# Mohammed cartoonist attacked while giving lecture



## Grrblt (May 11, 2010)

http://www.thelocal.se/26590/20100511/ said:
			
		

> Artist Lars Vilks, who caused controversy by drawing cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog, has been attacked while giving a lecture at Uppsala University.
> 
> Vilks, who has been the subject of numerous death threats, was attacked while speaking at the university?s philosophy faculty on Tuesday afternoon. He was not badly hurt.
> 
> ...



captured on camera at  but you can't really see anything


----------



## Grrblt (May 11, 2010)

I guess it doesn't say in the English article but the lecture was about free speech.


----------



## Mael (May 11, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> I guess it doesn't say in the English article but the lecture was about free speech.



Apparently this guy had an issue with it. 

Small backlash imminent.  Safety goggles are imperative.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?


----------



## Shasta McNasty (May 11, 2010)

It's a shame that anyone would even need that supposed protection.


----------



## Mael (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?



We ironically do the same for extremist Christians and Muslims in the nation.  This man is no different except for the fact he's not actively preaching violence.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Shasta McNasty said:


> It's a shame that anyone would even need that supposed protection.





Mael said:


> We ironically do the same for extremist Christians and Muslims in the nation.  This man is no different except for the fact he's not actively preaching violence.



alot of people need protection from lunatics , sure , but let's say u r a KKK grand wizard and antagonize people to the point they make death threats, why should tax dollars be wasted to protect that person?


----------



## Mexican God Lvl 3 (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?


Too bad no one lives in the world you do, where gum drops fall from the sky and rainbows appear every single day.


narutosimpson said:


> alot of people need protection from lunatics , sure , but let's say u r a KKK grand wizard and antagonize people to the point they make death threats, why should tax dollars be wasted to protect that person?


Ur analogies are horrible. U miss many of the aspects, and u justify it with ur own reality and justice.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Mexican God said:


> Too bad no one lives in the world you do, where gum drops fall from the sky and rainbows appear every single day.



say something meaningful or stfu.


----------



## Mael (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> alot of people need protection from lunatics , sure , but let's say u r a KKK grand wizard and antagonize people to the point they make death threats, why should tax dollars be wasted to protect that person?



They shouldn't...but that piece of paper called the Constitution said they can say stupid shit and not get killed for it.  Gotta stick to your principles no matter what, I guess.


----------



## Watchman (May 11, 2010)

So not ten posts in and already Narutosimpson is considering a satirist equivalent to the leader of the KKK. Dat's sum good rationality right thar.


----------



## Mexican God Lvl 3 (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> say something meaningful or stfu.



Don't stfu me


----------



## Juno (May 11, 2010)

> According to local newspaper Uppsala Nya Tidning, the atmosphere in the lecture theatre became rowdy after Vilks showed a film with sexual content.



So is this what it was about?


----------



## Mael (May 11, 2010)

Juno said:


> So is this what it was about?



People wanted to get their swerve on and this guy Vilks was all like, "Nuh uh...can't get your drink on an' swerve on before I give you a lecture, guys."

Someone called him out on his BS.


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2010)

The cartoon was about Mohammad as a dog?  I thought it was just him with the bomb for a turban?


----------



## Watchman (May 11, 2010)

Different cartoon, Mider. Remember, it's the laughably bad one that looks like something a nursery child would have scribbled out?


----------



## N120 (May 11, 2010)

Don't blame them, if i was watching his presentation i would've done much more than just a headbutt.

But thats just me.


----------



## Grrblt (May 11, 2010)

Better video


----------



## Al-Yasa (May 11, 2010)

.meh.

dont give a damn wat happens to Lars Vilks


----------



## Momoka (May 11, 2010)

That's what you get with free speech


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> .meh.
> 
> dont give a damn wat happens to Lars Vilks



Don't worry, we didn't expect you to.


----------



## Mael (May 11, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> .meh.
> 
> dont give a damn wat happens to Lars Vilks



That's because you're Muslim.  If this guy was Muslim making fun of Jews or anyone else you'd care.


----------



## Glued (May 11, 2010)

I would have left the room


----------



## Mintaka (May 11, 2010)

Once again a bunch of barbarians go after an artist.


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> alot of people need protection from lunatics , sure , but let's say u r a KKK grand wizard and antagonize people to the point they make death threats, why should tax dollars be wasted to protect that person?



Why? Because of liberty? Freedom of speech? Usually if the government could prevent it, they would. This guy was showing some controversial stuff, but eh, I dunno what you guys have heard about how liberal Scandinavia is. Showing porn in a university class would not be that radical. Showing fetish porn would be.

Anyway, I cannot see propery in the video. I think that the kid in the front row is a douche who should be fined and put on a restraint-order. Especially since other news sources say that the guy was in a larger group that attempted to disrupt the lecture.

I mean really you need to put the foot down somewhere, and the guy was holding a lecture. Go protest somewhere else.

Anyway, however quirky you may find Vilks, he is no grand wizard of the KKK. Vilks draws shit, he does not go around demanding racial purification, and this whole debate is bollocks.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 11, 2010)

N120 said:


> Don't blame them, if i was watching his presentation i would've done much more than just a headbutt.
> 
> But thats just me.



I find your comment offensive, I don't blame anyone for doing much worst to you. 

but thats just me.


----------



## abcd (May 11, 2010)

The video had a name "Alla ho gaybar" ... 

I somehow think he is antagonizing Muslims in the name of free speech .... I do expect some people to react like that when such videos are shown ... People of any religion .


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

Eh, it happens.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Why? Because of liberty? Freedom of speech? Usually if the government could prevent it, they would. This guy was showing some controversial stuff, but eh, I dunno what you guys have heard about how liberal Scandinavia is. Showing porn in a university class would not be that radical. Showing fetish porn would be.
> 
> Anyway, I cannot see propery in the video. I think that the kid in the front row is a douche who should be fined and put on a restraint-order. Especially since other news sources say that the guy was in a larger group that attempted to disrupt the lecture.
> 
> ...



protecting freedom of speech might technically be correct, we (i mean americans) are free to say most anything, but the guy is also abusing the freedom.  Freedom of speech would especially mean freedom to criticize the govt and the authority figures and not be silenced when protesting the powerful people.  So you are really trying to prevent being oppressed by the governing powers with freedom of speech.

The freedom to say "i think your god is a dog and your way of life is lowly, and my god is high and mighty and we are better than u" is the dumber end of free speech.  Which the community now has to foot the bill to protect the dumbass from the lunatic fringe that will act out on that speech.  Surely he wasn't targeting mainstream muslims was he?

also was the attacker even muslim?  the article implies the attack was over the cartoon, but i didn't see the evidence of it.


----------



## superattackpea (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?



I couldn't be more proud that my tax dollars go to protect freedom of speech.

Also,


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

superattackpea said:


> I couldn't be more proud that my tax dollars go to protect freedom of speech.
> 
> Also,



i don't think u understand what freedom of speech means, look at my post above.


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> protecting freedom of speech might technically be correct, we (i mean americans) are free to say most anything, but the guy is also abusing the freedom.  Freedom of speech would especially mean freedom to criticize the govt and the authority figures and not be silenced when protesting the powerful people.  So you are really trying to prevent being oppressed by the governing powers with freedom of speech.
> 
> The freedom to say "i think your god is a dog and your way of life is lowly, and my god is high and mighty and we are better than u" is the dumber end of free speech.  Which the community now has to foot the bill to protect the dumbass from the lunatic fringe that will act out on that speech.  Surely he wasn't targeting mainstream muslims was he?
> 
> also was the attacker even muslim?  the article implies the attack was over the cartoon, but i didn't see the evidence of it.



Freedom of speech in America is traditionally almost only about criticising government. In other countries it is not solely about government. Scandinavia is a socially progressive region on the planet, and it wont stop being that just because a few idiots are upset about Vilks. Most of the social revolutionaries in Sweden and Norway were controversial heroes. This is not repulsive to us the same way it is repulsive to you, and we would not say that this is an abuse of freedom of speech. This was a culture-lecture, and our governments have a tendency to protect artists who are "out there" as it were.

I do not see whether or not the guy was a Muslim nor really how it matters. He assaulted the prof and I think the guy should be fined like all other delinquents who do the same, or at least escorted off campus. Uppsala is a solid university and this guy clearly belongs to a group of immature gits who should have restrained their friend.


----------



## Grrblt (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> protecting freedom of speech might technically be correct, we (i mean americans) are free to say most anything, but the guy is also abusing the freedom.


Freedom of speech exists for that reason - letting you abuse it. You wouldn't need freedom of speech if nobody wanted to use it to say shit.


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2010)

Grrblt said:


> Freedom of speech exists for that reason - letting you abuse it. You wouldn't need freedom of speech if nobody wanted to use it to say shit.



He is referring particularly about the speech where you say 

"lets go kill the blacks/jews/ethnic group"

which is forbidden both in Sweden and Norway, and possibly Denmark. I cant remember.


----------



## abcd (May 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Freedom of speech in America is traditionally almost only about criticising government. In other countries it is not solely about government. Scandinavia is a socially progressive region on the planet, and it wont stop being that just because a few idiots are upset about Vilks. Most of the social revolutionaries in Sweden and Norway were controversial heroes. This is not repulsive to us the same way it is repulsive to you, and we would not say that this is an abuse of freedom of speech. This was a culture-lecture, and our governments have a tendency to protect artists who are "out there" as it were.
> 
> I do not see whether or not the guy was a Muslim nor really how it matters. He assaulted the prof and I think the guy should be fined like all other delinquents who do the same, or at least escorted off campus. Uppsala is a solid university and this guy clearly belongs to a group of immature gits who should have restrained their friend.



I still think there is a difference between freedom of speech and provoking people ... I do agree that reacting to cartoons is a bit much but when a video like that is shown people do react like that.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Scandinavia is a socially progressive region on the planet, and it wont stop being that just because a few idiots are upset about Vilks. Most of the social revolutionaries in Sweden and Norway were controversial heroes. This is not repulsive to us the same way it is repulsive to you, and we would not say that this is an abuse of freedom of speech. This was a culture-lecture, and our governments have a tendency to protect artists who are "out there" as it were.



well, alright, i can't say i know much about scandanavia and the cultural or political climate.  I can imagine scenarios where the guy's sketches are meaningful works of art and not just trolling, so maybe those scenarios apply in scandanavia.  As an american, I doubt they apply to the american poster above who wants to copy troll muslims by "drawing mohammed" on a special day.


----------



## Omnipotent|Uchiha (May 11, 2010)

Here is the full good quality video for anyone who wants to see.

Those extremists are pretty damn crazy


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2010)

Obviously the 'freedom heroes' want to take this to a full scale war between western nations and Muslim ones, as such acts and dis-respectfulness of Islam, its figures and its teachings clearly aren't appreciated by Muslims all over the world.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> well, alright, i can't say i know much about scandanavia and the cultural or political climate.  I can imagine scenarios where the guy's sketches are meaningful works of art and not just trolling, so maybe those scenarios apply in scandanavia.  As an american, I doubt they apply to the american poster above who wants to copy troll muslims by "drawing mohammed" on a special day.



You don't get to decide. 

do you understand this concept. 

*YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE!*

Freedom of speach is not up to your person preference on what is art or of value and what is not. You are not special, your opinion is not law, and the rights of individuals are not up to your preference. 

You are not an objective reasoned opinion from which freedom of speach is governed, you are just one more voice in a choas. 


You saying that this shouldn't be allowed IS NOT DIFFERENCE to someone else saying that people shouldn't be allowed so say that women get the right to vote, or blacks get the right to vote, or that we shouldn't burn witches. 

It is only your preference and nothing else. 

free speach is not just protecting speach that YOU AGREE WITH, it is about protecting all speach.


----------



## Altron (May 11, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> .meh.
> 
> dont give a damn wat happens to Lars Vilks


Like anyone would have expected you to either way


----------



## Purgatory (May 11, 2010)

He must be a spy for that stupid muslim site islamradicals.com or whatever the hell it's called. Either way harsh or not, the cartoonist had his right to portray Muhammed as a dog. Not that I'm against the muslim race, I'm just a protector of the first amendment and the implied powers that come with it.

To make it short, butthurt student is butthurt


----------



## Watchman (May 11, 2010)

Purgatory said:


> He must be a spy for that stupid muslim site islamradicals.com or whatever the hell it's called. Either way harsh or not, the cartoonist had his right to portray Muhammed as a dog. Not that I'm against the *muslim race*, I'm just a protector of the first amendment and the implied powers that come with it.
> 
> To make it short, butthurt student is butthurt



                    .


----------



## Purgatory (May 11, 2010)

Watchman said:


> .



                        .


----------



## sadated_peon (May 11, 2010)

Purgatory said:


> Watchman said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


                                            .


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2010)

abcd said:


> I still think there is a difference between freedom of speech and provoking people ... I do agree that reacting to cartoons is a bit much but when a video like that is shown people do react like that.



Look at my post above. Of course there is a distinction, however - it is not about provoking or insulting people, because that is far too subjective. It is where we can make clear distinctions that someone is inciting to violence, and particularly a discriminatory kind of violence, that we make exceptions.

Some countries have a more blurry definition of what it takes to cross the line. I pointed out that Sweden has laws which explicitly forbid racism, and you could not excuse it in the name of freedom of speech. But every country interprets the degree to which there should be a grey area differently. 



narutosimpson said:


> well, alright, i can't say i know much about scandanavia and the cultural or political climate.  I can imagine scenarios where the guy's sketches are meaningful works of art and not just trolling, so maybe those scenarios apply in scandanavia.  As an american, I doubt they apply to the american poster above who wants to copy troll muslims by "drawing mohammed" on a special day.



Now see, I am still drawn on this draw mohammed holiday thing. I don't know if it will serve a good purpose. It is one thing for newspapers here in Scandinavia to print our drawings, and the primary reason it is done now is to show support for the artist who was almost murdered. But across the pond, it seems like this is simply a war about freedom of speech. To us, it is about the protection of people, and the concern seems quite validated.



Ryan said:


> Obviously the 'freedom heroes' want to take this to a full scale war between western nations and Muslim ones, as such acts and dis-respectfulness of Islam, its figures and its teachings clearly aren't appreciated by Muslims all over the world.



Are we talking about a culture war? Because as far as I can tell, no Muslim life is threatened by these drawings, but the cartoonists on the other hand have to suffer for doing their job, and in addition to this, they have their rights trampled on at home. Exactly how would it look if a Muslim scholar was attacked in one of his lectures in the Middle East by, say, a European kid who lumped Islamic teachings in the same booth as the political system of sexual oppression in Saudi Arabia? He would be wrestled to the ground by the police there, and rightly so. Just like in Sweden. You don't go attacking a lecturer trying to do his job. He is not breaking the law. It is really simple.

You all need to step the hell back and get some perspective. There is no way that you can justify this behaviour just because Vilks showed a video with sexual content. 

And fucking hell, the ignorance of some of you is astounding. These artists have their lives threatened because they are doing their job, living their fucking dreams in their home countries, following the law like any other good citizen - and for some mindblowingly retarded reason we should think ah, it's okay to beat them up when they draw something we don't like?

Clearly many of you have got serious issues.


----------



## Vanity (May 11, 2010)

This doesn't surprise me. I'm sure that if you draw something like that, you're likely to potentially get attacked pretty much any day for the rest of your life.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> alot of people need protection from lunatics , sure , but let's say u r a KKK grand wizard and antagonize people to the point they make death threats, why should tax dollars be wasted to protect that person?


Because the law has to remain at least somewhat impartial. Even then, the KKK Grand Dragon isn't just drawing something. You can't compare the two really.


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (May 11, 2010)

They're so kind.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Now see, I am still drawn on this draw mohammed holiday thing. I don't know if it will serve a good purpose. It is one thing for newspapers here in Scandinavia to print our drawings, and the primary reason it is done now is to show support for the artist who was almost murdered. But across the pond, it seems like this is simply a war about freedom of speech. To us, it is about the protection of people, and the concern seems quite validated



Even here, at least to me its not wholly a free speech issue. When you think about it, free speech has consequence. But the thing that I think is that its to prove a point about protection here too and to prove the point that this is just stupid and asinine. 

Any religion or culture that things that a simple drawing of someone is worth killing over, is the wrong choice. Period. And not all Muslims people or even most believe that, but to anyone who's offended by the idea that a religion could be wrong for this, tough shit. Killing someone over a drawing is just wrong.


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2010)

Well my problem is that the drawings are getting old and I don't see Muslims as dogs, nor do I see their foremost prophet that way. 

What I do take issue with are the violent hooligans who are threatening the safety of my fellow countrymen, and that is pretty much the emotional driving force that keeps the campaign going in Scandinavia. It is not meant to be anti-Muslim, but an affront to fanatics. Those who do use it to offend Muslims are a minority, as can be seen in most countries when you count how many racist parties there are and how large their supporter base is. :/


----------



## abcd (May 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Look at my post above. Of course there is a distinction, however - it is not about provoking or insulting people, because that is far too subjective. It is where we can make clear distinctions that someone is inciting to violence, and particularly a discriminatory kind of violence, that we make exceptions.



Look at the video posted on page 2 , It shows him starting a video named "Allah ho gaybar"  , Then something in arabic pops up and some nude videos /pictures...

I could bet that U would get a similar reaction if u go to a classroom in texas and show Jesus go gaybar ... and show jesus in provocative ways ...

Its not humour like southpark where a reaction against the show is foolish .... Here it looks different and such a reaction should be expected.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 11, 2010)

N120 said:


> Don't blame them, if i was watching his presentation i would've done much more than just a headbutt.
> 
> But thats just me.





Al-Yasa said:


> .meh.
> 
> dont give a damn wat happens to Lars Vilks



What the fuck you guys? Get a sense of humor.


----------



## Toby (May 11, 2010)

abcd said:


> Look at the video posted on page 2 , It shows him starting a video named "Allah ho gaybar"  , Then something in arabic pops up and some nude videos /pictures...
> 
> I could bet that U would get a similar reaction if u go to a classroom in texas and show Jesus go gaybar ... and show jesus in provocative ways ...
> 
> Its not humour like southpark where a reaction against the show is foolish .... Here it looks different and such a reaction should be expected.



I did watch it, but the reaction is unacceptable. You don't do that to a lecturer. You don't do that at all. The reaction is far worse than what he is showing in my opinion.

Anyhow, the point I am making is that you have to let these people make their statements unless they are directly starting a fight. In this case we have a the prime example of a man who capitalises on pushing those limits. Vilks himself prides himself on making art pieces that are controversial, however never before have they actually resulted in an outrage like this. Even though he is quite far out there, he still doesn't deserve to be headbutted for it.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

I don't like the idea in this thread that what people do are just images. Images are just as powerful as words and can elicit all the same emotions and reactions as they can. If someone was enraged by someone insulting them, or something important to them, to their face, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and hit them the reaction would be getting far more rationalized. 

Anyway this isn't necessarily a bad thing for the artist. It simply means his art is actually meaningful enough to someone to make them resort to violence.


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the fuck you guys? Get a sense of humor.



Apologists lack a sense of humor, as seen in their previous posts on this subject.


----------



## Mintaka (May 11, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the fuck you guys? Get a sense of humor.


Silly seto, humour is against their religion.


----------



## Koi (May 11, 2010)

What is a "roundabout dog"?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> You don't get to decide.
> 
> do you understand this concept.
> 
> ...



i don't know where i said i'm censoring anyone or anyone must be silenced. I'm just making my own judgments on someones speech, and toby is making his own judgments.  Your whole post is kneejerk crap.



Toby said:


> Well my problem is that the drawings are getting old and I don't see Muslims as dogs, nor do I see their foremost prophet that way.
> 
> What I do take issue with are the violent hooligans who are threatening the safety of my fellow countrymen, and that is pretty much the emotional driving force that keeps the campaign going in Scandinavia. It is not meant to be anti-Muslim, but an affront to fanatics. Those who do use it to offend Muslims are a minority, as can be seen in most countries when you count how many racist parties there are and how large their supporter base is. :/



When i think of this topic I parallel free speech to a city and it's neighborhoods of varying safety.  people are free to wander anywhere they want, and i would think in a sense freedom to move about is a greater freedom than freedom of speech.  But what the civil authorities don't do is babysit you and make sure you don't go into a neighborhood that might be tough and dangerous.  If you choose to "go there" you take your chances with the people you find there.  Police and emergency workers job is to clean up the mess afterwords in a sense   But to ask civil law enforcement to protect some average person so they can go any place they want, to me it's an extension of authority of the govt and law enforcement.  

Then again i guess these kind of things have been thought up by people with special law degrees and in law


----------



## vivEnergy (May 11, 2010)

I would probably shoot them on the spot like hooligans, afterall ain't that what they came for  ?


----------



## Eboue (May 11, 2010)

im willing for my tax money to go towards protecting people who piss of radical idiots. Freedom of speech aint picky and choosy and i would rather people bate and troll than not express their extreme opinions. Its hard but i think essentially everyone here agrees with the premise of freedom of speech, they just aint entirely sure its worth death, which is valid but essentially i think its a right worth paying and even dying for. (Easy for me to say because im not exactly in a dangerous position i understand)


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Eboue said:


> im willing for my tax money to go towards protecting people who piss of radical idiots. Freedom of speech aint picky and choosy and i would rather people bate and troll than not express their extreme opinions. Its hard but i think essentially everyone here agrees with the premise of freedom of speech, they just aint entirely sure its worth death, which is valid but essentially i think its a right worth paying and even dying for. (Easy for me to say because im not exactly in a dangerous position i understand)



that's interesting , the first thing i can think of is, if i became a professional bait and troller, i could get full time security paid for by u, the taxpayer.  shoot, i'll just bait and troll everyone, like hardcore, using dung and sperm.


----------



## Bender (May 11, 2010)

Ha! Once again the idiots are chumps for flamebait!


----------



## Shoddragon (May 11, 2010)

Mael said:


> They shouldn't...but that piece of paper called the Constitution said *they can say stupid shit and not get killed for it.*  Gotta stick to your principles no matter what, I guess.



