Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad ! by JaynezTown

Gino's comments are nonsense. As usual, he's just trying to perpetuating a bigoted opinion of Americans.

Based on some descriptions I can see how these images might offend many Muslims. I’ve not seen these images yet, so I can’t really critique them. Although it seems that the Islamic world has confirmed that they are more then just supposition. How twisted is a society that casts death threats, chants racist hatred, mass riots, and burns embassies to the ground simply because someone drew an offensive picture? The majority of so-called non-radical Muslims don’t seem to have much in the way of condemnation for their rioting radical brethren. This kind of thing illustrates the importance of changing the status quo in the Middle East. The Middle East is chalked full of people imbued with an intolerant philosophy who will go ballistic at the smallest offense and riot and kill at every corner. This is why Islamic terrorism is so common, and not simply an Islamic form of other terrorism. Islamic terrorism is a cultural institution nurtured by ever radicalizing cutlural segments and totalitarian states. When an editorial picture in a newspaper results in masses of Muslims burning embassies to the ground, the idea that a war is radicalizing Muslims seems to be clearly farfetched. The Danes didn’t drop any bombs on Iraq or Afghanistan. The Danes compose about 2% of the non-US troop compliment in Iraq.

But it also illustrates the importance of responsible news, which is often lacking in the Western world (the world in general, but the Western world should know better), where journalists knowingly make sensational comments and then hide behind freedom of expression. Journalists need to get on the ball and starting helping the governments who are trying to bring this war to a peaceful and gainful conclusion. And a little thing like not inciting riots would be of tremendous help.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 5:09 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
a few infidel Danes crank out a mildly amusing cartoon here and there

It's not the fact that it's a mildly amusing cartoon, it's the fact that it's a picture of the prophet Mohammed, which is a major no-no to their religion (on a level with defacing the Koran). Mohammed is not allowed to be pictured, due to rules about icons and worshipping graven images. This is a huge challenge to their beliefs, a slap in the face, at least as they see it. They were first insulted, then every newspaper in the West kept printing the cartoon, wondering what the fuss was about. Each printing added insult upon insult, in their eyes.

Personally, I'm finding it harder and harder every day to be relativistic vis-a-vis the Islamic universe. We're talking about Denmark, and now the Norwegian (and I think Swedish as well) embassies here, not exactly what you'd call the epitomes of foreign aggression. I think the Muslim world is long overdue for its secular liberals (or as secular and liberal as you can be in this area) to start taking control.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 6:17 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
a few infidel Danes crank out a mildly amusing cartoon here and there

Personally, I'm finding it harder and harder every day to be relativistic vis-a-vis the Islamic universe. We're talking about Denmark, and now the Norwegian (and I think Swedish as well) embassies here, not exactly what you'd call the epitomes of foreign aggression. I think the Muslim world is long overdue for its secular liberals (or as secular and liberal as you can be in this area) to start taking control.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

Here's how it goes in my mind, hitting Afghanistan was 100% correct, they stoned women to death, the Taliban and Mujahedeen banned foreign books, forbid music and they the assoles started hijacking US airplanes and destroyed the WTC killing many innocent American people including European sightseers, African tourists, Asian tourists, Muslims....

Then came Iraq, and the whole thing seemed something of a shady show. The bigger Bush, not the current shrub-Bush always had that fued going on with Saddam, inspectors wanted to make their report on WMDs that weren't there, plus George W. Bush and Donald new Iraq was sitting on a lot of Oil..
the Iraq war has been a bull story from day one.

However now that the Aussies, United States and British got stuck in Iraq, I felt it might be smarter for them to stay the course and re-build the country after the war, rather than leaving it in chaos.
but now I'm f-cking sick of all this sh*t
It is impossible to bring democracy to these places, No wonder there is so much crap in the world when a good chunk of the earth's population is offended by what is a satirical poke.

GINOBIFFARONI what you posted was the biggest heap of sh*t, very few times would I ever agree with FINN MAC CUMHAL - I think he's a right-wing NeoCon who constantly defends idiots like the baby-Bush handling of Katrina or rumsfeld.
These islamic nutbags are really pushing it this time, do we allow Taliban thugs to ban all Rap and Rock music all African-American dance because Muslims find it offensive, should we censor the Mona Lisa, Salvador Dalí pics, African art, Playboy magazine
do we burn Mark Twain books, Arthur C Clark novels, burn Margaret Mitchell's books because some Afghan radical doesn't like its content.

