Muslim Dane is linguistically incorrect, which shows the power of language-culture as well here. You are a Dane first, and then Muslim. I think people are more likely to find a national identity because of this and because cultures do meld to fit in with the pre-existant norm, and the whole war on terror nonsense has simply thrown this trend off-course for a short decade. But it's going to reset itself as Muslims in Europe prove that they are just as law-abiding as any other European, be they Christian, secular or whatnot.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> Of course that could change things, like if we have a van Gogh incident as in the Netherlands. Incidentally, the bounty on his head was upped to 5.5 million DKK / just under 1 million USD, approximately. The power of this bounty however seems to be rather weak if it only incites a mentally ill man to seek out the cartoonist. Van Gogh on the other hand was much more of an active figure. We'll just have to see what happens, and now the cartoonist has a body-guard 24/7 around him.
> 
> I think the myth of the multi-cultural state is dying, people talk of a multi-ethnic state in my neighbourhood. The change of tone is quite noticeable, and these cartoons' controversy has probably sped up the process towards finding a rational solution. We have to teach our children what is right and wrong after all, and multi-culturalism has been tightly linked with cultural relativism by politicians in northern Europe. And the fear associated with it is undeniable. *I really wouldn't mind speaking up for Muslims and 1st generation immigrants if they identified by nationality first, and not by their religion first. Just the sound of a Muslim Dane is linguistically incorrect, which shows the power of language-culture as well here. You are a Dane first, and then Muslim.* I think people are more likely to find a national identity because of this and because cultures do meld to fit in with the pre-existant norm, and the whole war on terror nonsense has simply thrown this trend off-course for a short decade. *But it's going to reset itself as Muslims in Europe prove that they are just as law-abiding as any other European, be they Christian, secular or whatnot.*



But there in lies the problem, Toby, especially in Europe.

Many Muslims identify themselves as a Muslim first, and then their national identity (if they even do that).  From what I've witnessed and read, it's not as prevalent in the US when Muslims come over here.  I used to live in Mission Hill (subsector of Boston) that housed a large population of Somalis.  I talked to a few and they would ID themselves as Americans, especially those who just got the citizenship.  Hell, they'll wear it like a damn badge of honor which is no problem for me whatsoever knowing there are natural citizens who aren't nearly as grateful.  I don't know what the case is in Denmark and the like with full knowledge.

Also, there's no doubt that the Muslim population in Europe are by large law-abiding and good folk.  Only morons and people like Wilders/Le Pen would tag the lot as such.  But again, like any group, the crazy and more outspoken bunch ruin it for everyone.  Just look at the American conservative sect, completely ruined by the likes of Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, Bachmann, etc.

It'll take time to dislodge the notion where national identity and religion are constant enemies.


----------



## Black Wraith (Jan 5, 2010)

What's wrong with putting Muslim before British?

Both aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 5, 2010)

It sounds pretentious and also shows you value your religion over your own fucking country?


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

It could be culture-strength that determines whether a person adopts its national identity. If, theoretically speaking, people act in unison, or show great unity when rejecting or approving of someone, there is greater pressure to accept the mainstream view. In the US you only have two major parties whereas in European parliamentary countries opinion is very fractured. 

Alternatively, there is a theory that American national identity is so diffuse that it does not require too much effort to become one. I really like how open-minded people are there. It's a different type of behaviour than in Europe where identity is very stringent.



Black Spirit said:


> What's wrong with putting Muslim before British?
> 
> Both aren't mutually exclusive.



It's linguistically incorrect for one. Second, it's precisely the sort of statement which makes people fear where your loyalties lie, and whether you respect religious doctrine more than the laws of your country. Take into account the Islamophobia in the newspapers, stories about women being abused, and you can see how people join the dots. It's not so much a problem to be both, but how you present it.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jan 5, 2010)

Mael said:


> But there in lies the problem, Toby, especially in Europe.
> 
> Many Muslims identify themselves as a Muslim first, and then their national identity (if they even do that). .





In which case they can identify as muslim first, moroccan second, and Dutch third (if even that) in certain cases. 

If you then also have a lack of integration, you risk getting ""arabistan"" inside your own country. 

In which case immigration seems more like invasion.  