....no. you have free speech to a certain limit. you can say stupid shit all you want, but when your free speech starts infringing on the rights of others ( via death threats as an example)it becomes a crime.  otherwise we would have people going around calling black people ^ (use bro) and the black people would get arrested for fighting back or something.

purposefully saying things to start fights is also unlawful.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

so, u guys think if jews were to get trolled like this, they would call the troller an anti-semite?


----------



## Adonis (May 11, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Obviously the 'freedom heroes' want to take this to a full scale war between western nations and Muslim ones, as such acts and dis-respectfulness of Islam, its figures and its teachings clearly aren't appreciated by Muslims all over the world.



If supposedly peaceful muslims would let mean drawings initiate a war, it reflects poorly on them.

Of course, I don't think most Muslims are *violent* butthurt idiots; just butthurt.

SMH @ The "Violent Lunatics" apologists. You're patronizing sympathy is doing more harm to the image of Islam than even stories like this. It's one thing if a lone nutjob descends to violence; it's another entirely when others rush to his defense.

Just because one can understand why a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather would resort to violence doesn't justify it or even make their offense valid.

@ Shoddragon:
Black people do get arrested for responding to racial slurs with violence. It's assault and even slurs don't legally justify physical retaliation.

If the cartoon should expect violence for inciting outrage, shouldn't the outraged person expect to be arrested for assault? Why the double-standard? "If you draw mean cartoons, expect to be attacked! WHY IS HE BEING ARRESTED FOR ASSAULTING THAT LECTURER!?"


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> If supposedly peaceful muslims would let mean drawings initiate a war, it reflects poorly on them.
> 
> Of course, I don't think most Muslims are *violent* butthurt idiots; just butthurt.
> 
> ...



that's some 911 call: "hey can u send the cops, i was calling some dude a n*gger and a spearchucker, and all of the sudden he just roundhouse kicked me, i want that N*gger in cuffs "


----------



## Juno (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> so, u guys think if jews were to get trolledy like this, they would call the troller an anti-semite?



Sure. And they'd be utilising the same free speech as the one they're responding to, unlike resorting to violence and threats which is illegal.

If the worst muslims did in response to trolling was to whine about racism, the controversy would have died down years ago.


----------



## Adonis (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> that's some 911 call: "hey can u send the cops, i was calling some dude a n*gger and a spearchucker, and all of the sudden he just roundhouse kicked me, i want that N*gger in cuffs "



That dude would be in the right. If it was just one roundhouse kick, the cops would probably let it slide as a heat of the moment thing; it he was continuing to assault the dude, however... 

Regardless, doesn't sitting in on a lecture you know is insulting to Islam then reacting to said insult pre-meditation. If I knowingly sat in on a lecture entitled "^ (use bro) are scum!" I couldn't pull that, "I was just so shocked and offended I exploded!" horseshit.

Of course, drawing a mean picture of Muhammed isn't a direct insult like a racial slur; it's only because Muslims convince themselves he's such an integral part of themselves that such reactions occur. In other words, they're conditioned to be over-emotional in regard to their prophet.


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?



Lunatics? I think they are more than that, or at least the ones that threaten people over it and attack them.



> If supposedly peaceful muslims would let mean drawings initiate a war, it* reflects poorly *on them.
> 
> Of course, I don't think most Muslims are violent butthurt idiots; just butthurt.


----------



## magholor (May 11, 2010)

*Muhammad Cartoonist attack by student during lecture.*

The video speaks for itself.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oLvwMxwHFs&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]





> (AP) STOCKHOLM — A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday as furious protesters interrupted his university lecture about the limits of free speech.
> 
> Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man leaped from the front row and head-butted him as he was delivering his lecture at Uppsala University, breaking Vilks' glasses but leaving him uninjured.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

Wow...isn't there already a thread about this? o.O


----------



## magholor (May 11, 2010)

Crap, I missed it somehow. Sorry.

Close.


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

Ah, I'm pretty sure they won't hurt ya for it. Just remember to look next time, kay?


----------



## Mider T (May 11, 2010)

Don't understand how you missed it but okay.  Merging.


----------



## magholor (May 11, 2010)

Shoddragon said:


> ....no. you have free speech to a certain limit. you can say stupid shit all you want, but when your free speech starts infringing on the rights of others ( via death threats as an example)it becomes a crime.  otherwise we would have people going around calling black people ^ (use bro) and the black people would get arrested for fighting back or something.
> 
> purposefully saying things to start fights is also unlawful.



Well, there was that black guy who shot and killed a white kid because he was throwing out racial slurs on his property at night. The black guy got 1 year or so in prison because he played the race card in court.

So, I don't know if blacks would be hurt more in such a situation since people would likely support the black person. I get what you are going at though.

I have a question though. 

What if I went to the middle east and wanted to do some of thing I like to do in the west there? I would get arrested right? So, why do people seem to be up in arms when western countries try to prevent things they don't like? If a western country wants to ban the burqa why are some muslims up in arms, when they would punish us in their country we if did things they didn't like.

Seems like a weird double standard.

Sorry, off topic, but carry on.


----------



## Bleach (May 11, 2010)

Haha funny. Guy had it coming.


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

He probably did a quick scan by eye and just passed over it. I've seen it happen a lot ^.^

And someone tried telling me Muslims don't attack you... *shakes head*
I'm sure there are Muslims that don't...but where are they? Why don't they get the bad Muslims to stop?


----------



## magholor (May 11, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Don't understand how you missed it but okay.  Merging.



Sorry, I searched Muhammad, and nothing came up...


----------



## Bender (May 11, 2010)

Well at least we know how to get to the terrorist. 

Yay for more drawings of Mohammad!!! 

pek pek pek 

However, a question for all the terrorist out there are you aware how stupid and pathetic you look by being enraged by a pic of a fictional character such as Mohammad?


----------



## Bleach (May 11, 2010)

Says the guy talking to terrorists on an anime/manga forum


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> He probably did a quick scan by eye and just passed over it. I've seen it happen a lot ^.^
> 
> And someone tried telling me Muslims don't attack you... *shakes head*
> I'm sure there are Muslims that don't...but where are they? Why don't they get the bad Muslims to stop?



Because it's not their job to stop people from doing what they want to.


----------



## Bender (May 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Says the guy talking to terrorists on an anime/manga forum



That no make sense chico. 

Maybe later I'll go looking for a Islam/Muslim forum and hit them with a barrage of pics of Mohammad looking like a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Draffut (May 11, 2010)

Shoddragon said:


> ....no. you have free speech to a certain limit. you can say stupid shit all you want, but when your free speech starts infringing on the rights of others ( via death threats as an example)it becomes a crime.  otherwise we would have people going around calling black people ^ (use bro) and the black people would get arrested for fighting back or something.
> 
> purposefully saying things to start fights is also unlawful.



As long as you don't endanger *other* people with your speech, like encourgaing people to attack politicians or somethng, then you have the right to say whatever hte fuck you want.  If your speech endangers your own ass, that's your own fault and choice.

And yes, if someone hits you for calling them a ^ (use bro) or drawing a picture of Muhammed, they should be arrested.


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> However, a question for all the terrorist out there are you aware how stupid and pathetic you look by being enraged by a pic of a fictional character such as Mohammad?


I don't think they are aware of it, Blaze of Glory. 



> Maybe later I'll go looking for a Islam/Muslim forum and hit them with a barrage of pics of Mohammad looking like a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


I'd like to see that.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Well at least we know how to get to the terrorist.
> 
> Yay for more drawings of Mohammad!!!
> 
> ...



It's not fictional to them.


----------



## Filum (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> However, a question for all the terrorist out there are you aware how stupid and pathetic you look by being enraged by a pic of a fictional character such as Mohammad?




haha +1 !

Well my take on this is that in scandinavia we have strong affinity for provocative humour and satirical images.
And especially in Denmark, we hold our right to express our thoughts, whatever they may be, very.. very.. .very highly.

What I see in this current to draw or not to draw Mohammed thing going is;
Clash of cultures.
Afterall we in the western world have always and will hopefully always have our freedom of speech, but the people getting butthurt have backgrounds in other cultures and laws regarding this matter, no?
Not to mention they think so highly of their religion..

Furthermore I think it's great that artists and journalists are willing to put their lives at stake (which in all fairness, shouldn't be a problem in the first place) cause they can, and cause they are willing to defend their right to do so.


----------



## Ennoea (May 11, 2010)

I can't be the only one sick to the fucking back teeth of this fucking issue. Let it fucking go already, he drew it years ago. Yes the one with the bomb on Mohammed's head was offensive but get annoyed, write an angry letter and fucking get over it already.


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> I can't be the only one sick to the fucking back teeth of this fucking issue. Let it fucking go already, he drew it years ago. Yes the one with the bomb on Mohammed's head whttp://forums.narutofan.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=32676408as offensive but get annoyed, write an angry letter and fucking get over it already.



*whispers*
They can't let things go, you see. They'll send a present to his door, upon there'll be a note to read. Now, in the box they'll wait and hide. 
Until his curiosity Entices him to look inside! And then they'll have him one, two, three!

Oh wait...isn't that a song?


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Because it's not their job to stop people from doing what they want to.


That's true...but they could at least try to reason with em


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> That's true...but they could at least try to reason with em



Extremists aren't the type you reason with.


----------



## magholor (May 11, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> I can't be the only one sick to the fucking back teeth of this fucking issue. Let it fucking go already, he drew it years ago. Yes the one with the bomb on Mohammed's head was offensive but get annoyed, write an angry letter and fucking get over it already.



I am also sick of it. Their cause would gain a lot more credibility if they didn't seem so extreme in their action. Death threats and beatings? Sorry, please more civil protests.


----------



## Bender (May 11, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> It's not fictional to them.



Ain't it cute how delusional America's enemies are. So just because they believe he exist he does.  That's like the mentality of a child that believes in the tooth fairy or the boogie man.


----------



## Terra Branford (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Ain't it cute how delusional America's enemies are. So just because they believe he exist he does.  That's like the mentality of a child that believes in the tooth fairy or the boogie man.


Or Santa Claus?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Ain't it cute how delusional America's enemies are. So just because they believe he exist he does.  That's like the mentality of a child that believes in the tooth fairy or the boogie man.



There are a lot of childish beliefs in the world, not all of them associated with religion. 

We recently had the one where investing in the stock market will "over the long term" yield a good return. Or the other than Iraq was an imminent threat to our security. 

I find that people have substituted secular idiotic beliefs for religious idiotic beliefs, and I fail to see the progress in that. How is "I should refinance my house to buy a BMW" better than "I believe that Allah will sweep away all enemies of Islam"?


----------



## Adonis (May 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I find that people have substituted secular idiotic beliefs for religious idiotic beliefs, and I fail to see the progress in that.



I agree with this. Secularism shouldn't be considered the finish line in the pursuit of intellectual scrutiny.



> How is "I should refinance my house to buy a BMW" better than "I believe in Allah"?



This, however, is a bad parallel. Bad fiscal sense is hardly representative of the type of "secular idiotic beliefs" comparable to religious ones being neither socially-patholigical nor an issue of strict rationality.


----------



## Bleach (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> That no make sense chico.
> 
> Maybe later I'll go looking for a Islam/Muslim forum and hit them with a barrage of pics of Mohammad looking like a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).



...... Your opinions are automatically fail after that


----------



## Spirit (May 11, 2010)

♥~Momolicious~♥ said:


> That's what you get with free speech



Free headbutt? No want plz.


----------



## Bender (May 11, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Or Santa Claus?



Oh yeah Santa too


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Ain't it cute how delusional America's enemies are. So just because they believe he exist he does.  That's like the mentality of a child that believes in the tooth fairy or the boogie man.



Or how America's founding fathers believed that we're endowed with certain unalienable rights by our creator.


----------



## Purgatory (May 11, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Or how America's founding fathers believed that we're endowed with certain unalienable rights by our creator.



My, someone's a little anti-American today. Long time no see my friend.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 11, 2010)

Purgatory said:


> My, someone's a little anti-American today. Long time no see my friend.



It's just an example.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (May 11, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Or how America's founding fathers believed that we're endowed with certain unalienable rights by our creator.



we are 

but people feel they can violate other's rights and claim their own actions as their "freedom of speech" or some similar shit


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> There are a lot of childish beliefs in the world, not all of them associated with religion.
> 
> We recently had the one where investing in the stock market will "over the long term" yield a good return. Or the other than Iraq was an imminent threat to our security.
> 
> I find that people have substituted secular idiotic beliefs for religious idiotic beliefs, and I fail to see the progress in that. How is "I should refinance my house to buy a BMW" better than "I believe that Allah will sweep away all enemies of Islam"?


Don't you get tired of pretending that these people have any clout? Killing someone over a drawing is pretty stupid, period. There's no argument to be had. Stop it.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Killing someone over a drawing is pretty stupid, period. There's no argument to be had. Stop it.



the drawing is stupid, it doesn't serve an intellectual purpose, it's incendiary.  The artist just wanted to incite people, there's no argument to be had.  Stop it.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> the drawing is stupid, it doesn't serve an intellectual purpose, it's incendiary.  The artist just wanted to incite people, there's no argument to be had.  Stop it.



ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWA


----------



## Draffut (May 11, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> the drawing is stupid, it doesn't serve an intellectual purpose, it's incendiary.  The artist just wanted to incite people, there's no argument to be had.  Stop it.



Actually, it does serve a purpose, a very important one.  To show that we should not be intimidated into giving up our freedoms for other people's personal beliefs and fear mongering.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 11, 2010)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Actually, it does serve a purpose, a very important one.  To show that we should not be intimidated into giving up our freedoms for other people's personal beliefs and fear mongering.



Sorry, i'm not buying it, cause i would have thought all the bombs we dropped on their heads would prove that point, not to mention the ones we keep in storage.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> Sorry, i'm not buying it, cause i would have thought all the bombs we dropped on their heads would prove that point, not to mention the ones we keep in storage.


Doesn't matter what you're buying, its not as if people care what you think its within their rights to do. That's just my two cents


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Doesn't matter what you're buying, its not as if people care what you think its within their rights to do. That's just my two cents



worthless argument but ill address this issue in fact both parties are in the wrong, the artist for provoking and the attackers for being unable to keep their emotions in check. 

freedom of speech is an idiotic argument


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Doesn't matter what you're buying, its not as if people care what you think its within their rights to do. That's just my two cents



So, doesn't matter what you're saying, it's not as if terrorists care what you think is within their rights to do so.

You're maintaining that Lars should only be able to make more drawings and the terrorists should be able to make and carry out more threats, because what he/they think is right is not necessarily right for them/him.

If that's your rationale, then you're proposing no solution at all. You talked like you care, but you actually don't.

So I should say to myself, way to go Captain Obvious!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

helihound said:


> worthless argument but ill address this issue in fact both parties are in the wrong, the artist for provoking and the attackers for being unable to keep their emotions in check.
> 
> *freedom of speech is an idiotic argument*


Then stop exercising yours and keep your arguments to yourself. 




Tokyo Jihen said:


> So, doesn't matter what you're saying, it's not as if terrorists care what you think is within their rights to do so.
> 
> You're maintaining that Lars should only be able to make more drawings and the terrorists should be able to make and carry out more threats, because what I think is right is not necessarily right for you.
> 
> ...



You're talking like you know what the fuck I think, when in truth you don't. Terrorists don't have any right to commit terrorist acts, especially over something so stupid. If your feelings are hurt by this, don't look at it, simple as that.


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're talking like you know what the fuck I think, when in truth you don't. _Terrorists don't have any right to commit terrorists acts_, especially over something so stupid. If your feelings are hurt by this, don't look at it, simple as that.



I may not know what you think exactly, but I know this problem, and I think as a person who appreciate freedom of speech, I get where you're coming from. But the point I'm trying to get to by quoting you is, hiding behind "freedom of speech" is not going to solve this as it means shit to the terrorists. Therefore condoning further insult is just going to make it worse.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Actually, it does serve a purpose, a very important one. * To show that we should not be intimidated into giving up our freedoms* for other people's personal beliefs and fear mongering.




Do you honestly feel that our freedom of speech is somehow in jeopardy? 

IMO, it is alarmist to suggest that our freedoms are precarious, and somehow hinge on Muhammad cartoons.

This reminds me of the incident where the media tried to convince Americans that freedom of the press hinged on Judith Miller's ability to publish falsified Iraq info.


----------



## abcd (May 12, 2010)

Toby said:


> I did watch it, but the reaction is unacceptable. You don't do that to a lecturer. You don't do that at all. The reaction is far worse than what he is showing in my opinion.
> 
> Anyhow, the point I am making is that you have to let these people make their statements unless they are directly starting a fight. In this case we have a the prime example of a man who capitalises on pushing those limits. Vilks himself prides himself on making art pieces that are controversial, however never before have they actually resulted in an outrage like this. Even though he is quite far out there, he still doesn't deserve to be headbutted for it.



I do agree that the others were in the wrong but to them it was a choice between their lecturer and  "God" . It was clearly not about the cartoons he drew in the past but about the video he was showing during the lecture.

I wonder why the part about the video is clearly missing in the news?

While I agree with South parks way of potraying mohammad , I think what Vilks is doing is in bad taste


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2010)

It's unbelievable the way some of you people are.

Just fucking LOOK at what you're doing.

You're standing up for and trying to justify the actions of people who use violence to promote their ideologies. People who use violence to try to stamp out freedom of speech and freedom of thought, things you should all value very much.

If you hate freedom so fucking much and love the damn extremists, then fucking leave whatever little posh country you live in and go live in a goddamn cave in Afghanistan.


----------



## santanico (May 12, 2010)

Did this guy know what he was getting himself into? I mean I'm all for freedom of speech but, it looks like he was asking for it.. meh, whatever.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

It doesn't work like that.

You want to make this an issue, instead of dropping it, then we will fight you.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then stop exercising yours and keep your arguments to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



listen kid, don't use the word freedom without knowing what it means.

number one i wasnt exercising my "freedom" of speech

number two i didnt start an argument i merely stated facts

and 
lastly

number three: you used the word exercising in the wrong context please don't use words you dont know the meaning of, if i indeed was "exercising" my freedom of speech tell me how i put it to use to accomplish anything?

now to address your idiotic second statement

one: who are you to say who has rights and who doesnt

two: you saying terrorists commit acts for stupid reasons is nothing but opinion

three: the don't look at it argument is extremely childish

four: i grow tired of 10 years old like you acting like you knowing anything about this world when its highly probable u live a simple average life and therefore know nothing at all, ironic really.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2010)

Starr said:


> Did this guy know what he was getting himself into? I mean I'm all for freedom of speech but, it looks like he was asking for it.. meh, whatever.



See...just LOOk at the shit you're saying.

Nobody's "asking for" any damn thing. These goddamned Muslim Extremists don't get to dictate what people can and cannot say. One of the foundations of a free society is the right to express your thoughts and feelings _without fear of repercussion_.

Why don't some of you pull your heads out your asses, pay more attention in history class and develop some god damned pride in western values before they're gone?


----------



## mystictrunks (May 12, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Nobody's "asking for" any damn thing.



Sure they are. Having the ability to freely express yourself means you have the ability to make people angry. As a result bad things happen sometimes. If someone spends a good amount of time doing things to offend a large group of people there's a good chance someone they offended will retalitate, especially if done to their face. 

It happens all the time to Neo-Nazis and such. Not that artists are Neo-Nazis and sorry to any artist I offended with this comparison.


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

Ridiculous. You offended artists and now they're gonna draw you on a dog. I expect your fans to headbutt the first one to draw you.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 12, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> Ridiculous. You offended artists and now they're gonna draw you on a dog. I expect your fans to headbutt the first one to draw you.



Fuck a headbutt. They better stomp them out.


----------



## Toby (May 12, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> i don't know where i said i'm censoring anyone or anyone must be silenced. I'm just making my own judgments on someones speech, and toby is making his own judgments.  Your whole post is kneejerk crap.
> ...
> Then again i guess these kind of things have been thought up by people with special law degrees and in law



In these cases I think the case is quite clear. Let's draw a parallel to Ann Coulter's entrance in Canada. She was invited to lecture at a university, and similarly, so was Vilks. They should at the least be allowed to hold their lectures without being attacked. I am not asking for anything more than that because this is just plain fundamental respect for the law.

If Vilks was walking around at Uppsala uni without university permission, I'd be less forgiving, but no matter how you frame the law, allowing people to assault the guy is still wicked and a violation of the principles of our law. I don't like how art is an excuse to do pretty much everything, which is why I draw the line where there is a direct line of harm. 

Remember the artist who wanted to let a dog die from starvation? That's not acceptable. If Vilks was drawing a living Muslim in this respect, I would have issue with it too. But symbols and icons, the way I see it, need to be free game. 



abcd said:


> I do agree that the others were in the wrong but to them it was a choice between their lecturer and  "God" . It was clearly not about the cartoons he drew in the past but about the video he was showing during the lecture.
> 
> I wonder why the part about the video is clearly missing in the news?
> 
> While I agree with South parks way of potraying mohammad , I think what Vilks is doing is in bad taste



While I didn't watch Swedish news, the story didn't flare up so much in the press media as it has on NF. The press here doesn't care so much about these cartoons any more, at least not as much as the rest of the world does. The press has also proven its point that it can and will print whatever it wants, so I think it is going to move on with other stories. Vilks is also incendiary in general in Sweden and Europe overall because of his art, and people would consider it a ploy for sympathy if we exaggerated this to the point of it becoming international news.

I've seen the video he showed now, and it's revolting, but I still wouldn't attack someone over this, and I wouldn't look kindly upon anyone who did. It doesn't really matter if their God demands otherwise of them, because our laws do not grant people that sort of freedom to carry out an expression of their faith. It is not nearly equal to say that the guy was free game for a beating after showing a video. The principle for South Park should be the same principle for artists, even people like Vilks. Until he says something racist of course.


----------



## Botzu (May 12, 2010)

Looks like I see alot of victim blaming going on.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> I may not know what you think exactly, but I know this problem, and I think as a person who appreciate freedom of speech, I get where you're coming from. But the point I'm trying to get to by quoting you is, hiding behind "freedom of speech" is not going to solve this as it means shit to the terrorists. Therefore condoning further insult is just going to make it worse.



You don't tell someone stop because something that shouldn't get them killed might get them killed, you let them draw whatever the fuck they want and then you exercise by killing anyone who thinks they have the right to kill someone for it.