Maybe the hoardes of offended people could take a step back and realise 'gee, we really do look like a bunch of wankers when we get all antsy about a joke'. 'We are doing our darndest to improve our image in the media by OVERREACTING and burning multiple consulates in multiple coutries.'extremists in the Palestinian refugee camp called Ein-el-Hilwih tell crowd to kill Norwegians and Danish citizens, About two dozen Palestinian protesters stormed the German cultural center in Gaza City, smashing windows, breaking doors and burning the German flag, to protest cartoons deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.
Down the street from the cultural center, about 30 Palestinians threw stones at the European Commission building, Danish embassy in Damascus ablaze Last year wacko Muslims in Britain blew up their fellow countrymen, crazy Muslims in France went on a torching festival... can only start guessing what they will do this year.

Now they have attacked the embassy of norway in damaskus, Norwegian Embassy in Syria is also reported to have been stormed by the mob and set on fire, recently Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to the crackpot Islamic pilgrims, there are violent protests now in Syria, Morocco, Indonesia...and all across the crackpot islamic landscape
- these thungs also killed hundreds of innocent people at the Miss World contest.

Sadly the United States and Bush backed Muslims against European/NewZealand newspapers that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help America's battered image in the Islamic world.
When do we draw the line, and tell these thugs freedom of music/art and freedom of speech is important in the USA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
. . . very few times would I ever agree with FINN MAC CUMHAL - I think he's a right-wing NeoCon who constantly defends idiots like the baby-Bush handling of Katrina or rumsfeld..

Oh, I knew you cared. I feel all gushy inside.

Someone’s got to defend Bush and Rumsfeld. And it’s always an easy job.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 7:09 AM

Couple of things worth noting here.

First, Islam is about 600 years "younger" than Christianity. For most of it's history the Christian faith wasn't especially cool about things seen as Blasphamy. In fact draw a "funny" cartoon depicting Christ or the Pope in Spain in the 1500's and those nice men from the Inquisition would take you away so you could explain it to them. In the past Christian sects have been eliminated by others Christian sects in what comes close to a holy war.

The fact that we spilled enough Christian blood to finally decide that it wasn't worth it, the fact that the principles of the enlightenment decided after this bloodbath to seperate Church and State was a hard won, expensive victory. I don't think we can expect Muslims to just take our experience and build tolerent civil societies, unfortunately they have to learn though their mistakes like we did.

As I see it we need.

1) An Islamic Martyn Luthor
2) An Islamic enlightenment.

unfortunately somewhere between those two is likely to be the bloodiest civil war in history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
These islamic nutbags are really pushing it this time, do we allow Taliban thugs to ban all Rap and Rock music all African-American dance because Muslims find it offensive, should we censor the Mona Lisa, Salvador Dalí pics, African art, Playboy magazine
do we burn Mark Twain books, Arthur C Clark novels, burn Margaret Mitchell's books because some Afghan radical doesn't like its content.

Actually, I while ago there was something in the news that some Muslims in a more cosmopolitan suburb of London handed in a petition to make the Italian restaurant on their street stop serving wine, since it's offensive to their culture. Of course I'm not sure if that's not just a lot of bull, but I'm pretty sure I read it on BBC, in which case I'd have to say it probably actually happened. In any case, as some Muslims tend to overreact to a lot of things, it didn't surprise me at all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 8:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I find it a bit amusing and ironic that the thing that really seems to offend these certain Muslims isn't that Mohammed is pictured with a bomb in his turban, but that MOHAMMED IS PICTURED at all! It's like they're okay with the whole bomb part of it, but not with having a depiction of Mohammed in the cartoon. I guess it says something basic about our core values and beliefs when one group of us is offended by a depiction of "our Prophet" - but not by his being depicted as a bomb-tossing terrorist.

We're dealing here with radical fundamentalist sects within an otherwise peaceful religion. Frankly, I don't find depictions of the Prophet Mohammed to be offensive, but I find anyone who believes in lobbing bombs at people who believe differently than they do to be offensive to a huge degree.