Toby said:


> I think the myth of the multi-cultural state is dying, people talk of a multi-ethnic state in my neighbourhood. The change of tone is quite noticeable, and these cartoons' controversy has probably sped up the process towards finding a rational solution. We have to teach our children what is right and wrong after all, and multi-culturalism has been tightly linked with cultural relativism by politicians in northern Europe. And the fear associated with it is undeniable.



thank god yes. And it was indeed linked with cultural relativism, ignorant of the many points where certain cultures conflict. You cant remain tolerant to intolerance.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> Alternatively, there is a theory that American national identity is so diffuse that it does not require too much effort to become one. I really like how open-minded people are there. It's a different type of behaviour than in Europe where identity is very stringent.



Despite how the media portrays it and despite how culturally ignorant (although many are still welcoming) a lot of Americans are, we really don't care where you come from.  There are those that refuse to assimilate into culture which of course causes rabble-rousing in places like Texas but honestly, give it time and it all comes into the fold.  Ethnically speaking, despite protests over the centuries, the American identity has become as you put it so diffuse that it's pretty much that document that grants you citizenship that makes you American, *regardless of ethnic background*.  Being American is indeed *more a title* than ethnicity which is why it's easier for everyone to adopt it as an identity.  Of course there are people who think that a true American is the country-born, corn-fed, good ol' boy from Nebraska, but that's typically a fringe mentality.



> It's linguistically incorrect for one. Second, it's precisely the sort of statement which makes people fear where your loyalties lie, and whether you respect religious doctrine more than the laws of your country. Take into account the Islamophobia in the newspapers, stories about women being abused, and you can see how people join the dots. It's not so much a problem to be both, but how you present it.



It's ok to place religion higher than national identity on a personal level, but when you start evading the national laws and regulations, then it's a problem.  *When in Rome, do as the Romans do.*  You're not going to make London like Riyadh, so you might as well accept that when you become a Brit, you should ID yourself as a Brit and go by both codes.  I can understand if Muslim is the preferred word used to describe oneself, but as I stated before, put it on a personal level.

Again though, it matters per country.  Most Muslims I've met here in the States refer to themselves as American Muslims or just do what many ethnicities/cultures do and say Muslim-American.  I, however and like Bruce Lee back in the day, would prefer just saying American, because everyone that's a citizen here regardless of background is an American and nothing else need be added.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jan 5, 2010)

Black Spirit said:


> What's wrong with putting Muslim before British?
> 
> Both aren't mutually exclusive.



shows you put religion above nation, which makes me distrust your loyalties in periods when these might conflict.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> shows you put religion above nation, which makes me distrust your loyalties in periods when these might conflict.



Well now, to be fair, the US has people like them.

We call 'em Quakers.


----------



## Fuzzly (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> Alternatively, there is a theory that American national identity is so diffuse that it does not require too much effort to become one. I really like how open-minded people are there. It's a different type of behaviour than in Europe where identity is very stringent.


 
We don't identify by nationality. We identify by economic status/race/religion. People here can be just as close-minded and cliquey as they are anywhere else. It's just that we have such a large population most generalizations of our people is meaningless.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> Depends, it's only one issue in Danish politics, but if you mention immigration and the Danish people's party, it's agiven you'll have a brawl with someone about it. *Most people in Denmark are liberal or social democrats/labour* so it seems they are overlooking the incident and trying to reconcile the differences between immigrants and the nationalists there. Many Danes are bothered that after being so liberal towards immigrants, some people have still asked for new blasphemy laws.



When you say liberal, what exactly do you mean by that? Being British I associate liberalism to be very similar to social democracy, so when you say liberal do you mean it in a sense which has similar social views/policies, but with fiscally conservative policies?


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 5, 2010)

Black Spirit said:


> What's wrong with putting Muslim before British?
> 
> Both aren't mutually exclusive.



theres nothing wrong with putting muslim before british


----------



## Xyloxi (Jan 5, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> theres nothing wrong with putting muslim before british



Well, it isolates people from society and makes Muslims look different, more so than other religions. I'd find it strange if I knew a Christian who was Christian before British, same for a Hindu or a Jew.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> theres nothing wrong with putting muslim before british



If you haven't read the papers, you haven't noticed it kinda does denote something wrong with it.

It's fine on a personal level, but from a legal and national standpoint it doesn't help.  Besides, since not everyone shares the same mindset as you, especially atheists, putting God before nation is almost like a joke to some.  Of course you can value religion as extremely important but if some people are really willing to create havoc on civilians in the name of a god, then putting the identity of religion over nation has no place there.