Because if there's one thing you always are 100% okay to kill over, its protecting someone who's life is needlessly threatened. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> Do you honestly feel that our freedom of  speech is somehow in jeopardy?
> 
> IMO, it is alarmist to suggest that our freedoms are precarious, and  somehow hinge on Muhammad cartoons.
> 
> This reminds me of the incident where the media tried to convince  Americans that freedom of the press hinged on Judith Miller's ability to  publish falsified Iraq info.



You can't think that someone threatening to kill and blow you up for exercising your freedom is right at all. Guess what, if you can't see how this is jeopardy then you're never going to understand and not worth me bothering with. 

Stop trying to demonize America in this bullshit, this has little to do with us.



helihound said:


> listen kid, don't use the word freedom without knowing what it means.
> 
> number one i wasnt exercising my "freedom" of speech
> 
> ...



Killing someone over a drawing is stupid, sorry but this just shows you're wrong and your point three just adds to the overall silliness of the your argument. Why should anyone else but you think that you're right, my opinion is much more sound. Look calling me a kid is cute and all but it doesn't do a Goddamn thing to help your piss poor argument.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

I think he's right. Their acts are justified.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I think he's right. Their acts are justified.


From the Emirates? That's like asking me about gun rights, your opinion can hardly be called non-biased. 

Meanwhile, I'm a pretty religious person but I wouldn't kill anyone over any drawing of Jesus or Mary, and they've smeared shit on pictures of Mary before. I don't care if a billion people think this reaction is right, they're all wrong and I'll argue that to my dying breath. 

Your opinion is moot though, thanks for trying.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

I'm not debating. I'm saying that when you insult people, they are gonna get you back in one way or another (don't expect hugs or roses), unless they are really really understanding, which you rarely find nowadays. I'd probably kill anyone who insults the prophet in front of me. I'm not kiddin'. You have no business with Islam, and your friendly criticism isn't appreciated. I'm quite the visionary person, however, I fail to see how this is going to help you guys in any way.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I'm not debating. I'm saying that when you insult people, they are gonna get you back in one way or another (don't expect hugs or roses), unless they are really really understanding, which you rarely find nowadays. *I'd probably kill anyone who insults the prophet in front of me. *I'm not kiddin'. You have no business with Islam, and your friendly criticism isn't appreciated. I'm quite the visionary person, however, I fail to see how this is going to help you guys in any way.



And I'm telling you that's wrong. Any religion or prophet that would have you kill over a drawing is the wrong one and you need to start shopping around for a new religion or at least a new sect and a new way of looking at it. 

Look, you don't have any basis to stand on here at all. Even if no one is backing me up, its obvious that you're wrong. You're talking about killing someone over words, images, and childish ideals about insults. You're acting as if everyone should give this thing you believe in respect. Why should I respect anything that drives someone to kill over a drawing? If anything it makes me feel like I should care less about the hurt feelings over this.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Listen cardboard tube knight, first of all im NOT arguing anything so please dont tell me that i have a "poor" argument when im not even debating anything.

second of all you calling them stupid IS opinion so i dont see im "wrong"

now if you didnt notice both right and wrong are subjective meaning there is never really any true wrongs and true rights because these moral values differ from person to person, simple concept hope you can understand.

Now just to get back to you your "argument" has nothing but opinions when your argument has actual factual statements it can be considered valid. However i am not interested in debating anything i merely stated facts (not arguing for the last time)

Now since you have irritated me i guess i will debate whatever u bring up, i just hope you can actually argue on a higher level, though i dont think your capable of that.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

That is your opinion, man. 

Islam doesn't encourage such acts. In fact, the prophet was quite the understanding guy, but I'm going to heaven either way (and I'm not perfect), so why not kill someone who insults me or my religion? I could care less about you respecting my beliefs, but don't go talking about that in front of me. I'd mark you as a useless human being, then kill you and make sure that I get away with it.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I'm not debating. I'm saying that when you insult people, they are gonna get you back in one way or another (don't expect hugs or roses), unless they are really really understanding, which you rarely find nowadays. *I'd probably kill anyone who insults the prophet in front of me. I'm not kiddin'*. You have no business with Islam, and your friendly criticism isn't appreciated. I'm quite the visionary person, however, I fail to see how this is going to help you guys in any way.



That is just a stupid reaction in any perspective. I have Muslim friends that are religious and their views and opinions are the type of Muslims that the western world should hear about more. They whilst condemn the action of the Cartoonist and South Park; also realize that we live in a country where one freedom of speech comes above one freedom of religion.

Also I believe that if you would kill someone over insulting the prophet, you might be getting a skewed vision of Islam; not one that is extremely loving.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

helihound said:


> Listen cardboard tube knight, first of all im NOT arguing anything so please dont tell me that i have a "poor" argument when im not even debating anything.
> 
> second of all you calling them stupid IS opinion so i dont see im "wrong"
> 
> ...



Guess what, what you're posting here is an argument. Learn what the word means and then learn what a valid one is. Do you think I give a darn if you think I'm stupid? I just told you it didn't help your bad argument that you seem to be adding more and more bad points to. 

And posting opinions while attacking the validity of my opinion is poor form. Now please just try to get on topic and stop your little Ad Hominem attack. 

FYI: Threatening to kill me doesn't help your argument either, nor does saying I deserve to die. I'm asshole, I get it, now post a real argument.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> That is your opinion, man.
> 
> Islam doesn't encourage such acts. In fact, the prophet was quite the understanding guy, but I'm going to heaven either way (and I'm not perfect), so why not kill someone who insults me or my religion? I could care less about you respecting my beliefs, but don't go talking about that in front of me. I'd mark you as a useless human being, then kill you and make sure that I get away with it.



i dont see how you can justify killing someone because he insults you, if you re indeed a believer that goes against your holy rulings.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Guess what, what you're posting here is an argument. Learn what the word means and then learn what a valid one is. Do you think I give a darn if you think I'm stupid? I just told you it didn't help your bad argument that you seem to be adding more and more bad points to.
> 
> And posting opinions while attacking the validity of my opinion is poor form. Now please just try to get on topic and stop your little Ad Hominem attack.
> 
> FYI: Threatening to kill me doesn't help your argument either, nor does saying I deserve to die. I'm asshole, I get it, now post a real argument.



LOL

one i never threatened you delusional child nor did i saw you deserve to die.

what am i arguing hmm? how can i be arguing something if i stated facts? facts are already 100 percent proven by definition, please read the definition of argument for fuck sakes.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> That is your opinion, man.
> 
> Islam doesn't encourage such acts. In fact, the prophet was quite the  understanding guy, but I'm going to heaven either way (and I'm not  perfect), so why not kill someone who insults me or my religion? I could  care less about you respecting my beliefs, but don't go talking about  that in front of me. I'd mark you as a useless human being, then kill  you and make sure that I get away with it.



Well if no part of any Islamic sect doesn't encourage this, why is it such a problem? 



R00t_Decision said:


> Punishment for these people, carve the  cartoons of the prophet Mohammed on their forehead. A nice permanent  tattoo. I guess they'll try to remove it literally.



I like how you think.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

helihound said:


> i dont see how you can justify killing someone because he insults you, if you re indeed a believer that goes against your holy rulings.



Not really. We are allowed to fight who fights us. It's all about perspective.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

helihound said:


> one i never threatened you delusional child nor did i saw you deserve to die.



Do you really want to continue this? It's just not going your way: 

Top comment on my VM, proof I didn't say anything to or back over it:  

All of this in response to a neg saying you had bad arguments.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well if no part of any Islamic sect doesn't encourage this, why is it such a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you think.



"worthless argument but ill address this issue in fact both parties are in the wrong, the artist for provoking and the attackers for being unable to keep their emotions in check.

freedom of speech is an idiotic argument"

tell me what im arguing here, since this pathetic discussion originated from here


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Not really. We are allowed to fight who fights us. It's all about perspective.



Where do you draw the line for where someone is fighting you and your belief?

Is it at any violence against Muslims?
Is it at any criticism of Islam?
Is it at any non-believers not converting?


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

How could I? Even the blind can have a perspective.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

R00t_Decision said:


> Which you have none.  So after you kill someone, how would you like me to draw a nice tattoo of the prophet Mohammed on your forehead.



obviously he has a perspective if he is viewing the scenario a certain way so i dont see how he has "none", though i dont agree with his perspective


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Reksveks said:


> Where do you draw the line for where someone is fighting you and your belief?
> 
> Is it at any violence against Muslims?
> Is it at any criticism of Islam?
> Is it at any non-believers not converting?



1. yes. 
2. yes. 
3. no.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> helihound said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



I still want to see an answer to this, I am shocked by your blatant lying and then acting as if you're calling me stupid is a valid defense against anything I've said.


----------



## Outlandish (May 12, 2010)

LOL i would done much worse

but that's just me


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

sigh, number one thats not a threat, number two i didnt say YOU deserved to die you  i said children LIKE you, there is a vast difference between those.

and im not fucking defending anything, i dont see a need to when you are already fucking wrong christ.


----------



## Jin-E (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I'm not debating. I'm saying that when you insult people, they are gonna get you back in one way or another (don't expect hugs or roses), unless they are really really understanding, which you rarely find nowadays. I'd probably kill anyone who insults the prophet in front of me. I'm not kiddin'. You have no business with Islam, and your friendly criticism isn't appreciated. I'm quite the visionary person, however, I fail to see how this is going to help you guys in any way.



It leaves me wondering....havent you heard about the story of Mohammed and that women who used to harass him all the time? She threw trash on him everytime he passed her house and cursed him. One day when she was not outside, Mohammed wondered what was wrong, and after a few more days, he visited her house, only to find her sick. What did he do? He sought to aid her and help her with daily chores until she was healthy again.

If you guys revere Mohammed so much as you claim, then why dont you follow his example in this case? You people demand others to show respect for him, yet you fail to do so yourself by ignoring his example in this regard.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

I'm sorry but your perspective is in my opinion too harsh in the real world, Muhammad accepted that fact that he was going to be criticised and so was Islam but how can you form a view that you can't accept that one has a negative view on Islam and they will talk about it.

I really think that you should try to be the bigger person, either ignore the person , or try to explain to them why what they are doing is wrong. however to mark them as a useless human being and kill them is trying to be a superior being in both judging the person and action


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

R00t_Decision said:


> Sounds like to me it's grounds for a good 6 month ban.



i dont care?, if you want to do a case analysis he is the one provoking me and also using vulgar language

and i suggest you dont be a hypocrite when you told ryan he had no perspective about his own region which is what was implied in your post, cant really tell because of your terrible wording.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

helihound said:


> i dont care?, if you want to do a case analysis he is the one provoking me and also using vulgar language



You were both using vulgar language, depending on ones definition of vulgar


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> It leaves me wondering....havent you heard about the story of Mohammed and that women who used to harass him all the time? She threw trash on him everytime he passed her house and cursed him. One day when she was not outside, Mohammed wondered what was wrong, and after a few more days, he visited her house, only to find her sick. What did he do? He sought to aid her and help her with daily chores until she was healthy again.
> 
> If you guys revere Mohammed so much, then why dont you follow his example in this example? You people demand others to show respect for him, yet you fail to do so yourself by ignoring his example in this regard.



I have heard of it. Now, the question you need to ask yourself; would anyone have blamed him if he kicked her out of his town? I don't think so - just because he was forgiving, it doesn't mean every Muslim is capable of doing the same thing.


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Reksveks said:


> You were both using vulgar language, depending on ones definition of vulgar



yes i agree also putting me at fault.


----------



## Darth (May 12, 2010)

If Vilks was a member on NF I'd neg him.

Dumbass provoked people. What did he expect?


----------



## helihound (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I have heard of it. Now, the question you need to ask yourself; would anyone have blamed him if he kicked her out of his town? I don't think so - just because he was forgiving, it doesn't mean every Muslim is capable of doing the same thing.



forgive me to intrude but by your logic the bombing of iraq and afghanistan are justified since they have been insulting Christianity.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I have heard of it. Now, the question you need to ask yourself; would anyone have blamed him if he kicked her out of his town? I don't think so - just because he was forgiving, it doesn't mean every Muslim is capable of doing the same thing.



But it doesn't mean that you don't try to follow in his footsteps, what i get from reading your post is that your first action towards someone who criticise Islam is to brand them as useless and will kill them. 

Will Allah not judge them on judgment day anyway so why should you judge the person as useless?

Also helihound brings up a good point


----------



## Darth (May 12, 2010)

When will people realize that "Allah" is just another name for "GOD". 

It's not like he's a particular deity or anything.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

helihound said:


> forgive me to intrude but by your logic the bombing of iraq and afghanistan are justified since they have been insulting Christianity.



You don't think that was the case? They were bombed because they are Muslim countries, obviously. I don't believe in killing innocents (that's why I'm against war), but sure, anyone who wants to give up his right to live should feel free to do so, and they definitely deserve to be killed. I forgive, but I don't tolerate anyone who insults me, and I don't expect anyone to tolerate me if I insult them.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Darth said:


> When will people realize that "Allah" is just another name for "GOD".
> 
> It's not like he's a particular deity or anything.



I know that


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I forgive, but I don't tolerate anyone who insults me, and I don't expect anyone to tolerate me if I insult them.



there is a huge difference between not tolerating someone and killing the person.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Reksveks said:


> But it doesn't mean that you don't try to follow in his footsteps, what i get from reading your post is that your first action towards someone who criticise Islam is to brand them as useless and will kill them.
> 
> Will Allah not judge them on judgment day anyway so why should you judge the person as useless?
> 
> Also helihound brings up a good point



Of course. I personally try to be understanding, and I don't really lose it unless I was provoked, but that is not the point. I'm saying that it _is_ okay to kill anyone who insults you, or at least harm them. They have brought it on themselves. If they repeat it, it shows me that they don't deserve to live; I go for the kill immediately.


----------



## Jin-E (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I have heard of it. Now, the question you need to ask yourself; would anyone have blamed him if he kicked her out of his town? I don't think so - just because he was forgiving, it doesn't mean every Muslim is capable of doing the same thing.



Completely irrelevant. He did what he did, thats the issue. This woman clearly wasnt a threat to his standing as a prophet or his life, hence showing mercy was(i assume) for him the appropriate course in this situation.

So you are cherry picking what parts you want to follow then? And isnt it a little paradox that when Mohammed shows examples of kindness, forgiveness, tolerance and generosity, you simply dismiss it as "Well, theres no way i could emulate this, so i wont even bother to try"? What if he had ordered her killed and her house burnt down? Would you have it as cover for your intolerant mindset then?

Its hypocricy. You pick the parts that suits your own carnal leanings, yet still demand others to obey the rule that you cant depict Mohammed in any form.


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You don't tell someone stop because something that shouldn't get them killed might get them killed, you let them draw whatever the fuck they want and then you exercise by killing anyone who thinks they have the right to kill someone for it.
> 
> Because if there's one thing you always are 100% okay to kill over, its protecting someone who's life is needlessly threatened.



I agree. You don't tell someone to stop doing something that usually won't get them killed. Trolling suicidal explosive extremists will, though, usually get you killed. Now, by your premis, you should ask then, was the trolling necessary? Why was it necessary?

He was not fighting for the freedom of speech, it was not under threat. You are fighting for it instead. He was just using it to troll the extremists, and leave all the hardwork and cost to you.

Muslims didn't react to South park's superbest friends, the extremists didn't seem to be bothered about it, I bet you a lot of Muslims watched it and had a good laugh. Tonnes of pictures of Muhammad have been drawn before Viks' distasteful work. So what was his motives? I've read the explanation by Jyllands-Posten, I accept it. But what about the dog? Responding to the death threat? Sure, go ahead. I'd shut my mouth if you can put out fire with gasoline.

Extremists are hard to be identified, yet they are a known threat. These people can be anywhere and they are not stupid. Well, smart enough to not wear a t-shirt that announces they're about to kill someone over a cartoon. And maybe, just maybe, they won't be as aggressive if this kind of insult is condemned by all parties and people like Viks are left to defend himself instead of wasting tax payers' money. So, really, while his doesn't deserve the threats, it was easily avoidable. And when it was easily avoidable, I don't see why everyone else had to do the hardwork to rectify _his_ mistake.

But, up to you, if you think it's fair. I think it's not, and there are other ways to deal with extremists.


----------



## Pilaf (May 12, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> I agree. You don't tell someone to stop doing something that usually won't get them killed. Trolling suicidal explosive extremists will, though, usually get you killed. Now, by your premis, you should ask then, was the trolling necessary? Why was it necessary?
> 
> He was not fighting for the freedom of speech, it was not under threat. You are fighting for it instead. He was just using it to troll the extremists, and leave all the hardwork and cost to you.
> 
> ...



I hope they fucking kill us all, so people will finally see what a delusional threat they are, round the fuckers up and deport them out of the free world once and for all. I'd gladly die for such a noble cause.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> Completely irrelevant. He did what he did, thats the issue. This woman clearly wasnt a threat to his standing as a prophet or his life, hence showing mercy was(i assume) for him the appropriate course in this situation.
> 
> So you are cherry picking what parts you want to follow then? And isnt it a little paradox that when Mohammed shows examples of kindness, forgiveness, tolerance and generosity, you simply dismiss it as "Well, theres no way i could emulate this, so i wont even bother to try"? What if he had ordered her killed and her house burnt down? Would you have it as cover for your intolerant mindset then?
> 
> Its hypocricy. You pick the parts that suits your own carnal thoughts, yet still demand others to obey the rule that you cant depict Mohammed in any form.



Where did I say I'm not going to try to be understanding? I cherish mercy. Killing them would be a last resort that was forced upon me by none other than the offender, if they can continue to act like retards. It depends on my mood, tbh.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Of course. I personally try to be understanding, and I don't really lose it unless I was provoked, but that is not the point. I'm saying that it _is_ okay to kill anyone who insults you, or at least harm them. They have brought it on themselves. If they repeat it, it shows me that they don't deserve to live; I go for the kill immediately.



Ok, let me give you a situation to see your hypothetical reaction.

You are walking down the street and you look over to the other side and see a group of people around a man standing on a box. There is a man on the other side of the road, who is criticising Islam and you can see this by some signs he has. 
What would you do if you saw him once?
What would you do if you saw him regularly but always the other side of the road?

Secondly i think that it is totally wrong that you think it is ok to kill/harm anyone that insults. Also again , i think it is wrong for you to think that your judgment is ok and correct.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

I'd think he is a retard, and then I will try to come up with something to make him stop. I wouldn't act immediately. I would talk to people and see their reactions. People will talk to each other, and some  idiot may try to talk to him, so he will be harassed. Others will  probably fuck him over or something. He will be targeted, hated, etc. which is good. You know, stuff like that, I will try to just make his life miserable. 

In the mean while. I would just think about it for a couple of days, months or years - until I find the best way to make him stop. I wouldn't do anything that could put me in jail. If I had to kill him, I will make sure to get away with it.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

Ok; i can see that we are never going to agree on anything so i'll stop this arguement/debate.

i think i will end with this



> I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> Its hypocricy. You pick the parts that suits your own carnal leanings, yet still demand others to obey the rule that you cant depict Mohammed in any form.



I think you're missing the point. Drawing the prophet, I do not encourage, however, it's hardly insulting, to me anyway. I don't think I even heard about a Muslim being killed for doing so. It's usually met with frown. Drawing him in insulting way, or in an attempt to insult him, is another thing, though.


----------



## abcd (May 12, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> It's unbelievable the way some of you people are.
> 
> Just fucking LOOK at what you're doing.
> 
> ...



No There is a difference between extremists and people who sometimes act on instinct.  It should always be taken on a case by case scenario ...  The students here were clearly wrong, Not cultured enough to show their refusal by using the same tool "Freedom of Speech" or just walking out of the class. They would have made a better impact on their religion if they would have asked him about his motives and solved this by a discussion. However they did so which has put them in the wrong side of the argument, Still when there are laws against racism there should be some laws protecting the minorities too, especially when they are new to this culture.



Toby said:


> In these cases I think the case is quite clear. Let's draw a parallel to Ann Coulter's entrance in Canada. She was invited to lecture at a university, and similarly, so was Vilks. They should at the least be allowed to hold their lectures without being attacked. I am not asking for anything more than that because this is just plain fundamental respect for the law.
> 
> If Vilks was walking around at Uppsala uni without university permission, I'd be less forgiving, but no matter how you frame the law, allowing people to assault the guy is still wicked and a violation of the principles of our law. I don't like how art is an excuse to do pretty much everything, which is why I draw the line where there is a direct line of harm.
> 
> ...



I do not know much about the background of Vilks. I should read more about him outside of the cartoon incident before I can make an argument. 

@bold sometimes its funny when thigs so different can be so similar


----------



## dr_shadow (May 12, 2010)

*Vilks* is a troll, but has freedom of speech.

*The attacker* is a criminal, and needs to calm the **** down.

I think the attacker needs to remember the story of when the Prophet -peace be upon him- had a Jewish neighbor who had the habit of leaving his household waste outside Muhammed's door. The Messenger of God however did not take any action to stop his porch from being defiled in this way.

On the contrary, one day when the Jew was severely ill, Muhammed put in a good word for him when praying. When the neighbor returned to health he was so amazed that somebody who had suffered only harm from him would go to The Man in Charge on his behalf, that he converted to Islam.


While I guess there might be other Hadith, I think this one can be taken to mean that the Prophet didn't really mind disrespect to his person as long as it was not a threat to the Muslim community as a whole.


----------



## Botzu (May 12, 2010)

> That is your opinion, man.
> 
> Islam doesn't encourage such acts. In fact, the prophet was quite the understanding guy, but I'm going to heaven either way (and I'm not perfect), so why not kill someone who insults me or my religion? I could care less about you respecting my beliefs, but don't go talking about that in front of me. I'd mark you as a useless human being, then kill you and make sure that I get away with it.


Didn't mohammad openly call for the deaths of poets who criticized him? or maybe i am wrong. If so, calling for the death of cartoonists for criticisizing him doesn't seem that out there for a "what would the prophet do".


----------



## maj1n (May 12, 2010)

mr_shadow said:


> *Vilks* is a troll, but has freedom of speech.
> 
> *The attacker* is a criminal, and needs to calm the **** down.
> 
> ...