As for Islamic democracy... Be careful what you wish for. The Palestinians just had elections, which by all accounts I've seen are reputed to be fair and honest elections. And they voted for the more radical hate-Bush-hate-the-US-destroy-Israel side of the equation. The US isn't disputing the elections themselves, but now we don't want to have anything to do with those who were elected. So we want to give the power to the people, but when those people speak, we decide we don't like their answer, so we just won't talk to them. What is there that makes us think that a free and democratic Iraq won't do the same thing? Iran also had recent elections, and we in the West apparently aren't so crazy about their outcome, either. We *say* we want democracy in the Middle East, but what we really want is a "puppet democracy", a government led by those of our own choosing. That really hasn't worked out very well for us, historically speaking. It's led to things like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Moammar Qaddafi, Ferdinand Marcos, and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Fidel Castro. All of them were either installed by the US, supported by the US, or direct backlash results of US meddling.

So what's the solution? If you can find one, then you, my friend, are a smarter soul than I... I don't know what to do about terrorism, Iraq, Iran, or the Palestinian issue, but I do know that these are things we're going to have to deal with.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
It's not the fact that it's a mildly amusing cartoon, it's the fact that it's a picture of the prophet Mohammed, which is a major no-no to their religion (on a level with defacing the Koran). Mohammed is not allowed to be pictured, due to rules about icons and worshipping graven images.

Not really. There's something mentioned in the Koran, but there isn't anything specific that explicitly forbids it. This is one of those cases where the religion based around the book takes something from the book and turns it around into something that wasn't necessarily in there, at least not to such an extent. It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but definitely not on the level of defacing the Koran, but I guess it does deface Islamic tradition and what some people believe is in the book.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4674864.stm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 9:05 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

The early Islam was highly oppressive and forbade the painting of human beings, creatures, animals and people including the Prophets. The art and paintings are mainly abstract portraying geometric, Arabesque, and calligraphic designs and look like some kind of Carpet an Egyptian/Algerian might try and sell to a US/German tourist. Orthodox Muslims and hard Islamic sects still push this bullsh*t onto others. variety of substances are considered a sinful haraam or forbidden this includes pork, blood, animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but God, carnivorous animals and alcohol. Some of the Muslim community believe that fish which do not carry scales as well as lobsters and crabs are considered haraam. However Islamic law does not just apply to Islamics, a fatwa requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling his book "blasphemous against Islam." Salman Rushdie's name has become a household word symbolizing the victims of Islamist persecution. Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of housekeeping and caring for the families of both parents. Also Islamic law allows spouses to divorce at will, by clearly saying "I divorce you" three times in public, but in legal practice divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary.

However sometimes it quiet easy - for example, a Malaysian court recently ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. There is also the Islamic ban on any pictorial representation, and radical Muslim ban on paintings of birds/landscapes - the destruction of frescoes and the monumental statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan by the radical Muslim sects and nationalist group the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban there was a ban on western music, foreign film and the strick dress uniform of the burka was obligatory.Saudi Arabia requires women to wear abaya in public; the niqab is optional. There is also the niqab, which is a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijab. Salman Rushdie's name has become word name symbolizing the victims of Islamist persecution. Khomeini offered a U.S.$ 3 million bounty for the death of Rushdie, who was then forced to live for a time under British-financed security, and Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo. In Iran where the death penalty has been used against people participating in rude-movies, or pornographic films shot in the country. The victims of the Islamist book-banners, Muslim radicals that seek out Western sinners and blasphemy-avengers is is a very long list indeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for Islamic democracy... Be careful what you wish for. The Palestinians just had elections, which by all accounts I've seen are reputed to be fair and honest elections. And they voted for the more radical hate-Bush-hate-the-US-destroy-Israel side of the equation. The US isn't disputing the elections themselves, but now we don't want to have anything to do with those who were elected. So we want to give the power to the people, but when those people speak, we decide we don't like their answer, so we just won't talk to them. What is there that makes us think that a free and democratic Iraq won't do the same thing? Iran also had recent elections, and we in the West apparently aren't so crazy about their outcome, either. We *say* we want democracy in the Middle East, but what we really want is a "puppet democracy", a government led by those of our own choosing. That really hasn't worked out very well for us, historically speaking. It's led to things like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Moammar Qaddafi, Ferdinand Marcos, and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Fidel Castro. All of them were either installed by the US, supported by the US, or direct backlash results of US meddling.