People would get the same treatment if they were some fringe Christian who would call himself a Christian instead of an American.  It just doesn't bode too well with the rational lot of us.  When asked what religion you follow, if you say Christianity that's fine, because you're being asked specifically about your religion.


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> We don't identify by nationality. We identify by economic status/race/religion. People here can be just as close-minded and cliquey as they are anywhere else. It's just that we have such a large population most generalizations of our people is meaningless.



If you say so. But at the same time a lot of people will say that they are American, and the fact that we cannot make a definition which all Americans fit under is proof that people feel that they have something in common, even if there is no actual physically tangible similarity that unites them. 



Xyloxi said:


> When you say liberal, what exactly do you mean by that? Being British I associate liberalism to be very similar to social democracy, so when you say liberal do you mean it in a sense which has similar social views/policies, but with fiscally conservative policies?



I mean that they are left wing. They can be socially liberal, socialist or any other liberal who tends to be left-wing on the social issues. Fiscally speaking, I cannot place the Danes. Most parties in this part of Europe are pro-interventionist in economic-related politics no matter what.


----------



## Mael (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> If you say so. But at the same time a lot of people will say that they are American, and the fact that we cannot make a definition which all Americans fit under is proof that people feel that they have something in common, even if there is no actual physically tangible similarity that unites them.



Don't pay too much attention to that post.  I can't remember the last time I ever asked someone to identify themselves and they responded as a middle-class black person or upper-class Asian.  He's just trying to be a downer in a compliment you provided.  My friend doesn't say he's Buddhist, he says he's American.  When asked by outsiders, we say American, not well-to-do whitey.  Amongst ourselves, we use race but honestly it's more just for discerning who we're talking about.



> I mean that they are left wing. They can be socially liberal, socialist or any other liberal who tends to be left-wing on the social issues. Fiscally speaking, I cannot place the Danes. Most parties in this part of Europe are pro-interventionist in economic-related politics no matter what.



If you say this, as a European, then I feel horribly inadequate in my knowledge of European political/societal leanings.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> I mean that they are left wing. They can be socially liberal, socialist or any other liberal who tends to be left-wing on the social issues. Fiscally speaking, I cannot place the Danes. Most parties in this part of Europe are pro-interventionist in economic-related politics no matter what.



Ah, I see so you could say they're more like the Lib Dems and Labour in the UK as opposed to the FDP in Germany? I'd say pro-interventionist policies are part of most parties in Europe as well, I mean the Tories over here in the UK probably would do something, if they wanted to stay in power, but Cameron has to say something different to Brown and Clegg as the leader of the opposition.


----------



## abcd (Jan 5, 2010)

Black Spirit said:


> What's wrong with putting Muslim before British?
> 
> Both aren't mutually exclusive.





Tokoyami said:


> It sounds pretentious and also shows you value your religion over your own fucking country?





Toby said:


> It's linguistically incorrect for one. Second, it's precisely the sort of statement which makes people fear where your loyalties lie, and whether you respect religious doctrine more than the laws of your country. Take into account the Islamophobia in the newspapers, stories about women being abused, and you can see how people join the dots. It's not so much a problem to be both, but how you present it.





Zabuzalives said:


> In which case they can identify as muslim first, moroccan second, and Dutch third (if even that) in certain cases.
> 
> If you then also have a lack of integration, you risk getting ""arabistan"" inside your own country.
> 
> ...





Mael said:


> Despite how the media portrays it and despite how culturally ignorant (although many are still welcoming) a lot of Americans are, we really don't care where you come from.  There are those that refuse to assimilate into culture which of course causes rabble-rousing in places like Texas but honestly, give it time and it all comes into the fold.  Ethnically speaking, despite protests over the centuries, the American identity has become as you put it so diffuse that it's pretty much that document that grants you citizenship that makes you American, *regardless of ethnic background*.  Being American is indeed *more a title* than ethnicity which is why it's easier for everyone to adopt it as an identity.  Of course there are people who think that a true American is the country-born, corn-fed, good ol' boy from Nebraska, but that's typically a fringe mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Zabuzalives said:


> shows you put religion above nation, which makes me distrust your loyalties in periods when these might conflict.





Mael said:


> Well now, to be fair, the US has people like them.
> 
> We call 'em Quakers.





Al-Yasa said:


> theres nothing wrong with putting muslim before british





Xyloxi said:


> Well, it isolates people from society and makes Muslims look different, more so than other religions. I'd find it strange if I knew a Christian who was Christian before British, same for a Hindu or a Jew.