There is also texts that speak of Muhammad killing those critical of him.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

maj1n said:


> There is also texts that speak of Muhammad killing those critical of him.


Sounds like he would be proud.


----------



## Bender (May 12, 2010)

The only upside to this story for me was that kick-ass headbutt the butthurt Muslim executed. 

No matter how hard I try I can't do it.


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Of course. I personally try to be understanding, and I don't really lose it unless I was provoked, but that is not the point. I'm saying that it _is_ okay to kill anyone who insults you, or at least harm them. They have brought it on themselves. If they repeat it, it shows me that they don't deserve to live; I go for the kill immediately.



As supposedly rational-thinking beings, above the level of gorillas and chimps, I question your logic.  A smarter man thinks of a wittier retort instead of resorting to violence...but hey you might have that hive mind mentality going on with some of the Muslims, religious folk, and anti-religious folk I've seen go in and out this forum.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 12, 2010)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> the drawing is stupid, it doesn't serve an intellectual purpose, it's incendiary. The artist just wanted to incite people, there's no argument to be had. Stop it.


You don’t get to decide. What’s so hard for you to grasp about this concept. 

It’s like a conservative claiming that rap music should be banned because it is serves to artistic or intellectual purpose, it’s just incendiary. 

Your argument is completely inane and based solely on your personal preference. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Do you honestly feel that our freedom of speech is somehow in jeopardy?
> 
> IMO, it is alarmist to suggest that our freedoms are precarious, and somehow hinge on Muhammad cartoons.


Our freedom hinges on any instance in which they are impinged on. 

Look through this forum and you will see many muslims who want to commit violence against this cartoonist. Not a small percentage, I would say the majority. 

So put this in context, you have group of Muslim Extremist who are conducting terrorist acts against a person, and you have the majority of muslims who supporting those acts of violence against a person. 

If you don’t think that the majority Muslim position on support of terrorism is important then I completely disagree. 



			
				Ryan said:
			
		

> I'm not debating. I'm saying that when you insult people, they are gonna get you back in one way or another (don't expect hugs or roses), unless they are really really understanding, which you rarely find nowadays. I'd probably kill anyone who insults the prophet in front of me. I'm not kiddin'. You have no business with Islam, and your friendly criticism isn't appreciated. I'm quite the visionary person, however, I fail to see how this is going to help you guys in any way.


Well it’s good to see the voices from the Muslim world don’t disappoint in displaying their violent and barbaric nature. 

Once again a spokesman for the religion of peace shows the exact reason why these cartoons are needed. 

And for good measure
Muhammad was a murderer, a thief, a liar, a p*d*p****, a rapist and a bigot. 

If you are unable to deal with such criticism, then you can stay out of the civilized world. Because I have heard much worse come out of the middle east insulting me and my beliefs, and if you are unable to deal with this then you are a hypocrite and deserve no respect. 



			
				Ryan said:
			
		

> but I'm going to heaven either way (and I'm not perfect), so why not kill someone who insults me or my religion?


Killing innocent people = going to heaven in Islam. 

Lol, priceless. 



			
				Ryan said:
			
		

> Not really. We are allowed to fight who fights us. It's all about perspective.


Great, so warp “fights us” to whatever you want and then have justification to kill anyone. 

 Yea, that’s extremism. 



			
				Ryan said:
			
		

> 1. yes.
> 2. yes.
> 3. no.


So quick question.

When Muhammad insulted the Quraysh and their religion he was “fighting against them” and by your logic then they had right to kill him because 
“why not kill someone who insults me or my religion?”


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (May 12, 2010)

This was at my university O_o


----------



## Nodonn (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Of course. I personally try to be understanding, and I don't really lose it unless I was provoked, but that is not the point. I'm saying that it _is_ okay to kill anyone who insults you, or at least harm them. They have brought it on themselves. If they repeat it, it shows me that they don't deserve to live; I go for the kill immediately.



That post insulted me.

sooo... you're fine with me killing you now?

Excellent.


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> That post insulted me.
> 
> sooo... you're fine with me killing you now?
> 
> Excellent.



Can't fight that logic. 

*reps*

Seriously Ryan, world doesn't work like that.  I could say I slept with your mom and you can get angry, but killing is against a little something that we like to call the law.  Learn to thicken your skin, pal.  There's a reason why it's getting harder to disassociate your logic from that of your extremist Muslim kin.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Are the people who think this is okay on some kind of payroll?


----------



## Petenshi (May 12, 2010)

It is really hard to promote understanding  and tolerance of Islam and common ground around religion that causes our world so much grief when people like Ryan come and post things like that on a forum like that.

Dear Ryan, please believe you are doing more harm to your cause than good.

Signed, Petenshi

P.S: The more you react the way you say you will, the more people will want to do it just to spite you. Let it go. Its a principle of life, thats why you always ignored the annoying attention getter in school.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> It is really hard to promote understanding  and tolerance of Islam and common ground around religion when people like Ryan come and post things like that on a forum like that.



Almost puts me out of a job. I wish more people argued by systematically sabotaging themselves.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Hey, one by one! I'll reply to you all.


----------



## vivEnergy (May 12, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> I agree. You don't tell someone to stop doing something that usually won't get them killed. Trolling suicidal explosive extremists will, though, usually get you killed. Now, by your premis, you should ask then, was the trolling necessary? Why was it necessary?
> 
> He was not fighting for the freedom of speech, it was not under threat. You are fighting for it instead. He was just using it to troll the extremists, and leave all the hardwork and cost to you.
> 
> ...



You might not be trolling but w/e 

Did it ever occur to you that these so-called extremists could be killed, just as any muslim whatsoever ? 

Can you even start to consider the possibility that if someone threaten you, you could kill him and not submit like a bich to his demand (which islam is all about by the way, submitting like a bitch) ?

Think about that for one second until you get infront of extremist atheist who will cut your throat over your belief and a misplaced thought on freedom of speech.


----------



## Petenshi (May 12, 2010)

vivEnergy said:


> You might not be trolling but w/e
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that these so-called extremists could be killed, just as any muslim whatsoever ?
> 
> ...



Its these types of ideals that waste our soldiers lives, and continue to cause unrest both domestically and otherwise. Violence is not an answer to violence. If it was, we wouldn't have any violence anymore. Obviously, the way we are going about it now isn't working. So, instead of being the white knight who has to ignorantly defend his honor why don't we try fixing the problem and not the symptoms.


----------



## Juno (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Of course. I personally try to be understanding, and I don't really lose it unless I was provoked, but that is not the point. *I'm saying that it is okay to kill anyone who insults you, or at least harm them.* They have brought it on themselves. If they repeat it, it shows me that they don't deserve to live; *I go for the kill immediately.*



Can someone please ban this guy? NF is a hotbed or trolling, flames, and insults, it's possibly only a matter of minutes before he kills us all.


----------



## vivEnergy (May 12, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Its these types of ideals that waste our soldiers lives, and continue to cause unrest both domestically and otherwise. Violence is not an answer to violence. If it was, we wouldn't have any violence anymore. Obviously, the way we are going about it now isn't working. So, instead of being the white knight who has to ignorantly defend his honor why don't we try fixing the problem and not the symptoms.



Violence is an answer to a very easy problem. Someone is threatening you for whatever reason, either you run like a coward, one day maybe understanding that running away isn't a solution, or you kill him/subdue him to your will.
 There is no status quo, equilibrium is only reached when every party believe, talk, eat, do and is the exact same thing. Every other situation will lead to confrontation eventually.


/randompicofdumbasschamberlain


----------



## Petenshi (May 12, 2010)

vivEnergy said:


> Violence is an answer to a very easy problem. Someone is threatening you for whatever reason, either you run like a coward, one day maybe understanding that running away isn't a solution, or you kill him/subdue him to your will.
> There is no status quo, equilibrium is only reached when every party believe, talk, eat, do and is the exact same thing. Every other situation will lead to confrontation eventually.
> 
> 
> /randompicofdumbasschamberlain



Really? Cause it seems to me that if you have adequate disdain for situations you can see that violence is often not necessary. Someone insults my honor, I ignore him, nothing happens. Someone insults my honor and I kill him, and it just leads to a road of more violence and unnecessary destruction. This isn't camelot, were civil now and we can do more than savagely run this world into the ground.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Juno said:


> Can someone please ban this guy? NF is a hotbed or trolling, flames, and insults, it's possibly only a matter of minutes before he kills us all.



Apparently I should be killed by two people in this thread, well one of them says everyone like me should be killed...doesn't that count as genocide?


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Botzu said:


> Didn't mohammad openly call for the deaths of poets who criticized him? or maybe i am wrong. If so, calling for the death of cartoonists for criticisizing him doesn't seem that out there for a "what would the prophet do".





maj1n said:


> There is also texts that speak of Muhammad killing those critical of him.



Are you really surprised? Those were times of war. It's either you were with Muslims or against them. Mercy is only given to those who deserve it (innocents and the like, who didn't do any harm or oppose Muslims), obviously.



Mael said:


> As supposedly rational-thinking beings, above the level of gorillas and chimps, I question your logic.  A smarter man thinks of a wittier retort instead of resorting to violence...but hey you might have that hive mind mentality going on with some of the Muslims, religious folk, and anti-religious folk I've seen go in and out this forum.



What do you propose then? Ignoring the problem is not a solution. 

Also, you should probably read my other posts. 



sadated_peon said:


> Well it?s good to see the voices from the Muslim world don?t disappoint in displaying their violent and barbaric nature.
> 
> Once again a spokesman for the religion of peace shows the exact reason why these cartoons are needed.
> 
> ...



Then how about you stop whining and do something about it? 



> So quick question.
> 
> When Muhammad insulted the Quraysh and their religion he was ?fighting against them? and by your logic then they had right to kill him because
> ?why not kill someone who insults me or my religion??



Killing humans is not a right that you should enjoy. You do it for the greater good, and sometimes because you have to. By the way, they tried to kill the prophet multiple times. Not to mention, all the fights they had, of course.



Nodonn said:


> That post insulted me.
> 
> sooo... you're fine with me killing you now?
> 
> Excellent.



Hey, it's fair game. I'd love to see you try, lol.



Mael said:


> Can't fight that logic.
> 
> *reps*
> 
> Seriously Ryan, world doesn't work like that.  I could say I slept with your mom and you can get angry, but killing is against a little something that we like to call the law.  Learn to thicken your skin, pal.  There's a reason why it's getting harder to disassociate your logic from that of your extremist Muslim kin.



I'll deal with it alright, in my own way, and you are not gonna like it.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Are the people who think this is okay on some kind of payroll?



Ha! I wish.



Petenshi said:


> It is really hard to promote understanding  and tolerance of Islam and common ground around religion that causes our world so much grief when people like Ryan come and post things like that on a forum like that.
> 
> Dear Ryan, please believe you are doing more harm to your cause than good.
> 
> ...



Awesome, less retards in the world. 

I'm only reacting to insults and the like. I wouldn't harm a peaceful person.


----------



## Toby (May 12, 2010)

K, it seems to me that most of the Muslims on this board are making fully rational arguments, and we are focusing too much on the exception who is Ryan, who is clearly socially imbalanced and would kill anyone who criticises him - regardless of whether this is about his religion or not - and if not, he's trolling you all hard. 



Ryan said:


> That is your opinion, man.
> 
> Islam doesn't encourage such acts. In fact, the prophet was quite the understanding guy, but I'm going to heaven either way (and I'm not perfect), so why not kill someone who insults me or my religion? I could care less about you respecting my beliefs, but don't go talking about that in front of me. I'd mark you as a useless human being, then kill you and make sure that I get away with it.







abcd said:


> I do not know much about the background of Vilks. I should read more about him outside of the cartoon incident before I can make an argument.
> 
> @bold sometimes its funny when thigs so different can be so similar



Long story short, Vilks believes that the government is trying to cut close on his freedom of expression, which is far vaster than freedom of speech. Vilks makes all sorts of things, cartoons, statues etc, and tries to be "out there", which consists of taking people out of their comfort zone. Nudity, sex, religion, and all sorts of taboos are subjects of art for him, because he thinks art conveys social progressiveness.

tl;dr he's kind of a nutter. Unlike the Danish cartoonist, the police don't want to give this guy police protection because they think he is overreacting. And after this episode they will probably stick by that rule. The guy who headbutted him will most likely just be given a fine and a restraining order. Which is fair in my book, and probably amongst most people in Sweden. Vilks just isn't that popular a guy.

As for the bolded, I wholeheartedly despise any attempt to turn this into a racist debate, because the whole criticism stemmed from the debate about The Global War on Terror (GWOT for simplification and slight humorification), and that had nothing to do with any race. It had to do with 9/11, the London and Madrid Bombings, and a fear that similar things could happen in the rest of Europe. IT never had anything to do with race. I just want to put that to rest because it is the last thing this debate needs. It may look similar, aye, but it's not the case.

Secular Swedes see this as a political issue, and Muslims in Sweden think it is religious, which is fine by me, really. I think we could be more sensitive in Scandinavia, but on the one hand we do have laws which allow for the free flow of ideas, and religion is no longer the moral guideline for most Scandinavians. This is a very secular part of the world, and learning to respect highly religious foreign cultures will take time in order for both groups to adjust and learn to respect the different lines of what is acceptable to say, paint etc. 

Also, thanks for being reasonable. You don't know how much that means to me as a Scandinavian.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> You don’t get to decide. What’s so hard for you to grasp about this concept.
> 
> It’s like a conservative claiming that rap music should be banned because it is serves to artistic or intellectual purpose, it’s just incendiary.
> 
> Your argument is completely inane and based solely on your personal preference.



it's not a matter of "deciding" or personal preference.  It's as simple as asking the artist his motive.  Ask the "draw mohammed day" trolls what their purpose is, they will tell you they are gonna troll society with mohammed drawings just to see who they upset and throw it in the faces of those people upset by it.  There is no interpretation, it's pretty cut and dry.  

I'll reserve my judgement till the i know the artist's intent, and for the second time i'll state i don't think he should be  censored (u insist on arguing with me on that as if i'm for censorship, we're not arguing).  But i'm 99.9% sure if asked he will tell you he was just trolling.

and i've seen very controversial religious art, it's nothing new to me, i fully support it and enjoy it.  In that sense the artist succeeded with a troll as art.


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I'll deal with it alright, in my own way, and you are not gonna like it.



And I'll shoot you dead before you try.  See how fun it is to make silly threats?


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Is this a game to you? I meant what I said.


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Is this a game to you? I meant what I said.



Yeah...it is a game, because you're clearly the one with issues.  Add that to the fact you have no idea who we are...

And you're reported too...just in case.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Reported for what? 

You are the one who's spamming this thread with pictures and going off-topic.


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Reported for what?
> 
> You are the one who's spamming this thread with pictures and going off-topic.



Says the person whose logic is dictating that anyone who insults you, you will enact physical violence upon them.  That's harrassment and threatening.  Definietely worth reporting.

Wow...how ironic that this is what I see from those butthurt over images.


----------



## Reksveks (May 12, 2010)

I actually thought that Mael's images brought a light-hearted nature that contrasted very well by "Psycho" Ryan's death threats.

I would suggest all sane people to just stop talking to "Psycho" Ryan because you would get more progress talking to a brick wall.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Well, it would be a last resort, and only if he really bothered me. I wouldn't search for anyone, but if they are in front of me, then it's fine with me. If said person chooses to continue his retarded ways of expressing himself, then I will deal with it. Also, as I said, I don't believe in war - this is just personal, you know?


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Well, *it would be a last resort*, and only if he really bothered me. I wouldn't search for anyone, but if they are in front of me, then it's fine with me. If said person chooses to continue his retarded ways of expressing himself, then I will deal with it. Also, as I said, I don't believe in war - this is just personal, you know?



Oh so now we shrink from our mighty platform?

I will say no more.  I'm done.


----------



## Coteaz (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Is this a game to you? I meant what I said.


Oh god, you're like a serious-business, unfunny, unhinged, ultra-religious version of myself.

We only need one hate-spewing maniac in here. Please leave.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 12, 2010)

Mael said:


> Says the person whose logic is dictating that anyone who insults you, you will enact physical violence upon them.  That's harrassment and threatening.  Definietely worth reporting.
> 
> Wow...how ironic that this is what I see from those butthurt over images.



Not to mention, a Justin Beiber fan.


----------



## xenopyre (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Well, it would be a last resort, and only if he really bothered me. I wouldn't search for anyone, but if they are in front of me, then it's fine with me. If said person chooses to continue his retarded ways of expressing himself, then I will deal with it. Also, as I said, I don't believe in war - this is just personal, you know?


Why ? why cant you just respond in words like he did , why would you resort to physical violence ? it shows weakness and it also shows that the guy plugged one of your nerves and imply in a way that what he said is true .


----------



## Mael (May 12, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Not to mention, a Justin Beiber fan.



Most heretical indeed.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:
			
		

> Then how about you stop whining and do something about it?


Unlike you I am not a child who resorts to violence to solve my differences. Maybe you should grow up.



			
				Ryan said:
			
		

> Killing humans is not a right that you should enjoy. You do it for the greater good, and sometimes because you have to. By the way, they tried to kill the prophet multiple times. Not to mention, all the fights they had, of course.


You just declared that you could kill someone who insults your religion, so this is now your explanation of greater good.  

So you feel that they were Quraysh were *justified* in trying to kill Muhammad because he insulted them and their religion. There were doing it for your subjective ?greater good?. 



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> it's not a matter of "deciding" or personal preference. It's as simple as asking the artist his motive. Ask the "draw mohammed day" trolls what their purpose is, they will tell you they are gonna troll society with mohammed drawings just to see who they upset and throw it in the faces of those people upset by it. There is no interpretation, it's pretty cut and dry.



Ask why people are doing the ?draw Muhammad day? and they will tell you they are doing it to stand up against the threats of extremist groups. 

Here is a response to your question. 




			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I'll reserve my judgement till the i know the artist's intent, and for the second time i'll state i don't think he should be censored (u insist on arguing with me on that as if i'm for censorship, we're not arguing). But i'm 99.9% sure if asked he will tell you he was just trolling.
> 
> and i've seen very controversial religious art, it's nothing new to me, i fully support it and enjoy it. In that sense the artist succeeded with a troll as art.


What do you mean, ?I?ll reserve my judgement? I just quoted you. 

?the drawing is stupid, it doesn't serve an intellectual purpose, it's incendiary. The artist just wanted to incite people, there's no argument to be had. Stop it.?

How is this not a judgement!


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2010)

Hate speech/art or whatever you guys are supporting is considered illegal in most countries over the world, and for the very reasons I listed. 

They may have sounded illogical to you, however, you can't really argue  that most people are going to respond to it negatively. You want proof?  Well, just look at this thread. I bet you, some of those people were  ready to harm me in some way (or wishing to put me in jail, at the very least), due to what I said - and guess what?  Everything I've said wasn't against the rules of this forum. 

So, why  didn't you all ignore me? Some of you seemed to think a neg was  necessary, to punish me maybe? Hypocrites.

Yes, I know, you have freedom of speech, blah blah blah, but is this the best/only way to exercise it? By spreading hate? And what is the point of that again? Nothing. Nothing at all. This is why we can't have nice things. You are free to show me your plan for peace, if you have one. In fact, if what you are doing now could lead to a greater good, then I wouldn't mind it. Prove it to me, and I'll accept it. Give me something realistic, not just your fantasy world. 

Bless me with your wisdom, oh noble internet posters.

/last post in this topic


----------



## Hinako (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Of course. I personally try to be understanding, and I don't really lose it unless I was provoked, but that is not the point. I'm saying that it _is_ okay to kill anyone who insults you, or at least harm them. They have brought it on themselves. If they repeat it, it shows me that they don't deserve to live; I go for the kill immediately.


This is too easy for me


----------



## LoboFTW (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Hate speech/art or whatever you guys are supporting is considered illegal in most countries over the world, and for the very reasons I listed.
> 
> They may have sounded illogical to you, however, you can't really argue  that most people are going to respond to it negatively. You want proof?  Well, just look at this thread. I bet you, some of those people were  ready to harm me in some way (or wishing to put me in jail, at the very least), due to what I said - and guess what?  Everything I've said wasn't against the rules of this forum.
> 
> ...



OK now I know you're trolling.


----------



## Altron (May 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> *Hate speech/art or whatever you guys are supporting is considered illegal in most countries over the world, *and for the very reasons I listed.


So is assault and murder. 



> They may have sounded illogical to you, however, you can't really argue  that most people are going to respond to it negatively. You want proof?  Well, just look at this thread. I bet you, some of those people were  ready to harm me in some day (or wishing to put me in jail, at the very least), due to what I said - and guess what?  Everything I've said wasn't against the rules of this forum.


Because obviously the fact that you respond to petty insults with assault and murder had nothing to do with it.



> So, why  didn't you all ignore me? Some of you seemed to think a neg was  necessary, to punish me maybe? Hypocrites.






> Yes, I know, you have freedom of speech, blah blah blah, but is this the best/only way to exercise it? By spreading hate? And what is the point of that again? Nothing. Nothing at all. This why we can't have nice things. You are free to show me your plan for peace, if you have one. In fact, if what you are doing now could lead to a greater good, then I wouldn't mind it. Prove it to me, and I'll accept it. Give me something realistic, not just your fantasy world.


oh how rich, this is coming from someone who justifies murder and assault if he gets insulted and the fact that killing people will in no way prevent him from getting into heaven. 


> Bless me with your wisdom, oh noble internet posters.


I'm pretty sure people already have.


> /last post in this topic


Good now kindly GTFO plz


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> What do you mean, ?I?ll reserve my judgement? I just quoted you.
> 
> ?the drawing is stupid, it doesn't serve an intellectual purpose, it's incendiary. The artist just wanted to incite people, there's no argument to be had. Stop it.?
> 
> How is this not a judgement!



what are u , the judgement police? I can suspend my judgement, or establish new judgements any time i like, even in the middle of a sentence.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 12, 2010)

SMH @ People still believing freedom of speech is supposed to protect you against other citizens.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 12, 2010)

the activity of openly making expressions deriding islam also offends my sensibilities regarding insulting minority populations.  According to  Muslims in the US make up just more than 0.5 % of the american population. So piling it on them is really not necessary, unless you thought that 0.5% of the population is somehow depriving you of your rights :S


----------



## vivEnergy (May 12, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> the activity of openly making expressions deriding islam also offends my sensibilities regarding insulting minority populations.  According to  Muslims in the US make up just more than 0.5 % of the american population. So piling it on them is really not necessary, unless you thought that 0.5% of the population is somehow depriving you of your rights :S



that would actually be funny if you didn't troll that often


----------



## Seisokumaru (May 12, 2010)

Another PR victory for the "Religion of Peace".