I don’t think that is true. We want democracy in the Middle East. The fallacy here is the notion that we must like every country that is a democracy. No one is suggesting that the people of Iraq must put a US friendly leader into office in order for democracy to work in the Middle East, or that democracy will necessarily lead to a US-friendly culture. Democracy will work in favor of US policy because democratic countries are more stable then quasi-feudal totalitarian theocratic or socialist states. A truly democratic Palestine, even if it results in putting Hamas in power, is a victory for the US. In the long run, a democratic Middle East will put the power into the majority of moderate Muslims and marginalize the radicals who hold the Middle East hostage through threats of violence and acts of mob rule.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 10:14 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Not really.

Yes, really.

Quote:
It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but definitely not on the level of defacing the Koran, but I guess it does deface Islamic tradition and what some people believe is in the book.

I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I won't qualify what is or is not a literal command in the Koran and Islam. My post was meant only to inform those that think this is a non-issue that there is a certain sub-group in the Arab world who consider this blasphemy of the highest degree.

As your linked article itself states,

Quote:
To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah. The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

What sets this apart from us is this group doesn't just get offended and huffy at things that are blasphemous, they start burning things down. As with idiots in any major religion, interpretation lies at the heart of the problem.

As quoted by the AP,

Quote:
Islam considers any image of the prophet blasphemous.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060202/afp/060202162437top.html

Therefore, to continue to print the thing in western papers trying to figure out what the problem is only makes it worse for this particular subset.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Not really.

Yes, really.

No, still not really. What my "not really" was referring to was your statement that it defaces the Koran, which it doesn't, at least not directly. Depicting Muhammad is blasphemous according to how the Koran has been interpreted, and is not in direct conflict with what the Koran itself says. Sorry if this seems like a petty distinction, but I think it should be kept in mind that what people say is in a holy book and what's actually in it isn't always the same (the same holds for the Bible).

Quote:

Quote:
It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but definitely not on the level of defacing the Koran, but I guess it does deface Islamic tradition and what some people believe is in the book.

...

As your linked article itself states,
Quote:
To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah. The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

This doesn't contradict what I said, in fact it's basically the same. "The same is believed to apply to Muhammad" (my italics) was sort of the my point. The Koran doesn't explicitly say this, it's people's interpretation of it that says it.

Quote:

What sets this apart from us is this group doesn't just get offended and huffy at things that are blasphemous, they start burning things down. As with idiots in any major religion, interpretation lies at the heart of the problem.

Yes, exactly. So our opinions on the matter aren't that different, huh? Just wanted to point out the difference between offending the Koran itself and offending the belief built up around it, I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 12:48 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
No, still not really. What my "not really" was referring to was your statement that it defaces the Koran, which it doesn't, at least not directly.

I never said depicting Mohammed in the cartoon was defacing the Koran; look at my OP. I said some Islamists put it on the same level as defacing the Koran (ie, blasphemy against Islam). On this, it's still a 'yes, really,' otherwise they might have stayed indoors with the gas and matches this time.

Quote:
Yes, exactly. So our opinions on the matter aren't that different, huh?

Probably not. Just trying to clarify for those folks still thinking that this is a 'mountain out of a molehill,' which it may be to us, but certainly isn't to them.

Quote:
Just wanted to point out the difference between offending the Koran itself and offending the belief built up around it, I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point.

The picture of Mohammed thing has very little to do with the Koran, it has to do with the worship of graven images, something they consider sinful (extremely sinful). Even Islamic art often avoids representing people. I'm curious what the Danish response will be to this; they haven't really said very much yet (as far as I've heard, if someone else has heard a statement, please post it).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think that is true. We want democracy in the Middle East. The fallacy here is the notion that we must like every country that is a democracy. No one is suggesting that the people of Iraq must put a US friendly leader into office in order for democracy to work in the Middle East, or that democracy will necessarily lead to a US-friendly culture. Democracy will work in favor of US policy because democratic countries are more stable then quasi-feudal totalitarian theocratic or socialist states. A truly democratic Palestine, even if it results in putting Hamas in power, is a victory for the US. In the long run, a democratic Middle East will put the power into the majority of moderate Muslims and marginalize the radicals who hold the Middle East hostage through threats of violence and acts of mob rule.