Toby said:


> If you say so. But at the same time a lot of people will say that they are American, and the fact that we cannot make a definition which all Americans fit under is proof that people feel that they have something in common, even if there is no actual physically tangible similarity that unites them.



Religion and nationalism are essentially the same thing .. They divide people , make a normal good guy even kill people in the name of the country /religion ... even make them heroes of some sort ... 

Religions and politics use each other wisely in times of need...  U will notice this when u observe how Islamophobia is completly tied to the middle east while not many know that Indonesia has the highest islamic population in the world, Burma , malaysia contribute to it a lot too .... 

A practical ideal world will be the one with a UN with actual power, all members with equal voice , no visa regulations, freedom to move anywhere in the world without any visa ( like in schengen) ... , One currency etc.... one can only dream


----------



## Sefarian (Jan 5, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> We don't identify by nationality. We identify by economic status/race/religion. People here can be just as close-minded and cliquey as they are anywhere else. It's just that we have such a large population most generalizations of our people is meaningless.



I've never once run into someone who identified themself based on their economic status unless it was in a joking, self derogatory manner. Generally, the only time you ever _do_ run into someone identifying another on a personal level based on economic status it's usually done purely as an insult against someone you otherwise dislike. In terms of census and survey we identify this way, sure, but that's hardly ever done on a personal level.


----------



## Andy Dufresne (Jan 5, 2010)

Freedom, go to hell!


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 5, 2010)

DOODLES! I MUST DEFEND MY GOD AGAINST HIS ONLY WEAKNES! LUHLUHLUHLUHLUHLUHLUH


----------



## Toby (Jan 5, 2010)

Mael said:


> If you say this, as a European, then I feel horribly inadequate in my knowledge of European political/societal leanings.



Wait, why? Scandinavians are insanely leftist. The rest of Europe is different.



Xyloxi said:


> Ah, I see so you could say they're more like the Lib Dems and Labour in the UK as opposed to the FDP in Germany? I'd say pro-interventionist policies are part of most parties in Europe as well, I mean the Tories over here in the UK probably would do something, if they wanted to stay in power, but Cameron has to say something different to Brown and Clegg as the leader of the opposition.



More like those two, aye. I don't know about Germany's FDP so I don't know how they compare unfortunately. The Tories in the UK might have done a few things differently like selling Northern Rock for scraps, but in terms of dealing with the recession they probably wouldn't have spent money so differently from Labour. Of course, it's easy for Cameron to talk that way since he is probably entering government after a recession, and it's damn easy to be fiscally conservative then, because politicians should let prices adjust and rise to meet the increase in money supply. In the rest of Europe this is already underway, and house market prices are already adjusting.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 5, 2010)

Toby said:


> More like those two, aye. I don't know about Germany's FDP so I don't know how they compare unfortunately.



The FDP are libertarian assholes. They try to appeal to the upper middle class and rich people. Socially they're somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Vanity (Jan 5, 2010)

Here's another article on it that's more detailed than the one posted in the OP:



I mean, I can understand why people wouldn't like that cartoon and would get upset about it but it's pretty hardcore that the artist has to have special protection and worry about getting KILLED for the rest of his life because of it.


----------



## dummy plug (Jan 5, 2010)

lol art...

that's pretty hardcore though...i mean if it was christ people would be mad but i dont think we'd resort to that violence...then again its 2010


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jan 5, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> I was trying to go for the extreme barbarity of some to illustrate a point.



Which is humorous because you base this on cultural taboo; not a universal truth.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 6, 2010)

N120 said:
			
		

> Okay lets get his backstory then, i'd like to hear about his stuggle against the evil tide of extremism that held him back before this cartoon, please go ahead.


Toby already went over it, but here you go

This guy at the time was a 70 year old cartoonist who had been doing editorial cartoons his entire life. 
After the incidents to Theo Van Gogh, Salmon Rushdie, and other cartoonists where commentary on Muhammad resulted in violence against those who did. A Dutch magazine asked prompted cartoonist to draw editorial cartoons involving Muhammad. 

They asked this to illustrate the problems with the fear and violence that targeted those who had made commentary on Muhammad, as well as other social commentary on current day Islam. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> No they dont, your generalising peoples thoughts and opinions, but then again i expect that from you  .


It?s in the Quran. Unless you know Muslims who don?t believe the Quran is correct then YES THEY DO!