> the activity of openly making expressions deriding islam also offends my sensibilities regarding insulting minority populations. According to this survey Muslims in the US make up just more than 0.5 % of the american population. So piling it on them is really not necessary, unless you thought that 0.5% of the population is somehow depriving you of your rights



When 0.5% of the population can cause a television program I enjoy (south park) to be censored then yes, 0.5% of the population is somehow depriving me of my rights (actually, depriving Stone and Parker of their rights to free expression).


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 12, 2010)

Seisokumaru said:


> Another PR victory for the "Religion of Peace".
> 
> 
> 
> When 0.5% of the population can cause a television program I enjoy (south park) to be censored then yes, 0.5% of the population is somehow depriving me of my rights (actually, depriving Stone and Parker *of their rights to free expression).*



There is no right to free expression on the airwaves.


----------



## Seisokumaru (May 12, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> There is no right to free expression on the airwaves.



Show me where in the constitution this is provided for.  The First Amendment clearly states: "...   shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech, unless it's on TV."  I guess you subscribe to Kagan's view of free speech, which is that the government can't violate Free Speech rights as long as it has "good intentions" at heart.

Also, how odd is it that Jesus can be shown taking a dump on people on TV, but not Mohammed.  No, definitely nothing odd about that; obviously has nothing to do with the "Religion of Peace's" proclivity for bombing innocent people that they don't like.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 12, 2010)

Seisokumaru said:


> Another PR victory for the "Religion of Peace".
> 
> 
> 
> When 0.5% of the population can cause a television program I enjoy (south park) to be censored then yes, 0.5% of the population is somehow depriving me of my rights (actually, depriving Stone and Parker of their rights to free expression).





Seisokumaru said:


> Show me where in the constitution this is provided for.  The First Amendment clearly states: "...   shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech, unless it's on TV."  I guess you subscribe to Kagan's view of free speech, which is that the government can't violate Free Speech rights as long as it has "good intentions" at heart.
> 
> Also, how odd is it that Jesus can be shown taking a dump on people on TV, but not Mohammed.  No, definitely nothing odd about that; obviously has nothing to do with the "Religion of Peace's" proclivity for bombing innocent people that they don't like.



the execs censored themselves.  everyone says Comedy central/south park chickened out.  They had already opened a can of worms.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 12, 2010)

Seisokumaru said:


> *Show me where in the constitution this is provided for. * The First Amendment clearly states: "...   shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech, unless it's on TV."  I guess you subscribe to Kagan's view of free speech, which is that the government can't violate Free Speech rights as long as it has "good intentions" at heart.
> 
> Also, how odd is it that Jesus can be shown taking a dump on people on TV, but not Mohammed.  No, definitely nothing odd about that; obviously has nothing to do with the "Religion of Peace's" proclivity for bombing innocent people that they don't like.



No, it doesn't work like that. You are confusing your *personal* right to freedom of speech/expression with broadcasting rights. 

Comedy Central owns the rights to broadcast what it wants within FCC guidelines. The FCC: 



> The Federal Communications Commission, commonly known as the FCC, is an independent government agency established in 1934. As its name impies, it regulates communications made by radio, *wire and television, cable and satellite.*




Please, for fuck's sake, do not confuse First Amendment speech/expression rights with broadcasting rights and the public ownership of the airwaves.

Lemme spell it out for you: you have 0 rights regarding what you watch, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker have 0 rights to televise what they want. Period. End of story.


----------



## santanico (May 12, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> See...just LOOk at the shit you're saying.
> 
> Nobody's "asking for" any damn thing. These goddamned Muslim Extremists don't get to dictate what people can and cannot say. One of the foundations of a free society is the right to express your thoughts and feelings _without fear of repercussion_.
> 
> Why don't some of you pull your heads out your asses, pay more attention in history class and develop some god damned pride in western values before they're gone?



calm the fuck down, I'm not saying he "deserved it" I'm saying does he know that those religious fanatics are nuts. If anyone needs to pull their head out of their ass, it's you.


----------



## NanoHaxial (May 12, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> No, it doesn't work like that. You are confusing your *personal* right to freedom of speech/expression with broadcasting rights.
> 
> Comedy Central owns the rights to broadcast what it wants within FCC guidelines. The FCC:
> 
> ...






> The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. *The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech.* Expressions of views that do not involve a ?clear and present danger of serious substantive evil? come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The FCC cannot suppress such expressions. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, ?the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.? This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive. However, the Commission does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances.
> 
> For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.


----------



## g_core18 (May 12, 2010)

These assholes need to learn how to take a joke.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 12, 2010)

Right, and that doesn't at all conflict with what I said. 

*That has nothing to do with South Park. Comedy Central owns the rights to broadcast, and they decided to censor it. If they don't want to broadcast it, they don't have to. Comedy Central isn't required to allow you to express your freedom of speech, the FCC is just barred from banning it. Do you see the difference? The FCC can't infringe on a broadcaster's rights to express a point of view, but that doesn't mean that they have to allow Parker and Stone to broadcast what they wish.*

People do NOT have the right to express themselves any way they want. Nudity, for instance, the FCC can impose fines for, or ban during certain times. Absolutely nothing guarantees that you can broadcast whatever you want.


----------



## Draffut (May 12, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> People do NOT have the right to express themselves any way they want. Nudity, for instance, the FCC can impose fines for, or ban during certain times. Absolutely nothing guarantees that you can broadcast whatever you want.



Which is why the FCC is largely bullshit.


----------



## NanoHaxial (May 12, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Right, and that doesn't at all conflict with what I said.
> 
> People do NOT have the right to express themselves any way they want. Nudity, for instance, the FCC can impose fines for, or ban during certain times. Absolutely nothing guarantees that you can broadcast whatever you want.



So long as it is not "obscene material" which is not protected free speech, you can broadcast whatever you want to.

However, broadcasting "indecent material" between 6 AM and 10 PM may earn you a fine. Outside of that timeframe there is no issue.


----------



## Ceria (May 12, 2010)

the kind of people who become violent at any depiction of their "messiah" or whatever you want to call it, need to chill the fuck out. 

go get a latte or find constructive outlets for your stupid anger


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 12, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> So long as it is not "obscene material" which is not protected free speech, *you can* broadcast whatever you want to.
> 
> However, broadcasting "indecent material" between 6 AM and 10 PM may earn you a fine. Outside of that timeframe there is no issue.



"You" cannot, but the broadcasting company can. 

Comedy Central censored Stone and Parker. The guy above me started citing 1st Amendment rights for Parker and Stone, but that's not relevant. CC can censor what they want, as I've been at pains to stress: they own the broadcasting rights and can chose what they want within reasonable FCC guidelines.

Individuals do not have broadcasting rights over the broadcasting company. Those rights you cited are between the FCC and the broadcasting company, not the company and individuals.


----------



## Adonis (May 12, 2010)

mystictrunks is right to point out that "free speech" isn't a magic wand term and often misapplied. Practically speaking, there's nothing tangibly protecting you from the reactions of other citizens. Philosophically, though, the right to insult supercedes the right to attack someone.

Why are people going, "He knows those muslim extremists are nuts?" as if the onus is on him to kowtow to the whims of crazy people? By saying he was asking for it, you're condoning the reaction. 

I could yell, "Patriots suck!" in a football stadium and get my ass jumped by rabid fans; no one but the most flaccid, craven apologist would suggest they were right for responding violently because I offended them.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (May 12, 2010)

Adonis said:


> mystictrunks is right to point out that "free speech" isn't a magic wand term and often misapplied. Practically speaking, there's nothing tangibly protecting you from the reactions of other citizens. Philosophically, though, the right to insult supercedes the right to attack someone.
> 
> Why are people going, "He knows those muslim extremists are nuts?" as if the onus is on him to kowtow to the whims of crazy people? By saying he was asking for it, you're condoning the reaction.
> 
> I could yell, "Patriots suck!" in a football stadium and get my ass jumped by rabid fans; no one but the most flaccid, craven apologist would suggest they were right for responding violently because I offended them.



and yet u would get ur ass kicked by dummies, under the influence of substances no less.


----------



## Seisokumaru (May 12, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Right, and that doesn't at all conflict with what I said.
> 
> *That has nothing to do with South Park. Comedy Central owns the rights to broadcast, and they decided to censor it. If they don't want to broadcast it, they don't have to. Comedy Central isn't required to allow you to express your freedom of speech, the FCC is just barred from banning it. Do you see the difference? The FCC can't infringe on a broadcaster's rights to express a point of view, but that doesn't mean that they have to allow Parker and Stone to broadcast what they wish.*



And they decided to censor it because a certain group of desert savages is fond of blowing up innocent people who don't censor images of their prophet.  Thus the 0.5% of people causing 95.5% of people to have to modify the things they say/see/do to appease the 0.5% of the 0.5% who blow up children for their religion.

You're arguing semantics about the word 'rights' as it relates to the unconstitutional FCC's authority over the 'airwaves' to try and mask the obvious fact that a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of people can threaten to blow shit up and change the face of a nation's culture and art works.


----------



## Adonis (May 12, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> and yet u would get ur ass kicked by dummies, under the influence of substances no less.



This wasn't a big deal because one lone guy headbutted a lecturer he felt insulted him: shit happens. It became a big deal when droves of people rushed to apologize on his behalf justifying his actions. 

If those fans rushed me and kicked my head in, I wouldn't rant and rave about how free speech was dying. I'd accept that those people chose to express their dissent with their boots. If I flipped to the news and saw a bunch of people going, "Yeah! He got what was coming to him! He shouldn't be allowed to say that without expecting a violent rebuttal!" I'd be a little more concerned about civil liberties.

In other words, this wasn't a Civil Liberties issue at all until a bunch of people started saying free speech ought to preclude any offensive words/pictures that could result in retaliation. Free Speech doesn't have to be responsible.


----------



## Bleach (May 12, 2010)

Haha same ol people that I would expect in this kinda thread are raging


----------



## mystictrunks (May 12, 2010)

Seisokumaru said:


> Show me where in the constitution this is provided for.  The First Amendment clearly states: "...   shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech, unless it's on TV."  I guess you subscribe to Kagan's view of free speech, which is that the government can't violate Free Speech rights as long as it has "good intentions" at heart.



T.V. stations, and other media organizations, make up their own guidelines for what they show. 

When someone works for one of these organizations they are agreeing with their guidelines, even if they don't like them. They can change and are rarely decided by anyone making content for them and often times they don't make much sense. 

Remember freedom of speech protects your from having your rights sniffled by the government not other citizens although the government can step in to protect them in those cases. This is especially true in the media where your entire livelihood can depend on whether or not you can draw in advertisers. 

Basically while they have the right to say anything they want in all actuality they are a business and that means they have to make compromises from time to time as it's in their best interest.


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

vivEnergy said:


> You might not be trolling but w/e
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that these so-called extremists could be killed, just as any muslim whatsoever ?
> 
> ...



I...urmm...I think I tangled up my brain trying to understand what you're trying to say.

I'm not saying you should ban Lars Viks work or him from working, I'm saying you should not encourage him if you really are concern for his life.

This is how I look at it, again. If you are concern about his life, you should not encourage him to troll murderers. If you want to fight ignorance towards freedom of speech, educate. You troll murderers, you are bound to get murdered. You assault what people hold with high regard, they will retaliate towards what you hold with high regard. You educate people about freedom of speech, they will learn to appreciate it. Look at yourselves, did you learn to appreciate freedom of speech from trolls?

Wait a minute. OMG you're already trolls.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

I don't know why any of you are arguing here anymore...most of the people on the other side are being utterly unreasonable and some of them are saying its okay to kill over insults. Who gives a fuck what they think at that point?


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

Yea. I think I'll just wait for an all out war. Because of course, it's better and easier to just provoke nutjobs into war, so you can claim "self-defense". You cannot just leave them alone and eat them from inside. It's better when people die.

Q___Q


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> Yea. I think I'll just wait for an all out war. Because of course, it's better and easier to just provoke nutjobs into war, so you can claim "self-defense". You cannot just leave them alone and eat them from inside. It's better when people die.
> 
> Q___Q



Anyone who would go to war over a fucking drawing deserves to get killed. You can't blame someone for doing that if their reaction is that threatening and over the top and you can't care about them when they die if they decided to fight a WAR over a DRAWING of someone who by all accounts has been dead for 1,400 years.


----------



## Spirit (May 12, 2010)

I know. I didn't say what I said because I want war, I'm just saying these people are so ready for it, maybe they start small, they start with assassination. They assassinate people who speak about the things they don't like hearing. They're not justified to kill you over speeches, yet you're completely justified to kill them to defend yourself. You start by provoking them. Maybe they also had been playing the insult game, they'd been playing it differently. So what do these two sides expect from one another, really?

The complete elimination of the other side.

I'm not taking sides in this. They can all die and make my world bright and quite.

/DESPAIR


----------



## mystictrunks (May 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Anyone who would go to war over a fucking drawing deserves to get killed. You can't blame someone for doing that if their reaction is that threatening and over the top and you can't care about them when they die if they decided to fight a WAR over a DRAWING of someone who by all accounts has been dead for 1,400 years.



Once again; undermining the power of free expression while defending it isn't a smart thing to do.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Once again; undermining the power of free expression while defending it isn't a smart thing to do.



I'm not undermining it, I am calling the expression stupid. Its a big difference.

Any defense of someone who would attack or kill for a drawing should be regarded as such.


----------



## dreams lie (May 13, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?



Kill the lunatics, problem solved.


----------



## Spirit (May 13, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> Kill the lunatics, problem solved.



But first, lure them out.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> interesting that taxpayers have to whittle their tax funds to protect this artist who freely chooses to antagonize lunatics.  I wonder where people stand on that aspect of the issue?


They also pay them to protect people who walk in dark alleys and children who play with matches, only difference is that the person drawing this cartoon isn't wrong. He's not doing anything he shouldn't be allowed to do, the people attacking him are. 

Do you ever get tired of defending the wrong side of everything?


----------



## Petenshi (May 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They also pay them to protect people who walk in dark alleys and children who play with matches, only difference is that the person drawing this cartoon isn't wrong. He's not doing anything he shouldn't be allowed to do, the people attacking him are.
> 
> Do you ever get tired of defending the wrong side of everything?



Tell me, do you think it is right of a coworker to everyday you walk in berate you and draw funny cartoons of your face? Its called harassment. I am all for free speech, but doing so specifically because you know it angers people is just silly.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Tell me, do you think it is right of a coworker to everyday you walk in berate you and draw funny cartoons of your face? Its called harassment. I am all for free speech, but doing so specifically because you know it angers people is just silly.



Drawing something on paper =/= drawing something on someones face

Word it correctly and the latter could be classed as assault


----------



## Spirit (May 13, 2010)

Is harassment an assault?


----------



## Razgriez (May 13, 2010)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> But first, lure them out.



It would be so easy for us if we just stopped caring and started using chemical and biological weapons to get these guys out of their caves.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Tell me, do you think it is right of a coworker to everyday you walk in berate you and draw funny cartoons of your face? Its called harassment. I am all for free speech, but doing so specifically because you know it angers people is just silly.


If it was a he and he touched the pen to me, he'd earn himself a free pass to getting a pen shoved in his ass.


----------



## Spirit (May 13, 2010)

@Raz
That's unfair. This thing is not inherited. Unless you're aiming at ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Razgriez (May 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If it was a he and he touched the pen to me, he'd earn himself a free pass to getting a pen shoved in his ass.



Uhhh... is this suppose to be about sexual harassment or assault?


----------



## mystictrunks (May 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not undermining it, I am calling the expression stupid. Its a big difference.
> 
> Any defense of someone who would attack or kill for a drawing should be regarded as such.



Of course you are. If it is just a drawing, and drawings aren't worthy of violence, then why are you defending someones rights to make them. After all they are just drawings.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Of course you are. If it is just a drawing, and drawings aren't worthy of violence, then why are you defending someones rights to make them. After all they are just drawings.


Blaming the victim, you really failed with that one.


----------



## Petenshi (May 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Blaming the victim, you really failed with that one.



Its not blaming the victim, Its saying the victim is an idiot, while they don't deserve attacks they certainly knew they were coming. "Lets just ignore the fact these guys hate when we draw pictures of Muhammad doing crazy stuff and do it anyways! That way we can pretend we are rebels." It is the definition of Trolling and it is a waste of time, and in this case can potentially put people in danger.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Its not blaming the victim, Its saying the victim is an idiot, while they don't deserve attacks they certainly knew they were coming. "Lets just ignore the fact these guys hate when we draw pictures of Muhammad doing crazy stuff and do it anyways! That way we can pretend we are rebels." It is the definition of Trolling and it is a waste of time, and in this case can potentially put people in danger.


You can wrap that argument up any way you want, its blaming the victim.


----------



## Petenshi (May 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can wrap that argument up any way you want, its blaming the victim.



CTK, if I blow up your house, wouldn't it be ignorant and naive of me to believe you would just let that go? Now, if you did indeed retaliate, and say killed me of course I would not be at fault. However, you could and would most definitely call me an idiot for blowing up the house as it was an act of pure aggression. If I never blew your house up, none of it would have happened and that is the point.


----------



## mystictrunks (May 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Blaming the victim, you really failed with that one.



I'm not blaming the victim, I'm simply acknowledging the power expression has. When someone is creating art, performing actions, writing something or saying something, whether the creator realizes it or not that, not everyone will agree with them and depend on what they do and who they're around they might be in danger for their thoughts. If what people said, or drew, couldn't impact people and incite them enough to do something then there would be no need to even have free speech protected.


----------



## Zabuzalives (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> CTK, if I blow up your house, wouldn't it be ignorant and naive of me to believe you would just let that go? Now, if you did indeed retaliate, and say killed me of course I would not be at fault. However, you could and would most definitely call me an idiot for blowing up the house as it was an act of pure aggression. If I never blew your house up, none of it would have happened and that is the point.



more fail comparisons. 




This guy is close to trolling now though. Though he probably means to show how many muslims are easily trolled, easily lose self-control, and react violently.
these muslims went to this lecture, its not like he is seeking them out. 

I am people like him are around cause they might force muslims to grow a thicker skin.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> CTK, if I blow up your house, wouldn't it be ignorant and naive of me to believe you would just let that go? Now, if you did indeed retaliate, and say killed me of course I would not be at fault. However, you could and would most definitely call me an idiot for blowing up the house as it was an act of pure aggression. If I never blew your house up, none of it would have happened and that is the point.


----------



## Petenshi (May 13, 2010)

Arguing with pictures now CTK? 

And Zabuza, saying "Thats Wrong!" is not an argument. Its a perfect comparision. If I do A, because I know you hate A and then you Do B as a reaction, why should I be surprised that lives are lost and people got hurt as a result of B? This is not the way to go people.


The fact is, being aggressive for the sole reason of being aggressive is irresponsible and stupid. Grow up and realize you don't have to insult people because you want to, especially when you know what will happen if you do. If insulting things slip out that is one thing, but it is beyond me why anyone would think purposely baiting extremist Muslims is a good idea.


----------



## maj1n (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> And Zabuza, saying "Thats Wrong!" is not an argument. Its a perfect comparision.* If I do A, because I know you hate A and then you Do B as a reaction, why should I be surprised that lives are lost and people got hurt as a result of B? This is not the way to go people.
> *
> 
> The fact is, being aggressive for the sole reason of being aggressive is irresponsible and stupid. Grow up and realize you don't have to insult people because you want to, especially when you know what will happen if you do. If insulting things slip out that is one thing, but it is beyond me why anyone would think purposely baiting extremist Muslims is a good idea. .


I know many families were their family members protested against China's oppression and subsequently were killed during the Tiannman square massacre, even though they knew and did it to piss off the Government.

Your idea of civility disgusts me, as it is completely the same as oppression.

Do you know the very core aspect of 'civility'? 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

Now you can come back and answer whether Islam the religion, does not insult people like you think the cartoonists were.

Because i'm pretty sure teaching i deserve to be burned in hell is insulting.

I also know of women who were physically abused because of their attempt to stick a finger against the oppressive culture of their home country by not wearing the veil.

Now by your logic, because the people in that country, many of them, consider that insulting, and these people did it for the reason of saying 'fuck your oppression'.

You consider them wrong.

Your perspective disgusts me.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Its not blaming the victim, Its saying the victim is an idiot, while they don't deserve attacks they certainly knew they were coming. "Lets just ignore the fact these guys hate when we draw pictures of Muhammad doing crazy stuff and do it anyways! That way we can pretend we are rebels." It is the definition of Trolling and it is a waste of time, and in this case can potentially put people in danger.



I'm pretty sure women who got raped didn't deserve to be raped, but knew it was coming since they dressed that way


----------



## Mael (May 13, 2010)

Diceman said:


> I'm pretty sure women who got raped didn't deserve to be raped, but knew it was coming since they dressed that way



Wrong.  It was because they couldn't make a sammich right.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (May 13, 2010)

Diceman said:


> I'm pretty sure women who got raped didn't deserve to be raped, but knew it was coming since they dressed that way



A better example would be you going to a bunch of gangbangers and shout "you stupid n*ggas you should be put in a zoo".

And when they kick your ass you start bawwwing Freedom of speech.


----------



## vivEnergy (May 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> A better example would be you going to a bunch of gangbangers and shout "you stupid n*ggas you should be put in a zoo".
> 
> And when they kick your ass you start bawwwing Freedom of speech.



The guy didn't go in a mosque to make his presentation.

These sob only came to fight.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (May 13, 2010)

vivEnergy said:


> The guy didn't go in a mosque to make his presentation.
> 
> These sob only came to fight.


That's true, but I was giving a better example of pretenshi's analogy.

And even in my analogy the person who insulted the gangbangers doesn't deserve to be blamed, but you kinda expect such a reaction.


----------



## Adonis (May 13, 2010)

I'm sorry, mystictrunks; I agree with you 95% of the time but claiming that CTK defending the artist is hypocritical because it's "just a drawing" was the worst argument I've ever seen you make hands-down. His right to draw has nothing to do with CTK's opinion of its merit. 

Petenshi, your analogies are disproportionate. Drawing Muhammed cartoons isn't comparable to blowing up someone's house or insulting a coworker on a daily basis. It's not even a personal affront beyond religious people convincing themselves their adulation of such figures is an integral part of their identity more important than family. I'm sure Tom Cruise is just as indignant over parodies of Scientology; the difference being that we don't even condone whining/attempts at litigation on his part, yet condone Muslim brutality.

You guys are being patronizing by claiming calls to violence for Muslims is acceptable when you'd hardly accept such behavior from Christians. Countless defamations of Jesus hang up in art museums in addition to what's lampooned on TV without major Christian backlash; in the West, we have learned to grit our teeth. Muslims are apparently willing to kill over cartoons and that's perfectly OK.

And as both I and vivEnergy pointed out, the attacker willlingly went to a lecture he knew would insult him for the purpose of starting a fight. This isn't yelling, "^ (use bro) need to be in cages!" on a public street; it's a black guy going to a Klan rally.

I will agree that baaaaawing about Free Speech whenever civilians kick your ass for talking shit is a bitch move. The one instance I abide by the code of the streets.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 13, 2010)

I would ask "Why can't we all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the campfire?" but then I realized that too would probably be blasphemous.


----------



## siyrean (May 13, 2010)

You can not put a limit on freedom of speach, period. Idiots can spout whatver they want, it's up to the rest of us to act like intelligant beings and realize, we don't have to listen to it. Words can't harm you unless you let them.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> A better example would be you going to a bunch of gangbangers and shout "you stupid n*ggas you should be put in a zoo".
> 
> And when they kick your ass you start bawwwing Freedom of speech.


The problem is that's still a personal insult. You're insulting the gang and its members. 

Not just that, but its also an insult. A more apt example and one that shows how stupid this is would be you drawing a picture of a gang and them beating you up for it. A picture isn't inherently offensive.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (May 13, 2010)

Idiots taking shit too seriously, fuck. I'm Christian and I'll draw Jesus as a fucking owl for all I care. Maybe a platypus.


----------



## Juno (May 13, 2010)

^ Blasphemy would never have been so adorable.


----------



## Ryan (May 13, 2010)

Good day. I didn't want to leave this thread without clearly voicing my personal opinion on the matter. So, here it is; the hard truth.

First of all, I don't understand why people keeping debating this sort of stuff. Everyone is biased, thinking that they has to be right (not to mention, it's pretty much their way or the highway), so why bother? Do you honestly believe that there is a solution beyond mutual respect or war? Or, do you actually expect Muslims to ignore this? Wait, you are not serious, are you?

You know, they _are _people, and irrationality could be found everywhere. In fact, the majority are usually driven by emotion, whenever you look - this isn't something exclusive to Muslims, no matter how some of you want to believe that they are aliens, in capable of having human traits. 

Yeah, I know what you are thinking of; but we don't use violence! Oh, c'mon! You killed hundred thousands of people (probably even more), in response to a terrorist attack. A lot of those people had nothing to do with it, especially the Iraqis (sorry, if this offends any Afghans, just saying that Osama was there and so on - it's not an excuse for such violence), but no.. someone had to pay. Is this the civilized world you guys are proud of? You are not actually going to justify killing those people for whatever personal problems they had (i.e, Saddam - Sunni vs. Shia, etc.), are you? Or, maybe you are going to bring up the 'weapon  of mass destruction' excuse? Yeah, so human of you. 

Terrorism is terrorism; be it organized (as a country/multiple countries), a small group/organization, or just a independent person. It's wrong. 

I seriously doubt that any side would be able to completely put this behind them. Maybe some will ignore it after a while, I know I do; but the majority would still feel bitter about the whole thing. They probably wouldn't do anything (just teasing each other, which is what they are doing now - yeah, I'm referring to the violence too - I'm not saying it is right to do so, because teasing is rarely a bad thing; it's just a metaphor), but I could see it leading to war eventually with some Muslim nations, as extreme as that may sound. 

/okay, seriously.. 

THIS IS MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD

*is a Muslim, btw, in case you were wondering*​


----------



## Juno (May 13, 2010)

Could it also be your last post in this forum? That would be great.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> A better example would be you going to a bunch of gangbangers and shout "you stupid n*ggas you should be put in a zoo".
> 
> And when they kick your ass you start bawwwing Freedom of speech.


I would start bawwing freedom of speech. 

I would expect the people who attacked him to be thrown in jail, and I would expect everyone to be against and not support the the gangbangers. 

I would not say that the person who made the insult "brought it on themselves" I would say that he was attack by criminals.


----------



## Sasukekillsitachi (May 13, 2010)

N120 said:


> Don't blame them, if i was watching his presentation i would've done much more than just a headbutt.
> 
> But thats just me.



The artist is obviously full of hate and prejudice, and that is what he gets when he tries to spread his mindset on others.  He pretty much deserved it 

I am no Muslim, but if that ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) artist insulted my God openly in front of public like that, even I might do the same thing


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (May 13, 2010)

Below is another picture by the same artist.



No Christians have issued any death threats or tried to assault this man.

I wonder why muslims respond to childish insults by making fools of themselves where as Christians do not, if they bother to respond at all.


----------



## Yachiru (May 13, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Good day. I didn't want to leave this thread without clearly voicing my personal opinion on the matter. So, here it is; the hard truth.
> 
> First of all, I don't understand why people keeping debating this sort of stuff. Everyone is biased, thinking that they has to be right (not to mention, it's pretty much their way or the highway), so why bother? Do you honestly believe that there is a solution beyond mutual respect or war? Or, do you actually expect Muslims to ignore this? Wait, you are not serious, are you?



Everyone is biased in some way, that's a given. However, it crosses the line once that bias harms someone else or even a country; In that case, it's not bias, it's *lunacy*, plain and simple.
If Muslims want to get accepted, they should adapt the values of the 21st century and come outta the 7th-century-mentality.




> You know, they _are _people, and irrationality could be found everywhere. In fact, the majority are usually driven by emotion, whenever you look - this isn't something exclusive to Muslims, no matter how some of you want to believe that they are aliens, in capable of having human traits.



They are human beings, fallible. But those lunatics (Saddam, Bin Laden etc.) are a bunch of primitives still living in their 7th century. Anyone, no matter what religion, should be considered a primitive if his religious beliefs harm our society or even yell things like "Death to America", much less than calling said country "The Great Satan" 




> Yeah, I know what you are thinking of; *but we don't use violence!* Oh, c'mon! You killed hundred thousands of people (probably even more), in response to a terrorist attack. A lot of those people had nothing to do with it, especially the Iraqis (sorry, if this offends any Afghans, just saying that Osama was there and so on - it's not an excuse for such violence), but no.. someone had to pay. Is this the civilized world you guys are proud of? You are not actually going to justify killing those people for whatever personal problems they had (i.e, Saddam - Sunni vs. Shia, etc.), are you? Or, maybe you are going to bring up the 'weapon  of mass destruction' excuse? Yeah, so human of you.



Killing innocents is terrorism - no matter if a government or an organized group performs it. 
There are Quranic verses that incite the execution of those that discard their Islamic religion (apostasy) or yearning to kill the "Infidels", or "Kafirs".
And let me tell you something - No matter how hard you or those lunatics try.. Peoples' beliefs will always differ. It's human nature; Uniting the world under Islam is plainly retarded.
And you said it yourself - You would kill anyone that insults Muhammad. That makes you a lunatic as well. Killing is wrong, no matter how you sugarcoat it.




> Terrorism is terrorism; be it organized (as a country/multiple countries), a small group/organization, or just a independent person. It's wrong.
> 
> I seriously doubt that any side would be able to completely put this behind them. Maybe some will ignore it after a while, I know I do;
> 
> ...



People need to learn accepting criticism, Muslims as well. I didn't freak out when they showed Jesus doing drugs and shit. You guys need to chill out, it's just satire.
Only a retard would kill a journalist over a cartoon  




> /okay, seriously..
> 
> THIS IS MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD
> 
> **is a Muslim, btw, in case you were wondering**



I noticed you were a muslim right from your first post.


----------



## Ryan (May 13, 2010)

Yachiru said:


> And you said it yourself - You would kill anyone that insults Muhammad. That makes you a lunatic as well. Killing is wrong, no matter how you sugarcoat it.



I just wanted to clarify this since most of you seems to be stuck here; I was acting, being sarcastic, kidding. I didn't realize that such humor would be so hard for you to get.


----------



## vivEnergy (May 13, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I just wanted to clarify this since most of you seems to be stuck here; I was acting, being sarcastic, kidding. I didn't realize that such humor would be so hard for you to get.



Nice level.

At least it's more entertaining than narutosimpson.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 13, 2010)

Juno said:


> ^ Blasphemy would never have been so adorable.



That's not blasphemy...is Veggie Tales then blasphemous too? I'm Catholic, I've drawn a comic where I chloroformed and kidnapped Jesus as a gift (it was for a friend for her birthday) in the comic when she asked did I get her a wizard (cause I said it was magical) I said "what I got you is better than 1000 wizards. 

Honestly, God gave us a sense of humor for a reason, why would he not want us to exercise it. I don't think its mocking or disrespectful and its just a joke, anyone who wants to get all butt hurt needs to realize that God has to have better shit to do than worry about a silly comic joke, or Family guy making fun of him or childish bullshit drawn about a prophet...



Sarutobi sasuke said:


> Below is another picture by the same artist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He could stand to clean up his line work...


----------



## N120 (May 13, 2010)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> Below is another picture by the same artist.
> No Christians have issued any death threats or tried to assault this man.
> 
> I wonder why muslims respond to childish insults by making fools of themselves where as Christians do not, if they bother to respond at all.



Theres no rule that says just because you got away with dissing person A, that you'd also get away with dissing person B.

But this scenario is different, this guy knew 'B' was gonna smack him up, he still tried his luck.


----------



## superattackpea (May 13, 2010)

N120 said:


> Theres no rule that says just because you got away with dissing person A, that you'd also get away with dissing person B.
> 
> But this scenario is different, this guy knew 'B' was gonna smack him up, he still tried his luck.



Tried his luck? A little more like didn't give into fear mongering superstitious assholes.


----------



## N120 (May 13, 2010)

superattackpea said:


> Tried his luck? A little more like didn't give into fear mongering superstitious assholes.



lol.

 Dont do shit and you got nothing to fear , it's not like these fear mongering superstitious assholes were knocking on his door or gave a damn about who he was before he started calling them out.

 He had no reason to prove anything and they had no reason to respond/do anything to him. But if you'r unhappy with that and you wanna clash, then go ahead.


----------



## hcheng02 (May 14, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> *CTK, if I blow up your house, wouldn't it be ignorant and naive of me to believe you would just let that go?* Now, if you did indeed retaliate, and say killed me of course I would not be at fault. However, you could and would most definitely call me an idiot for blowing up the house as it was an act of pure aggression. If I never blew your house up, none of it would have happened and that is the point.





Petenshi said:


> Arguing with pictures now CTK?
> 
> And Zabuza, saying "Thats Wrong!" is not an argument. *Its a perfect comparision.* If I do A, because I know you hate A and then you Do B as a reaction, why should I be surprised that lives are lost and people got hurt as a result of B? This is not the way to go people.
> 
> ...



So drawing a picture is the same as blowing up a house now? Wow, thats gotta be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I know ten year olds who have better reasoning than that. Blowing up a house is destroying property and can potential hurt or kill someone. Drawing a picture at most results in hurt feelings, and thats only if you let it get under your skin. Those two actions have nothing in common. 

Petenshi has shown that he's not simply naive, but frankly a moral coward. He has no business ever comparing himself to people like Gandhi. He is in fact the very opposite. He is the oppressed frightened peasant who cringes like a dog at threats and slavishly tries to appease those people who oppress him.

This thread has been very educational though, as it has shown that the problem lies in the general attitude of Muslims rather than just a few extremists (as well as liberal cowards who kowtow to their demands).


----------



## Bender (May 14, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Good day. I didn't want to leave this thread without clearly voicing my personal opinion on the matter. So, here it is; the hard truth.
> 
> First of all, I don't understand why people keeping debating this sort of stuff. Everyone is biased, thinking that they has to be right (not to mention, it's pretty much their way or the highway), so why bother? Do you honestly believe that there is a solution beyond mutual respect or war? Or, do you actually expect Muslims to ignore this? Wait, you are not serious, are you?
> 
> ...







Thank you and good night.


----------



## Petenshi (May 14, 2010)

maj1n said:


> I know many families were their family members protested against China's oppression and subsequently were killed during the Tiannman square massacre, even though they knew and did it to piss off the Government.
> 
> Your idea of civility disgusts me, as it is completely the same as oppression.
> 
> ...



What you are talking about is completely different, I have said this many many times before in both threads relating to this topic. Those people didn't do what they did SOLELY because they knew it would anger someone. They wanted to protest, and they knew it would cause problems. This is completely different. People are drawing the cartoons, specifically because Muslims get angry about them. Its a troll that has cost too many resources and too many lives to continue. Is it any cartoonists fault if they get killed, or others are killed in reaction to the cartoon? No. But regardless, the damage is done at the end. Secondly, your view of oppression is wrong. When armies retreated and tried a different method back in old times, they weren't being oppressed they were waiting to try something different. As we all have seen, what we are doing isn't preventing nor helping any situation regarding terrorism. So, if you want to believe that violence and the purposeful trolling of muslims is an end to terrorism, go ahead. However, I assure you that we will always have terrorism while we act like this. Even know I brought this next point up before I am going to say it again, maybe in a different way. Have you noticed that we don't call North Korea and tell them that all of their moms are whores, or any other insult you can think of? I think you can imagine why, it is because it would obviously make them angry and cause unnecessary violence and war. Even sending Kim Jong ill  a cartoon of him might be pushing it, especially since we know they are dangerous. The *abuse not the use* of the freedom of speech, is not worth an attack that could possibly devastate our nation or individual people, From North Korea or in this case terrorists.



hcheng02 said:


> So drawing a picture is the same as blowing up a house now? Wow, thats gotta be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I know ten year olds who have better reasoning than that. Blowing up a house is destroying property and can potential hurt or kill someone. Drawing a picture at most results in hurt feelings, and thats only if you let it get under your skin. Those two actions have nothing in common.
> 
> Petenshi has shown that he's not simply naive, but frankly a moral coward. He has no business ever comparing himself to people like Gandhi. He is in fact the very opposite. He is the oppressed frightened peasant who cringes like a dog at threats and slavishly tries to appease those people who oppress him.
> 
> This thread has been very educational though, as it has shown that the problem lies in the general attitude of Muslims rather than just a few extremists (as well as liberal cowards who kowtow to their demands).



Once again, quick archetype analogies go over your head. The end result is the same, we obviously know now that drawing cartoons of Muhammad CAN "Cause" the death of people. Guess you couldn't catch that one. 

First of all, naive is a person who does not take all variables into an account and usually is named so because they believe the "Impossible" is Possible. I can say that I do believe in the "Impossible" because that is the only way they can be possible. Everyone thought flying was "IMPOSSIBLE", now we landed on the moon. Realize that rationality is not to be used as a lid to the box that you are obviously in, but an anchor so that we can freely explore all possibilities but not get carried away. To you, my solution is impossible. You think peace is impossible, because violence is all you know. We see it everyday, all around us. How could I  expect you to see the side simply from me explaining it to you? The truth is, you have to see it yourself. It is evident that it may never happen, as it doesn't happen for many. And let me make something very clear, I am no coward. I am the smart cunning fox who darts away from the bloodhounds rearing in for the kill, waiting for other opportunities. You however are the true coward, afraid to step out of the box that you are in and realize that violence does not solve any problem permanently. How many conflicts do you know of that were settled permanently by war? World War 2 didn't wipe out all the Nazis, the War for Independence didn't wipe out all the loyalists, the civil war didn't wipe out racism, and the iraq war will certainly not end Extremism is muslims. Why? Because as I said before, you cannot kill an idea with guns. As long as extremism, nazis, and racists exist the threat of the wars we won is still there and thus we have never won them. That is what we are fighting against, and that is why violence cannot succeed. I am not catering to terrorists, I am taking a aggressive approach in a passive manner. I have realized that as a person, I cannot just take the easy way out. So Cheng, when you come back and have learned everything you can about Muslim society, talked to as many Muslims as you could, and tried to understand how they function and THEN find that their is no single Muslim who can't be convinced to do the same about us, you can talk about other methods. Until then, please look passed the barrel of your gun and try to understand the person you are shooting at. 
And I realize that muslim extremists are, as ignorant of us as we are of them, but how can we expect them to try if we don't? Conclusion: Tolerance is not Bred between warring factions by drawing 'offensive' cartoons for the sole purpose to offend them. Since we obviously don't have a relationship with the muslim community in general where we can draw cartoons of their revered prophet, just as a new employee might not want want to draw a cartoon of his new boss, we need to formulate a strategy to find common ground and defeat the ignorance and intolerance that has led to many terrible events for our nation and its citizens.


----------



## maj1n (May 14, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> What you are talking about is completely different, I have said this many many times before in both threads relating to this topic. Those people didn't do what they did SOLELY because they knew it would anger someone. They wanted to protest, and they knew it would cause problems. This is completely different. People are drawing the cartoons, specifically because Muslims get angry about them. Its a troll that has cost too many resources and too many lives to continue. Is it any cartoonists fault if they get killed, or others are killed in reaction to the cartoon? No. But regardless, the damage is done at the end


Wrong, the cartoonists and even newspapers state quite clearly they did it to defend freedom of speech.



			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Secondly, your view of oppression is wrong. When armies retreated and tried a different method back in old times, they weren't being oppressed they were waiting to try something different. As we all have seen, what we are doing isn't preventing nor helping any situation regarding terrorism. So, if you want to believe that violence and the purposeful trolling of muslims is an end to terrorism, go ahead.


My support of freedom of speech is not to end terrorism, but so that future generations can enjoy a freedom i already have, and never earned.



			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Have you noticed that we don't call North Korea and tell them that all of their moms are whores, or any other insult you can think of? I think you can imagine why, it is because it would obviously make them angry and cause unnecessary violence and war. Even sending Kim Jong ill  a cartoon of him might be pushing it, especially since we know they are dangerous. The *abuse not the use* of the freedom of speech, is not worth an attack that could possibly devastate our nation or individual people, From North Korea or in this case terrorists.


You equate satirical images of a long-dead and mythical character in stories as saying someones mum is a whore?

I'll explain some things to you.

1.Political/social issues != private issues, calling someones mum a whore is more along the lines of a private insult, but Islam, per it being pretty godam awful, is a social issue, and is open to criticism and ridicule.

Now if my mum was say, an axe-wielding murderer, and has murdered many many people, i wouldn't be upset if she was called a whore, id call her a bitch.


----------



## Prof. Badass (May 14, 2010)

Freedom of expression at its finest


----------



## dummy plug (May 14, 2010)

i guess he had it coming since there are very strict and sensitive followers of Islam out there


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (May 14, 2010)

Lars Vilks wasn't attacked in this instance because of anything he himself had done. He was attacked when showing a movie by a woman who escaped for Iran (or was it Iraq?). So basically he was showing someone else's work and got attacked for it.


----------



## Mael (May 14, 2010)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Lars Vilks wasn't attacked in this instance because of anything he himself had done. He was attacked when showing a movie by a woman who escaped for Iran (or was it Iraq?). So basically he was showing someone else's work and got attacked for it.



Well if that's the case, the attacker looks all the more stupid.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (May 14, 2010)

Mael said:


> Well if that's the case, the attacker looks all the more stupid.



Plagiarism is serious business


----------



## sadated_peon (May 14, 2010)

Here is some information about the video by Sooreh Hera an Iranian exile.


----------



## Mael (May 14, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Here is some information about the video by Sooreh Hera an Iranian exile.



GRRRRR!  THIS MAKES ME WANT TO HEADBUTT A SWEDE!


----------



## Yachiru (May 14, 2010)

And here we go again, those brains are still in the 7th century


----------



## hcheng02 (May 14, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Once again, quick archetype analogies go over your head. The end result is the same, we obviously know now that drawing cartoons of Muhammad CAN "Cause" the death of people. Guess you couldn't catch that one.



So can making fun of KKK and neo-Nazis or Christians as well. That doesn't stop us from doing so. Why? Because the law protects freedom of speech and if those guys try something the law should throw them in jail. Nor do I see people saying that we should not make fun of them either. People make fun of Christianity everyday, and keep in mind that using the Lord's name in vain is against a fucking commandment. Why don't you see tons of Christians here saying that the producers of South Park and Family Guy deserve to be killed? Because they don't have a Middle Age mentality. 



> First of all, naive is a person who does not take all variables into an account and usually is named so because they believe the "Impossible" is Possible. I can say that I do believe in the "Impossible" because that is the only way they can be possible. Everyone thought flying was "IMPOSSIBLE", now we landed on the moon. Realize that rationality is not to be used as a lid to the box that you are obviously in, but an anchor so that we can freely explore all possibilities but not get carried away. To you, my solution is impossible. You think peace is impossible, because violence is all you know. We see it everyday, all around us. How could I  expect you to see the side simply from me explaining it to you? The truth is, you have to see it yourself. It is evident that it may never happen, as it doesn't happen for many. And let me make something very clear, I am no coward. I am the smart cunning fox who darts away from the bloodhounds rearing in for the kill, waiting for other opportunities.



No you are more like the spineless parent who lets his child run wild and refuses to discipline him. As a result, he becomes spoiled and grows up without knowing how society works. 