Please by all means tell me the Muslims who don?t believe in the Quran!



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Anyways I find alot of things offensive too, like racism for example but i tolerate it. People are allowed to hold their own views and i have no problem with that as long as it isnt directed towards me, but if you racially attack me then I have a right to be offended and respond.


You ONLY have the right to respond with VIOLENCE when VIOLENCE is acted upon you. That you are offended doesn?t give you the right to be violent. NOR does it give you the right to blame someone for violence taken against them, and justify the actions of those being violent. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> lol, so im not allowed to talk about insults...what happened to standing up for yourself and HUMAN RIGHTS you were talking about? Hypocracy


When did not being insulted become a human right?



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> sympathy from you? no thanx. I was just giving a backdrop, a reflection of the environment we live in and an example of tolerance of other peoples opinions including attacks and insults, its also there to highlight the difference of our reaction towards those kind of attacks and this cartoon, now why would that be?
> 
> and can you please drop that silly accusations, ive dealt with that already. If I wanted him dead i would say it clearly, the fact that i havent done so and have condemned extremism shouldve been enough to show my views are actually quite the opposite


why would that be? You were trying an appeal to emotion to try and play the victim of some down trodden people who deserve special treatment. 

Accusation, you have admitted it. You blame him for the violent, have declared a justification through blame. 
Your condemnation hold no weight and no conviction, they are meaningless because you blame him. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> If this is as close ive come to covering your points, then it either means:
> A) theres very little points worth covering
> B) You need glasses.
> C) all of the above.
> ...


You have never argued about the ONGOING violence against those who comment on Muhammad and the NEED for social commentary on Muhammad to illustrate this point. 

Show me where in your argument you dealt with this? Show where you disagree or counter EITHER of these points in your response!



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> 1. what kind of reaction was he after by attacking the prophet via the cartoons which are forbidden in islam?
> 2. already covered it, i'd like to see what he was fighting.
> 3. Dont be stupid, Ive been here for 2-3 years and have responded to many insults and tolerated many more, i accept it as a norm. yet i havent used or called for violence on anyone in all that time, instead ive spent time responding with words. so again another baseless accusation..atleast your good at it


1)	First, the cartoon was to illustrate that extremists use the Quran as their fuel for extremist. They use Muhammad for their cause. That is why Muhammad is there because Muhammad is what the extremist use. If you want to take that as an insult YOU MAY, but the POINT of the cartoon was not to insult Muhammad. 
Next, he wasn?t after a reaction as you describe it, he was trying to illustrate a point. If there was any ?reaction? it was for people to realize that Muslim extremist use Muhammad and Quran in FAR WORSE ways then ANY CARTOON EVER COULD. 
2)	Considering he just survived an attempted assassination, it is fucking stupid for you to ask what he is fighting. 
3)	This entire conversation was about how you don?t expect to be insulted. You claim that the cartoons should not have been published because you felt insulted. How is this a baseless accusation? You then go on to blame this person when people attack him, justifying this violence. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Both are obvious, neither is justification. If i call him an idiot for stirring up trouble then it is obvious.
> If i say he deserves what he got because so and so then its justification.
> 
> so no i didnt justify it, only criticized his choice of action.


No, they are not both obvious and yes, the second one is a justification. 
Calling him an idiot and blaming him for the violence is a justification. 

Here let?s give an example. 

Let?s say a woman is wearing a headscarf and is walking down a street. She gets attack and beaten for being a Muslim. 
Was she an idiot because there are BNP extremists who target Muslims for attack and is to blame because displaying she is a Muslim could cause her to be attacked?

No?

That you identify a DIFFERENCE here between this woman and the cartoonist shows that you JUSTIFY the cartoons attack, and don?t justify the attack on woman. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Saying he is inviting attention from extremist elements = justification? i would of thought its more like a warning, something to be aware of?
> 
> the rest answered above.


YES, it is, because he didn?t invite ANYTHING. 

Do you invite an attacked because you are Muslims in Britain?

Inviting means that you are justifying the reaction. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> never said they were justified, please learn to read.


You don?t use the word because you know it will be used against you, but your entire argument is based on the fact that you believe the attacks are justified. 

This is a comparable situation
Man 1: I believe all races are inferior to mine. 
Man 2: That?s racist.
Man 1: What? I never said I was racist.