> You however are the true coward, afraid to step out of the box that you are in and realize that violence does not solve any problem permanently. How many conflicts do you know of that were settled permanently by war? World War 2 didn't wipe out all the Nazis, the War for Independence didn't wipe out all the loyalists, the civil war didn't wipe out racism, and the iraq war will certainly not end Extremism is muslims. Why? Because as I said before, you cannot kill an idea with guns. As long as extremism, nazis, and racists exist the threat of the wars we won is still there and thus we have never won them. That is what we are fighting against, and that is why violence cannot succeed. I am not catering to terrorists, I am taking a aggressive approach in a passive manner. I have realized that as a person, I cannot just take the easy way out. So Cheng, when you come back and have learned everything you can about Muslim society, talked to as many Muslims as you could, and tried to understand how they function and THEN find that their is no single Muslim who can't be convinced to do the same about us, you can talk about other methods. Until then, please look passed the barrel of your gun and try to understand the person you are shooting at.



WWII wiped out Nazism as a military force and ended the Holocaust, saving millions of lives. The War of Independence for the US gave the US its independence as a nation and if you haven't noticed there aren't that many loyalists who want the US to rejoin the British nowadays. The Civil War ended slavery and the idea of secession. The Iraq war was a mistake where the only thing remotely good out of that was getting rid of a dictator who oppressed the Shiite majority and gassed the Kurds. War doesn't solve everything, but to say that it isn't necessary is fucking stupid. 

For that matter, your vaunted non-violence wouldn't work either based on your impossible standards. The Civil Rights Movement didn't end racism either, despite all the work Martin Luther King Jr. did. Gandhi didn't usher a golden age of peace and love in India. It resulted in the Great Partition between India and Pakistan, which lead to MILLIONS of deaths and people displaced as well as several wars between those two countries down the line. And the Nazis killed non violent minorities by the millions in the death camps during WWII. 

There is nothing remotely aggressive about your approach. It is appeasement. It is Neville Chamberlain selling out his fellow Europeans to Hitler in a vain attempt to stay out of his way. "Let's give him what he wants! Then he'll stop!" Too bad Hitler - being a madman - didn't give a shit and attacked anyway. If anything, it actually encouraged him to attack, since it showed that everyone was too pussy to do otherwise. 



> And I realize that muslim extremists are, as ignorant of us as we are of them, but how can we expect them to try if we don't? Conclusion: Tolerance is not Bred between warring factions by drawing 'offensive' cartoons for the sole purpose to offend them. Since we obviously don't have a relationship with the muslim community in general where we can draw cartoons of their revered prophet, just as a new employee might not want want to draw a cartoon of his new boss, we need to formulate a strategy to find common ground and defeat the ignorance and intolerance that has led to many terrible events for our nation and its citizens.



Tolerance isn't won by making threats over cartoons. If they want to stay in this country then they will have to follow those country's rules. We let them stay in the country. They have access to government services and freedoms. They can worship freely as they want. But thats only if they obey the laws and don't threaten their neighbors. If they can't handle that simple request, then they don't belong there.


----------



## Karsh (May 14, 2010)

Ok this Islamic extremisms against cartoonists is just ridiculous.
Get over yourselves.


----------



## Queen Vag (May 14, 2010)

as an Iranian who comes from a muslim family, I find the arguments used here fucking ridiculous.

NO ONE should be attacked, be getting death threats or incited violence in any way shape or form for a fucking drawing. PERIOD.

it's a piece of paper. Sure what he drew was offensive, deliberately so. but it really spoke in multitudes of how Muslim extremism really _is_ trying to repress said freedom of speech. 

People draw and talk of Muslims as barbarians all the time. If they don't want to be looked at in that way, they shouldn't be going out of their way to attack people for it, because that would only be proving their point.

I can't say I feel sorry for the guy, but he didn't deserve that type of violence.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (May 14, 2010)

That guy doesnt even know The prophet Mohammed why does he do this? 

why cant people leave the prophet alone , seriously i have never seen muslims make fun of jesus.


----------



## Mael (May 14, 2010)

Wakattebayo said:


> That guy doesnt even know The prophet Mohammed why does he do this?
> 
> why cant people leave the prophet alone , seriously i have never seen muslims make fun of jesus.



Because they're trying to prove a point, the point is that they're still free to say as they please and shouldn't have to fear violent reprisals from outsiders who don't enjoy the same freedom they do.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 14, 2010)

While it was pretty stupid on his part, it has....how long ago?

Do they know if he was attacked because of the cartoon? Or is it just speculation?


----------



## sadated_peon (May 14, 2010)

Wakattebayo said:


> That guy doesnt even know The prophet Mohammed why does he do this?
> 
> why cant people leave the prophet alone , seriously i have never seen muslims make fun of jesus.


I heard them saying that my sister is a immoral because she had sex before marriage. 

I have heard them say that I am going to hell because I don't accept Islam.


----------



## Yachiru (May 14, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I heard them saying that my sister is a immoral because she had sex before marriage.
> 
> I have heard them say that I am going to hell because I don't accept Islam.



L-U-N-A-T-I-C-S.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWMxUsTjhY0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Like those ones.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2010)

Wakattebayo said:


> That guy doesnt even know The prophet Mohammed why does he do this?
> 
> why cant people leave the prophet alone , seriously i have never seen muslims make fun of jesus.



No one knows who he is because he's dead (if he existed at all). Plenty make fun of various religious figures that they themselves have no affiliation with, this one should be no different.

Comedy is blasphemous in the eyes of Allah.


----------



## Zabuzalives (May 15, 2010)

Great posts hcheng02. Exactly my view. 

Petenshi is acting like an appeaser. Bending over backwards to be ""tolerant"" to those who would abuse and trample over that tolerance. 

Passive resistance a la Ghandi only works if the opponent has some empathy and sympathy about what happens to you and your people. Or atleast what happens to their image.



the ""blowing up house"" analogy was bad Petenshi. By making it you tie the two scenario's together like they are remotely comparable. Give credence to violent outbursts over the cartoons, and muddle the debate.

You could have as easily made an analogy to someone insulting your mother. You however chose otherwise...why???


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 15, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> Great posts hcheng02. Exactly my view.
> 
> Petenshi is acting like an appeaser. Bending over backwards to be ""tolerant"" to those who would abuse and trample over that tolerance.
> *
> Passive resistance a la Ghandi only works if the opponent has some empathy and sympathy about what happens to you and your people. Or atleast what happens to their image.*



Exactly what I was saying earlier, that kind of logic works when your opponent can exercise common sense and rationality. 

Anyone who would kill over a drawing has neither.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 16, 2010)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQAWrIvBoI[/YOUTUBE]

The redhead's kinda cute <3


----------



## Petenshi (May 16, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> Great posts hcheng02. Exactly my view.
> 
> Petenshi is acting like an appeaser. Bending over backwards to be ""tolerant"" to those who would abuse and trample over that tolerance.
> 
> ...



If not wanting to waste our troops lives over some stupid drawing that people are drawing specifically to anger people is appeasing then anyone should want to appease. It is ridiculous. America does not have to brute force its way to solve every problem. Please, name some efforts we have done to try anything other than violence in this situation and drawing more cartoons to make it worse. You are too lazy to try anything that might be difficult and as usual taking the easy way out.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> If not wanting to waste our troops lives over some stupid drawing that people are drawing specifically to anger people is appeasing then anyone should want to appease. It is ridiculous. America does not have to brute force its way to solve every problem. Please, name some efforts we have done to try anything other than violence in this situation and drawing more cartoons to make it worse.



Since when do you care about the troops ? You wouldn't bat an eye if they got killed, since they're people in uniform


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

Diceman said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQAWrIvBoI[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> The redhead's kinda cute <3



Haha. I see a few that got sprayed with mace. Man does that shit SUCK! Believe me you would much rather be tased cause mace lingers not only for a few minutes but when you wash it out and take your next shower you'll still be feeling it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> If not wanting to waste our troops lives over some stupid drawing that people are drawing specifically to anger people is appeasing then anyone should want to appease. It is ridiculous.* America does not have to brute force its way to solve every problem. *Please, name some efforts we have done to try anything other than violence in this situation and drawing more cartoons to make it worse. You are too lazy to try anything that might be difficult and as usual taking the easy way out.


But its perfectly fine for someone to create a problem and fear using brute force over a drawing? 

You should just really give up, this argument is spiraling to new lows.


----------



## Petenshi (May 16, 2010)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Try again. Just because someone is violent doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> *Two wrongs don't make a right.* Try again. Just because someone is violent doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level.



That might hold up in a kindergarten classroom, but this is the big leagues.

Not to mention if you're getting angry over a drawing to the point of killing that's in the wrong, no one is wrong because you can't control your anger but you. That's why black rage defenses are stupid because you're in control over yourself, not anyone else.


----------



## hcheng02 (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> If not wanting to waste our troops lives over some stupid drawing that people are drawing specifically to anger people is appeasing then anyone should want to appease. It is ridiculous. America does not have to brute force its way to solve every problem. Please, name some efforts we have done to try anything other than violence in this situation and drawing more cartoons to make it worse. You are too lazy to try anything that might be difficult and as usual taking the easy way out.



How the flying fuck is drawing a picture considered "brute force" or "violence?" Care to explain that? Its the muslim extremists who are resorting to violence by attacking and threatening others, and based on this thread its the mainstream muslims and liberal cowards who acquiesce to it. Keep it up though. Your arguments only show the ultimate futility of far left beliefs on letting muslims get away with anything they want - and the end result is you is cringing under the heel of extremists.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right. Try again. Just because someone is violent doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level.



This has to be a troll


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right. Try again. Just because someone is violent doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level.



You need to understand when you tolerate and when they cross the line. Continue to let them cross the line and they are only going to abuse that power you give them. Some times its necessary to stand your ground and not let them cross it using any means necessary to prove that enough is enough and your sick of their shit.

Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable and is willing to sit down and "discuss" with you. Some times your going to have to result to physical force to get people to comply.

I know you dont understand this concept. But I suppose its worth a try.


----------



## Petenshi (May 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That might hold up in a kindergarten classroom, but this is the big leagues.
> 
> Not to mention if you're getting angry over a drawing to the point of killing that's in the wrong, no one is wrong because you can't control your anger but you. That's why black rage defenses are stupid because you're in control over yourself, not anyone else.



I have said it before, you don't get to decide what offends me. There may be the CTK book of offenses but it doesn't apply in the real world. Just because me and you are fine with a drawing does not mean someone else is. This isn't about freedom of speech is about people continually using it because they know it will get a reaction. What purpose does it serve? A laugh? At what point in your mind does people getting angry and then killing stop being funny to you? I think it is stupid that people get angry over s drawing, that isn't the issue for me. The issue is that we continue to treat this as a joke when it is a legitimate concern for Muslims. I agree, the attacks are all on the people who make them. However, it is irresponsible to continue to do acts knowing they will procure bad results for its own sake. These people aren't making statements of grandeur, they are abusing the right of free speech. What WE and I use we because as it stands it seems many people are participating in that ridiculous Draw Mohammad day, are doing is borderline harassment. You can get a restraining order filed if someone continues to do things you don't like purposefully to anger you. That is what I firmly believe, and that is what the 20th of may is going to prove. America is not fighting for free speech, we are fighting for the right to troll Muslims at the cost of who knows what. Once again, let me say I think people should be allowed to draw them. However, I personally think it is one of the stupid ideas I have ever seen in my entire life. If you do it once or twice, to make a point or statement I can see where that is fine. But it is obvious people continue to draw these cartoons BECAUSE Muslims react.



hcheng02 said:


> How the flying fuck is drawing a picture considered "brute force" or "violence?" Care to explain that? Its the muslim extremists who are resorting to violence by attacking and threatening others, and based on this thread its the mainstream muslims and liberal cowards who acquiesce to it. Keep it up though. Your arguments only show the ultimate futility of far left beliefs on letting muslims get away with anything they want - and the end result is you is cringing under the heel of extremists.



The Iraq war is the Brute force I am talking about. I am not saying we have to go there with open arms and try to talk to them, but we make no effort what so ever to change the situation except kill people. Which as I said before, doesn't kill the idea. If saving lives and preserving the true spirit of freedom speech is cowardice then I don't want to be brave. Try a different approach cheng instead of your knee jerk shootem up cowboys reaction. Think, and then act. We barely even thought for a second when we went to Iraq. The end result is to not have our nation become the laughing stock of the world, and furthermore to prevent more tension which leads to more wars and potentially threats to our citizens. 



Razgriez said:


> You need to understand when you tolerate and when they cross the line. Continue to let them cross the line and they are only going to abuse that power you give them. Some times its necessary to stand your ground and not let them cross it using any means necessary to prove that enough is enough and your sick of their shit.
> 
> Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable and is willing to sit down and "discuss" with you. Some times your going to have to result to physical force to get people to comply.
> 
> I know you dont understand this concept. But I suppose its worth a try.



No, I am not naive. I understand what I ask is difficult and it may not be possible to the full extent I wish. Heres a thought though, have you ever tried? Nope. Didn't think so. And until the U.S makes an honest campaign to increase information of the truth throughout the Muslim world then I am going to continue to despise our efforts in Iraq and any other front against Muslim extremists. Not because I feel Extremists are right, but because they are trapped within ignorance. And as a person I cannot allow someone to be killed simply because they don't know the truth. If they won't accept it, that is a different matter. But, alas it seems no one will try anything other than putting a bullet in every extremist the see.


I think you guys misinterpret my position just a bit. Its easy though considering that you guys all come together raging that someone might actually care about peace and tolerance. 1) I personally think Muslims should get over the drawings. 2) I know they won't, and when we draw them we continue to add fuel to the fire. Thats the most important thing your missing. Now, you think that second belief is kneeling to the terrorists when it isn't. The fact is, that we have always had tension with the Muslim world. Just as when there was conflict soon after slavery when you brought slavery up, and said things like the N word so too is drawing these cartoons. Even though it is perfectly right to draw these cartoons, it isn't smart and it puts much at risk when we can take another path. We need to Man up, repair our relationship with the Muslim community preferably with their help and then we can see if our relationship is strong enough to continually insult a revered leader of theirs. Think smart. You don't have to win every battle to win the war and that is what I think we need to be doing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

> I have said it before, you don't get to decide what offends me. There  may be the CTK book of offenses but it doesn't apply in the real world.  Just because me and you are fine with a drawing does not mean someone  else is. This isn't about freedom of speech is about people continually  using it because they know it will get a reaction. What purpose does it  serve? A laugh? At what point in your mind does people getting angry and  then killing stop being funny to you? I think it is stupid that people  get angry over s drawing, that isn't the issue for me. *The issue is that  we continue to treat this as a joke when it is a legitimate concern for  Muslims*.



That's the joke. If they're that bothered by it they deserve to be laughed at.


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

> No, I am not naive. I understand what I ask is difficult and it may not be possible to the full extent I wish. Heres a thought though, have you ever tried? Nope. Didn't think so. And until the U.S makes an honest campaign to increase information of the truth throughout the Muslim world then I am going to continue to despise our efforts in Iraq and any other front against Muslim extremists. Not because I feel Extremists are right, but because they are trapped within ignorance. And as a person I cannot allow someone to be killed simply because they don't know the truth. If they won't accept it, that is a different matter. But, alas it seems no one will try anything other than putting a bullet in every extremist the see.


Lets tackle the brick of text first.

Your making assumptions again. The US military believe it or not has a lot of programs and missions out there to try and win the hearts and minds of the population. After all a happy strong united Iraq is a good Iraq.

The Military has a lot of humanitarian missions where they give out food and water along with information that we are not here to utterly destroy them like the extremists want the public to think. The US after all wants to be liked or at least give the country a strong enough government that can hold itself. If the region goes into more chaos it will become a massive breeding ground of terrorists. Far worse then what it is now. Civil war and mass ignorance will spread and thousands will die over bullshit. It will eventually create more groups and empower current groups that may and most likely will target the US and its allies in the future as well.

Invading Iraq definitely was not the best decision. But we are now stuck with cleaning up the massive mess we have cause. Saddam was a terrible man that deserved to die but in the process it ruined the region and produced a lot of flack for the war on terror.

While we continually provide peaceful tactics a few and far between incidents take place and the media gets their hands on it and pretty much spews it out destroying a lot of built of PR we may of obtained. Its a war of information and its very difficult to win unfortunately.



> I think you guys misinterpret my position just a bit. Its easy though considering that you guys all come together raging that someone might actually care about peace and tolerance. 1) I personally think Muslims should get over the drawings. 2) I know they won't, and when we draw them we continue to add fuel to the fire. Thats the most important thing your missing. Now, you think that second belief is kneeling to the terrorists when it isn't. The fact is, that we have always had tension with the Muslim world. Just as when it caused conflict soon after slavery when you brought it up, and said things like the N word so too is drawing these cartoons. Even though it is perfectly right to draw these cartoons, it isn't smart and it puts much at risk when we can take another path. We need to Man up, repair our relationship with the Muslim community preferably with their help and then we can see if our relationship is strong enough to continually insult a revered leader of theirs. Think smart. You don't have to win every battle to win the war and that is what I think we need to be doing.



I think you should rethink what your stance is for one. Your definitely more naive then you may think. Its a good indication that you might be wrong when multiple people start disagreeing with you.


----------



## hcheng02 (May 16, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> The Iraq war is the Brute force I am talking about. I am not saying we have to go there with open arms and try to talk to them, but we make no effort what so ever to change the situation except kill people. Which as I said before, doesn't kill the idea. If saving lives and preserving the true spirit of freedom speech is cowardice then I don't want to be brave. Try a different approach cheng instead of your knee jerk shootem up cowboys reaction. Think, and then act. We barely even thought for a second when we went to Iraq. The end result is to not have our nation become the laughing stock of the world, and furthermore to prevent more tension which leads to more wars and potentially threats to our citizens.



How the fuck is drawing a picture related to the Iraq War again? Since when the fuck are we shooting muslims in response to them attacking others over these drawings? Oh wait, we're not. Here's something you don't seem to realize - the only people killing others over the cartoon are the Muslims and not the West. Letting muslms do whatever they want isn't killing the idea of extremism, its strengthening it. You are in effect collaborating with extremists. The real laughingstock in the world are the Muslim savages who can't take a goddamn joke and liberals like you who seem to think that appeasing extremists makes them safer. 



> No, I am not naive. I understand what I ask is difficult and it may not be possible to the full extent I wish. Heres a thought though, have you ever tried? Nope. Didn't think so. And until the U.S makes an honest campaign to increase information of the truth throughout the Muslim world then I am going to continue to despise our efforts in Iraq and any other front against Muslim extremists. Not because I feel Extremists are right, but because they are trapped within ignorance. And as a person I cannot allow someone to be killed simply because they don't know the truth. If they won't accept it, that is a different matter. But, alas it seems no one will try anything other than putting a bullet in every extremist the see.
> 
> 
> I think you guys misinterpret my position just a bit. Its easy though considering that you guys all come together raging that someone might actually care about peace and tolerance. 1) I personally think Muslims should get over the drawings. 2) I know they won't, and when we draw them we continue to add fuel to the fire. Thats the most important thing your missing. Now, you think that second belief is kneeling to the terrorists when it isn't. The fact is, that we have always had tension with the Muslim world. Just as when there was conflict soon after slavery when you brought slavery up, and said things like the N word so too is drawing these cartoons. Even though it is perfectly right to draw these cartoons, it isn't smart and it puts much at risk when we can take another path. We need to Man up, repair our relationship with the Muslim community preferably with their help and then we can see if our relationship is strong enough to continually insult a revered leader of theirs. Think smart. You don't have to win every battle to win the war and that is what I think we need to be doing.



There is a difference between simple ignorance - where the person is ignorant but has an open mind and is willing to listen - and willful ignorance - where the person refuses to listen to the other side. Giving in to threats IS kneeling to terrorists. If you dont' stand up for what you believe in, then deep down you don't really give a darn about it. And thats the fundamental truth, you don't care about freedom of speech.

Heres some social skills advice. Just because someone offends you does not mean that you are allowed to physically hurt them. Just because someone insults me does not give me the right to punch him in the face. You keep ragging on me being some gung ho cowboy when its you who is sanctioning the extremists behavior of using and threatening violence on others.


----------



## Botzu (May 16, 2010)

If we just give into their threats of violence and don't draw Muhammad maybe that will be the end of it.


^--Maybe that wasnt fair


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

After watching the video diceman posted (the redhead with the camera is cute) I can see that these Muslims were totally in the wrong, they showed up there knowing the guy and were trying to start shit.

*Did anyone notice the big blond bearded cop? We shall call him "Viking Cop".*


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (May 16, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> It leaves me wondering....havent you heard about the story of Mohammed and that women who used to harass him all the time? She threw trash on him everytime he passed her house and cursed him. One day when she was not outside, Mohammed wondered what was wrong, and after a few more days, he visited her house, only to find her sick. What did he do? He sought to aid her and help her with daily chores until she was healthy again.
> 
> If you guys revere Mohammed so much as you claim, then why dont you follow his example in this case? You people demand others to show respect for him, yet you fail to do so yourself by ignoring his example in this regard.



Yes this is right for one of the sides..though its fair to state both sides are wrong..



Sarutobi sasuke said:


> Below is another picture by the same artist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am a Muslim and I also feel offended by drawings of Jesus,Moses,etc... sure I dont kill over them.. but I dislike them.. its perspective more than anything..




Wakattebayo said:


> That guy doesnt even know The prophet Mohammed why does he do this?
> 
> why cant people leave the prophet alone , seriously i have never seen muslims make fun of jesus.




pretty much because we're avid believers of Prophet "Isa", more popularly known as Jesus..

Also, Muslims tend to be the most affectionate to religions and temples in general.. 


My hand on the Topic:-


All I hear from the defenders of the cartoonist, is that he possess the freedom of speech, and that the attacker had no right to attack him.. I can tell you this, the attacker (even though was probably just emotional) had no right to attack the cartoonist. but on the other hand the cartoonist had no right to produce such stuff publicly.. 

Yes people will tell me "freedom of speech".. guess there's also something called verbal assault, he had no proper reason to commit such acts to begin with.. some say the reason was to ensure his freedom of speech was still intact.. he ensured it by emotionally harming people(weather its sound stupid,childish or whatever).. its no better than Country A invading Country B to ensure their rights when Country B were no threat to begin with.

Emotional harm is as bad or if not worse then Physical harm.. 


For a simplistic summery, the guy as ppl said is a troll who used a loophole to spark conflict.. when he had 0 reason to do it.. I'd be more forgiving if he had a solid reason.. Like if he was an ignorant internet poster who uploads offensive images about something he knows shit about... but this guys gives lectures at universities, he's well educated.. and already knows there is no valid reason to do it, and just doing to raise "conflict"..


hell I bet my left nut, that if this issue didn't spark attention he would consider it a "failure"



Good day and no hard feelings.. and btw Seto Kaiba, i will take you up on your offer, bring the guitar


----------



## Nodonn (May 16, 2010)

> Yes people will tell me "freedom of speech".. guess there's also something called verbal assault, he had no proper reason to commit such acts to begin with.. some say the reason was to ensure his freedom of speech was still intact.. he ensured it by emotionally harming people(weather its sound stupid,childish or whatever).. its no better than Country A invading Country B to ensure their rights when Country B were no threat to begin with.



Emotional harm is all in the eye of the beholder.

What if your very existence causes me untold emotional pain? Are you gonna off yourself because you don't think you have the right to do that?


----------



## T4R0K (May 16, 2010)

Diceman said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQAWrIvBoI[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> The redhead's kinda cute <3



Well, I commend the cops for being able to show that much restrain and just using force on those that were violent. They only sprayed and handled (OK, roughly, but still) those that were trying unreasonable stuff.

Also, I lol'd at the angry people trying to do a theology and politics lecture to the cops, who have a job to do, and that's crowd control and not discussing whose country it is or what the Prophet means. THEY ARE HERE TO MAKE SHIT STOP or at least control it so violence could be reduced, if not stopped.

And for my opinion, I found the reaction of the crowd beying overreaction, they were borderline stupid, and they looked WORSE than Vilks and his video. 

OK, we can clearly see he was provocative with that video, but that was his goal, and he got the reaction he expected. I don't call him stupid for angering a crowd known to react violently, I call the crowd stupid for falling for it. Idiots.

Now, for equality, I'd like to remember haters of muslims that in the 80s, the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" provoked a terrorist attack in Paris from an extremist catholic group, killing 1 person. 

BUT ! They were arrested, denied by other catholics, and no one marched and set ablaze the embassy of the movie producer's country of origin. 

Here, it seems most of the muslims in the place were in uproar, even those that looked "moderate".

If I were in the place ? I'd facepalm at the idiocy, leave without a question (unless cops want a deposition, then I'd wait) and forget about religion and grab a burger.



> Did anyone notice the big blond bearded cop? We shall call him "Viking Cop".



I noticed the female cop... She can cuff me anytime...


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (May 16, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Emotional harm is all in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> What if your very existence causes me untold emotional pain? Are you gonna off yourself because you don't think you have the right to do that?



 am i living just to cause you emotional pain? what he did arose emotional pain which he knew it would.. big difference.. hell i have a reason to live does he have a reason to do such acts?


----------



## Watchman (May 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> After watching the video diceman posted (the redhead with the camera is cute) I can see that these Muslims were totally in the wrong, they showed up there knowing the guy and were trying to start shit.
> 
> *Did anyone notice the big blond bearded cop? We shall call him "Viking Cop".*



This. I remember Biar (I think it was Biar) also posting a video in a similar topic to this about Muslim students going to a university lecture featuring a senior Israeli politician specifically to disrupt it with heckling.

So people show up to something - intentionally seeking out stuff that they at the very least think will offend them so they can make a huge fuss, disrupt it for everybody and then bitch about how they're being victimised.


----------



## abcd (May 16, 2010)

Khris said:


> I am a Muslim and I also feel offended by drawings of Jesus,Moses,etc... sure I dont kill over them.. but I dislike them.. its perspective more than anything..
> pretty much because we're avid believers of Prophet "Isa", more popularly known as Jesus..
> 
> *also, Muslims tend to be the most affectionate to religions and temples in general.. *



[YOUTUBE]hSrpf5vRyuM[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]c-JEOOaJILk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (May 16, 2010)

Watchman said:


> This. I remember Biar (I think it was Biar) also posting a video in a similar topic to this about Muslim students going to a university lecture featuring a senior Israeli politician specifically to disrupt it with heckling.
> 
> So people show up to something - intentionally seeking out stuff that they at the very least think will offend them so they can make a huge fuss, disrupt it for everybody and then bitch about how they're being victimised.



Case closed then? They were stupid for going to it in the first place. 

Like a black person going to a KKK meeting and then causing a scene. 

Hopefully the guy is safe.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (May 16, 2010)

abcd said:


> [YOUTUBE]hSrpf5vRyuM[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]c-JEOOaJILk[/YOUTUBE]



yes because those muslims in Pakistan represent us all... i am talking about sensible living in this era of time muslims.. 

those guys are mercenary idiots.. 

point is, you can't judge Muslims from those acts alone..


----------



## abcd (May 16, 2010)

Khris said:


> yes because those muslims in Pakistan represent us all... i am talking about sensible living in this era of time muslims..
> 
> 
> point is, you can't judge Muslims from those acts alone..



[YOUTUBE]EUMlxDxIoTc[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]RkTNLzGcOcE[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]pgpHHoIvU2I[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]sYfxyFQw0IU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## T4R0K (May 16, 2010)

Khris said:


> yes because those muslims in Pakistan represent us all... *i am talking about sensible living in this era of time muslims*..
> 
> those guys are mercenary idiots..
> 
> point is, you can't judge Muslims from those acts alone..



Yet, I'd like to hear what the ones I bolded say to those in the videos. The eternal question "Where are the moderates ?" or rather "Are there any moderate talking ?"

The problem of muslims is that, yes, we hear only the loud and dangerous idiots, but the rest just seems to stay silent or not vocal enough to say "ENOUGH WITH THIS SHIT !!!"

Many bring up that Islam must be OK, because it's the fastest growing religion in the world, BUT one rarely hears of those muslims who convert to an other religion BECAUSE of Islam. And the intolerance toward them from the other muslims is worse than for a cartoon.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 16, 2010)

Muslim apologists ftl.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (May 16, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Yet, I'd like to hear what the ones I bolded say to those in the videos. The eternal question "Where are the moderates ?" or rather "Are there any moderate talking ?"
> 
> The problem of muslims is that, yes, we hear only the loud and dangerous idiots, but the rest just seems to stay silent or not vocal enough to say "ENOUGH WITH THIS SHIT !!!"
> 
> Many bring up that Islam must be OK, because it's the fastest growing religion in the world, BUT one rarely hears of those muslims who convert to an other religion BECAUSE of Islam. And the intolerance toward them from the other muslims is worse than for a cartoon.



yes it is a serious issue.. thing is, why don't you call those in the videos pakistani other than muslims.. we have no solid blunt Muslim "Leader" and even if we do.. most arabian country leaders, would want that leader to their favore of their country.. thats why many arab-muslims migrate to the west.. they actually have representatives to their issues.. 

here we have a good 'ol labeling name.. here whoever is Muslim is Arab and the other way around.. so we cant differentiate our rights/leaders from Islamic to that of a citizen.. 

should you be treated as your religion or as a citizen? 

Biggest example: how Saudi's government is ruled by their Muslim "Leader"...


and there's also the God awful issue of Sunni/Shi'i/Wahabi quarrel..  which will never stop..   


yes its a worse matter, for fuck's sake, arabian leaders want that kind of distraction to distract the ppl from the real problems.. i was just giving my say on the subject..


the people are trying, but who should you follow? they're all power-hungry throne-whores.. but you just can't blame all muslims.. 

hope you understood me, its a huge mind-fuck anyways...




EDIT: 

just saying my parting words, as this thread disgusts me... 


both sides are wrong(to me anyways), and just a friendly advice to everyone, stop labeling Muslims as Muslims.. it does not work like that anymore.. We used to be an Islamic Country before.. Now the world is split into countries, we're labeled as citizens of our country.. I should be called Bahraini(and my religion is Muslim).. what I do does not reflect on all Muslims and Islam in general even if was stating it was because of it...

Islam is a religion, just like Christianity and Judaism.. If people differentiate Israel and Judaism, why is it so hard to differentiate between a citizen of a country and Islam..   

People actually called it a Race  


good day fellows..


----------



## abcd (May 16, 2010)

Khris said:


> yes it is a serious issue.. thing is, why don't you call those in the videos pakistani other than muslims.. we have no solid blunt Muslim "Leader" and even if we do.. most arabian country leaders, would want that leader to their favore of their country.. thats why many arab-muslims migrate to the west.. they actually have representatives to their issues..
> 
> here we have a good 'ol labeling name.. here whoever is Muslim is Arab and the other way around.. so we cant differentiate our rights/leaders from Islamic to that of a citizen..
> 
> ...



Did u even see the rest of the videos? .. They werent pakistani .. They represented muslims across various countries. 

The ratio of radicals to moderates in Islam is higher than most religions


----------



## Al-Yasa (May 16, 2010)

abcd said:


> Did u even see the rest of the videos? .. They werent pakistani .. They represented muslims across various countries.
> 
> The ratio of radicals to moderates in Islam is higher than most religions



So the pakistanis represent all muslims ?

Do the BNP represent all the british ppl ?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (May 16, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> So the pakistanis represent all muslims ?
> 
> Do the BNP represent all the british ppl ?



I think he's talking about this.


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Yet, I'd like to hear what the ones I bolded say to those in the videos. The eternal question "Where are the moderates ?" or rather "Are there any moderate talking ?"
> 
> The problem of muslims is that, yes, we hear only the loud and dangerous idiots, but the rest just seems to stay silent or not vocal enough to say "ENOUGH WITH THIS SHIT !!!"
> 
> Many bring up that Islam must be OK, because it's the fastest growing religion in the world, BUT one rarely hears of those muslims who convert to an other religion BECAUSE of Islam. And the intolerance toward them from the other muslims is worse than for a cartoon.



Muslims generally live in very oppressive countries and life styles. There is a lot of pressure within their own religion that keeps them quiet or on the young path. Those that are violent and controlling have control over these people and those that may not like the violence essentially turns a blind eye for the safety of themselves and their family.

Its really quite pitiful. The religion is a mess and is most definitely the most violent main stream religion that is very destructive towards it's own believers and others. Its quite a shame really.

They are very prideful and not to fond of non-believers as well which really hurts our chances with cooperating with such a traditional culture.


----------



## Yachiru (May 16, 2010)

Letting a religion decide what's "good" and "bad" is retarded. Those guys doing all this are just a bunch of primitives living in the 7th century.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

Man, you guys really went for the throat after I left, huh?


----------



## Ennoea (May 16, 2010)

> So the pakistanis represent all muslims ?
> 
> Do the BNP represent all the british ppl ?



So you're saying that the Pakistani are the scum of the Muslim world?


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

Yachiru said:


> Letting a religion decide what's "good" and "bad" is retarded. Those guys doing all this are just a bunch of primitives living in the 7th century.



As much as you say that most of our basic laws are built off of religious beliefs.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> So you're saying that the Pakistani are the scum of the Muslim world?



I thought Yemen was the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Pilaf (May 16, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> As much as you say that most of our basic laws are built off of religious beliefs.



There isn't a single valid law or moral principle enacted on a daily basis in the civilized world which originated with religion, or which requires religion to have validity.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> There isn't a single valid law or moral principle enacted on a daily basis in the civilized world which originated with religion, or which requires religion to have validity.



There isn't a single shred of proof you have for that considering you don't know where most shit originated law wise. Not only that but the truth of the matter is that even religious laws have validity a lot of the time. Not that it matters you're just on one of your sad little anti-religion temper tantrums.


----------



## Pilaf (May 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There isn't a single shred of proof you have for that considering you don't know where most shit originated law wise. Not only that but the truth of the matter is that even religious laws have validity a lot of the time. Not that it matters you're just on one of your sad little anti-religion temper tantrums.



Even if values like "don't kill" or "don't rape" or "don't steal" have existed in every single religion man has ever dreamt up, it couldn't have possible originated in any of the major religions of today since Humanity has been around several dozen times longer than any of them. And I'm pretty sure that the other guy was trying to imply that these values magically appeared on Moses' tablets and that before that, people saw no reason whatsoever to live a moral life. I have to call bullshit on that one.


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There isn't a single shred of proof you have for that considering you don't know where most shit originated law wise. Not only that but the truth of the matter is that even religious laws have validity a lot of the time. Not that it matters you're just on one of your sad little anti-religion temper tantrums.



Take christian scriptures and line them up with the constitution. Do this for any other country along with their main religious belief system. You'll notice they share a lot of similarities.

Religion affects all our lives and our basic opinions greatly whether you believe in a religion or not.

We have just moved from being cemented into the belief that our religion is absolutely the right one to accepting other people's right to their beliefs since we didnt like being discriminated against in he past(there is a lot of irony though in this).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Take christian scriptures and line them up with the constitution. Do this for any other country along with their main religious belief system. You'll notice they share a lot of similarities.
> 
> Religion affects all our lives and our basic opinions greatly whether you believe in a religion or not.
> 
> We have just moved from being cemented into the belief that our religion is absolutely the right one to accepting other people's right to their beliefs since we didnt like being discriminated against in he past(there is a lot of irony though in this).



Well I know that and even the laws we don't use have a reason at times, though some are outdated. People didn't eat pork cause its a dangerous meat and easily carries some horrible parasites. People were careful with blood because it carried disease. 

During the plague Jews were blamed because they were so unaffected, but it was the rules they subscribed to that protected them.


----------



## Pilaf (May 16, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Take christian scriptures and line them up with the constitution. Do this for any other country along with their main religious belief system. You'll notice they share a lot of similarities.
> 
> Religion affects all our lives and our basic opinions greatly whether you believe in a religion or not.
> 
> We have just moved from being cemented into the belief that our religion is absolutely the right one to accepting other people's right to their beliefs since we didnt like being discriminated against in he past(there is a lot of irony though in this).




Which "christian scriptures"? You can easily find Bible passages that condone stoning people for speaking their minds, or raping the women of your enemies. Just because some of the more progressive values that happened to be in the christian bible lined up with some of the values put to paper by our (largely deist and non religious) founding fathers doesn't prove that the constitution is based on the christian religion. It simply means that it shares some of the more progressive aspects of it (and many which contradict it, such as freedom of speech and religion).


----------



## abcd (May 16, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Take christian scriptures and line them up with the constitution. Do this for any other country along with their main religious belief system. You'll notice they share a lot of similarities.
> 
> Religion affects all our lives and our basic opinions greatly whether you believe in a religion or not.
> 
> We have just moved from being cemented into the belief that our religion is absolutely the right one to accepting other people's right to their beliefs since we didnt like being discriminated against in he past(there is a lot of irony though in this).



Religion was used to rule the world at one point of time... Still it happens at many places... This is mainly the reason why u find similarities between religions laws and laws of the country.

It would be more accurate to say that a set of laws or morals originated among tribes for better society and later this combined with the faith of the respective tribe because their "gods" obviously followed the same moral principles that they found convenient.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

abcd said:


> Religion was used to rule the world at one point of time... Still it happens at many places... This is mainly the reason why u find similarities between religions laws and laws of the country.
> 
> It would be more accurate to say that a set of laws or morals originated among tribes for better society and later this combined with the faith of the respective tribe because their "gods" obviously followed the same moral principles that they found convenient.



Religion is a horribly ineffective world control, people say this but they don't think how a lot of it doesn't make any sense in the long term.


----------



## Razgriez (May 16, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Which "christian scriptures"? You can easily find Bible passages that condone stoning people for speaking their minds, or raping the women of your enemies. Just because some of the more progressive values that happened to be in the christian bible lined up with some of the values put to paper by our (largely deist and non religious) founding fathers doesn't prove that the constitution is based on the christian religion. It simply means that it shares some of the more progressive aspects of it (and many which contradict it, such as freedom of speech and religion).



Just as anything else religions are modified for the times. A lot of current churches practice a form of the religion that is really out of touch with the religion itself. Its too "liberal" which in turn really make those who practice a religion to where it fits their current moral beliefs ignorant fools that go against the "correct" teachings.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 16, 2010)

I can go back and find laws that condone a lot of stupid shit too. You can still duel in many places legally. 

And Pilaf you tried to say the cops should let protesters beat Nazi protesters who weren't being violent. How come you get to condone violence? Are you a higher order than the Bible? Do you get to decide who gets beat and no one else?


----------



## Adonis (May 16, 2010)

"Anyone can be right all the time if they're vague enough."

To get this thread back on track, at the risk of enabling Pilaf, I'll say that claiming religion has a monopoly on such obvious ethics as "thou shalt not kill/steal" is ridiculous. Ignoring evolutionary imperative that encourages cooperation, one can hardly say such tenets are so developed and nuanced as to be impossible to be ascertained independently. My point is, the morality you're claiming influences all of western society is superficial.

Likewise, Razgriez, what you're mentioning is shifting the goal post. Religions get to adopt the ethics of more progressive civilizations while not only keeping their own label but claiming they're inherent to them. And you'd have to elaborate how the Constitution was influenced explicitly by the Bible. I'll start with one: slavery.


----------



## Ennoea (May 16, 2010)

> Take christian scriptures and line them up with the constitution. Do this for any other country along with their main religious belief system. You'll notice they share a lot of similarities.



So you're saying that religion has a monopoly on simple rules that state murder and stealing is wrong? Civilization moves on, unfortunately religious leaders refuse to admit this change and are still obsessed by keeping the control they believe they are entitled to it seems.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (May 17, 2010)

Two people have just been arrested for trying to burn down Lars Vilks' house.


----------



## Al-Yasa (May 17, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> So you're saying that the Pakistani are the scum of the Muslim world?



No they are not scum

most of my friends are pakistani

im just saying pakistani muslims dont represent all muslims

just like how saudi muslims do not represent all muslims


----------



## Hand Banana (May 17, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> No they are not scum
> 
> most of my friends are pakistani
> 
> ...



With a name like yours, why don't i trust you?


----------



## Watchman (May 17, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Case closed then? They were stupid for going to it in the first place.
> 
> Like a black person going to a KKK meeting and then causing a scene.
> 
> Hopefully the guy is safe.



Are you seriously comparing this film to a KKK meeting? :/

If the guy was broadcasting some film proclaiming "Dem Sand Niggerz are an inferior race to us" or "Muzlimz don't believe the same as us - kick 'em out of our country!" then your comparism would be apt, but the like 30 seconds of this film that we saw did nothing of the sort.

At most, though you can claim it's disrespectful to Islam, it's the same level of respect *all* religions are held at, not anything less.


----------



## Zabuzalives (May 17, 2010)

Botzu said:


> If we just give into their threats of violence and don't draw Muhammad maybe that will be the end of it.
> 
> 
> ^--Maybe that wasnt fair



yes its fair. Its exactly what is going on here. 
History repeats itself if its up to the liberal cowards.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 17, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> yes its fair. Its exactly what is going on here.
> History repeats itself if its up to the liberal cowards.



It's not, Chamberlain had far more foresight than the ultra libs here.Like this:



> That's one thing some historians are trying remind everyone about Chamberlain these days. Making the deal with Hitler looks bad now, because we know how the movie ends. Not so easy at the time, when Chamberlain was at the head of a country whose military was in no shape to fight, and the only ones who had offered to stand with him if he threw down against the Nazis were the freaking French. There were no good options on the table.
> 
> So instead, he came back home from making the deal with Hitler having bought a period of peace that he spent rapidly building the military that would eventually be strong enough to repel the Nazis. And by the way, the main reason they were able to mobilize so quickly was because of an earlier national program to modernize the nation's factories. A program put in place by... Neville Chamberlain.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 17, 2010)

Oddly enough, I just mentioned cowards in another thread. Seems like a common theme.


----------



## Zabuzalives (May 18, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> stupid drawing that people are drawing specifically to anger people



flaw in thought.

not everyone draws it to anger. 

Some draw it to critisize, to make a point about oversensitivity and violence

Some draw it to induce thicker skin in others

Some draw it in defense of freedom of speech. Together you stand strong. 
They cannot kill or threathen everyone. And when violence does not work, they will need to handle it in a different manner (self-control/discussion) which will result in a better situation. 

some are trolling. dont generalize this into applying for all. 



Petenshi said:


> America does not have to brute force its way to solve every problem.



how is individuals drawing a picture-brute force???  



Petenshi said:


> Please, name some efforts we have done to try anything other than violence in this situation and drawing more cartoons to make it worse.



GTFO. 

americans and europeans DIED protecting or trying to protect bosnian MUSLIMS from Serb christians. 

muslims have INCREDIBLE religious freedom in america and europe. compare that to the situation for religious minorities in Islamic countries. 

muslims are being protected against discrimination by several institutes and laws. 

There has been plenty of support and aid from america and europe to muslim counties. Especially after catastrophies. 

There are plenty of things. 


This is only a point of diagreement we should not budge on. friends can disagree to. But we need to establish boundaries. Freedom of speech is important for us. We can agree to disagree but violence cannot be toelrated...and we should NEVER give into violence.....



Petenshi said:


> You are too lazy to try anything that might be difficult and as usual taking the easy way out.



since when is standing up for fundamental rights in favor of someone you might not even like that much (lars was trolling a bit there), and at the risk of injury or even death....the ""Easy way out"" ????


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 18, 2010)

Petenshi makes me ashamed to be liberal. Jesus Christ(lol), man.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 18, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Petenshi makes me ashamed to be liberal. Jesus Christ(lol), man.



Yea, this happens a lot more than I care to think about.


----------



## Watchman (May 18, 2010)

Eh, I've just disavowed Petenshi as a Liberal already. If Muslims are allowed to just go "Oh no, [those people who don't follow my interpretation of Islam] aren't REAL Muslims," I'm allowed to do the same with him. 

Makes things so much easier when you don't have to feel nagging guilt over someone else's silly argument attaching stigma to your political ideology.


----------



## abcd (May 18, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Eh, I've just disavowed Petenshi as a Liberal already. If Muslims are allowed to just go "Oh no, [those people who don't follow my interpretation of Islam] aren't REAL Muslims," I'm allowed to do the same with him.
> 
> Makes things so much easier when you don't have to feel nagging guilt over someone else's silly argument attaching stigma to your political ideology.



I just think he got caught into the spiral and is not able to find a way out


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 18, 2010)

Diceman said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQAWrIvBoI[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> The redhead's kinda cute <3



It makes their reaction look all the more ridiculous. I mean, really. It's like elementary school kids freaking out over gay accusations.


----------