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Again your holding onto this non-existant 'justication' as a lifeline as to avoid my argument, i have asked you many times already how does insulting a whole group of people highlight any of his points about extremists? If your having problem with extremist then attack them by all means, but why attack everyone else along with them to? and why would you go out of your way to pick a figure to depict that no muslim can accept due to faith? Im not going to give up my beliefs just to appreciate his artwork.


You just quoted my response. 

?the intention was to illustrate that the Muslim extremist use the violent passages from the Quran as fuel for their violence.?

He used a picture of Muhammad because the extremist use Muhammad. If people are insulted by a cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb, WHY ARE THEY NOT JUST AS INSULTED WHEN A EXTREMIST USES HIS WORDS AS CAUSE TO BOMB CIVILIANS!

Where is the bombing of the embassies of the 9/11 hijackers? 

Do you still not accept that terrorist use Muhammad and Quran to inspire acts of terrorism? Do you think that they do this for a secular reason?



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> i was right your not from this world at all.
> 
> not double standards.
> 
> If he is allowed to insult because he is 'free' then why am i not allowed to excercise that freedom too? double standard? yes, but on your part not mine.


Exercise that freedom by justifying the attempt to take away of his life. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> maybe something like: "The west hates you, its why they bomb muslims over there and are insulting you and treating you like a second class citizens over here"


Lol, you don?t need a cartoon for that lie to continued, all you need is a black puppy on a police card.

You can *make up* any slight you want and continue this until claim of victimization. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> Again more generalisations, more baseless arguments and even more baseless accusations. whats the matter?


Lol, no counter I see. 



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> you've pretty much just disregarded everything said untill now, countered nothing, added nothing and are now desperatly resorting to making up your own argument to argue against as if somehow it holds any merit. it's fuckin insane, but what a creative tactic, genius!
> 
> dont bother replying, im done with this topic. just going round in circles.


Lol, you ask me direct question and then say don?t bother replying. 

What happened halfway through the post you realize you were justify the actions and now want to quit because you know you?re wrong.

Rofl.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jan 6, 2010)

I think I will let the next three pictures make my point.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 6, 2010)

what the fuckin hell is that about?


----------



## Mael (Jan 6, 2010)

What...that people are so afraid of insulting Islam?  Or Islam is a religion so afraid of being insulted?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 6, 2010)

_It's not that I don't care...It's just I can't find how to care_ - Hand Banana


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 6, 2010)

By the way, how is putting religion before nationality wrong? Both are complete accidents.


----------



## Hwon (Jan 6, 2010)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> I think I will let the next three pictures make my point.



 XP, McAfee, and a multitude of worthless browser tools!

The horror...


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jan 6, 2010)

Hwon said:


> XP, McAfee, and a multitude of worthless browser tools!
> 
> The horror...



lucky thing i closed the porn on the other tabs.


----------



## Mαri (Jan 6, 2010)

Lol 5 years ago.


----------



## santanico (Jan 6, 2010)

Sad, that people would take an insult thrown at their religion to such an extreme. Once upon a time, the colonies were just as bad.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 6, 2010)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> I think I will let the next three pictures make my point.



Is that a yahoo search bar on your browser? Seems like your point is invalidated.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 6, 2010)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> I think I will let the next three pictures make my point.



I love the point you are making, 

But jebus look at the shit you installed, did you lose a bet?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 6, 2010)

Must be an old person with all those search engines. Pogo.com is his homepage. This thread is now about all the search engines he has.


----------



## abcd (Jan 6, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Must be an old person with all those search engines. Pogo.com is his homepage. This thread is now about all the search engines he has.



dont u think he has too many l's in his google username


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jan 6, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I love the point you are making,



Yes the preferential treatment of Islam is everywhere. Google is prepared to suggest "bullshit" as a potential end to "Christianity is..." but suggests nothing for "Islam is ..."




sadated_peon said:


> But jebus look at the shit you installed, did you lose a bet?



No, i just don't really give a darn, that stuff piggy backed in on something i may have used once and since i'm lazy and never bother deleting anything it stays, it doesn't bother me. You should see my desktop


----------



## Hand Banana (Jan 6, 2010)

abcd said:


> dont u think he has too many l's in his google username



That means he's a terrorist plotting to destroy America.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 8, 2010)

From the authors mouth himself:



> "As I see it, many of the immigrants who came to Denmark, they had nothing. We gave them everything - money, apartments, their own schools, free university, health care. In return, we asked one thing - respect for democratic values, including free speech. Do they agree? This is my simple test."


----------