I'm not sure this is entirely true Finn. The US has precedent with disposing of democratically elected governments and installing dictators if those governments weren't the ones the US government wanted in power.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 1:20 PM

That’s debatable, but it also doesn’t makes what I said any less true. Democracy in the Middle East is in the US’s best interests.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 2:50 PM

In my religion, cancelling a television show of truly high calibur is a sin, and my god frowns upon sin, so should I declare a jihad against Fox?

This talk of 'their culture' is senseless; when any claim the right to kill in the name of a religious belief, that belief sucks.
(Notice to terrorists, I said the belief sucks, not the religion, not lookin' to get blowed up any time soon...)

Culture-insensitive Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I never said depicting Mohammed in the cartoon was defacing the Koran; look at my OP. I said some Islamists put it on the same level as defacing the Koran (ie, blasphemy against Islam). On this, it's still a 'yes, really,' otherwise they might have stayed indoors with the gas and matches this time.

Yes, in fact you did say that (the underlined part). My bad. I guess I was sort of expecting somebody to come with the "it's forbidden because the Koran says so" argument and your post looked like it did that. In fact it didn't, so I'm sorry about reacting to it. What I said still holds, but I should've posted it by itself and not as a response to what you posted.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 5, 2006 3:47 PM

DREAMTROVE

I know that posting something will only get me into trouble, but I'm sick of this jihad springing up every time someone exercises their rights of free speech. They really do want to silence all opposition. No wonder these countries are 100% muslim, you probably get beheaded if you don't at least pretend to be one. Anyway, the christians can really bug me sometimes, but at least they don't launch a crusade just because doonesbury (I think it was doonesbury, correct me if I'm wrong) shows a kid asking his father why jesus had long hair, kept the company of men, and hung out with a bunch of peaceniks. The right of someone to set rules for their own society, which I support, doesn't extend allowing you to apply those rules to everyone else. I would guess the cartoonist had recently had his car blown up and was a little unhappy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 6:14 AM

RIVER6213

I don't know why the Muslims are protesting in the streets. It would be best to play the childish, wests game by firing back with the defiling of their religious heros.

If I were in charge of the different media groups in the Muslim countries, I would send forth a memo that would ask for all news, cartoon artists to begin a campaign of cartoons depicting Jesus being azzed-raped on the cross by a goat, or other cartoons with the same theme.

Freedom of speech! You devils have got a lot of nerve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 6:38 AM

AGENTROUKA

This whole thing is incredibly disturbing.

Protesting against free speech? Free speech is what is allowing those protests with their despicable slogans in the first place!

How beautiful would this planet be without hypocrisy or fanatism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 9:37 AM

JAYTEE

Maybe not all muslims are ignorant, violent and intolerant but it would seem that way since those that aren't don't want to speak up against what the "crazy friggin lunatic" muslims that get all the press coverage and claim to represent the muslim world do in the name of Allah and his prophet. They get all bent out of shape over a cartoon and yet their prophet Mohammed had boys in his harem. That offends me.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 10:23 AM

Also needs to be said that there are always malcontents willing to riot for no reason. Places regularly get smashed up in political rally's protests, even sports games in the West. All you need is a couple of hundred lunatics with other grudges, bloodly mindedness and too much Tostesterone and you're shiny.

I suspect if you could magically round up rioters the world over you would find the same sort of people, young men not really invested in society who feel they have nothing to loose, the violent sociopathic types, the criminal element and political rabble rousers. The rest, the folks that demonstrate but dont take part in looting/rioting, tend to be the sheep of society. For example, none of these folks will have seen these cartoons yet they are on the street because someone told them to be.

Sheep!

But we have the same here, how many "Christian" or "Family" groups protest or boycott TV and films without seeing them, or burn Harry Potter books for being satanic?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 10:27 AM

Erm, Jaytee, there’s plenty of Muslim groups and institutions speaking out against the violence, maybe the question should be "why don't they get equal air time to the crazy fundamentalists".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 1:00 PM

CANTONMUDDER

In case some of you forgot, if you roll the clock back for just a few hundred years, you will find that Christians were doing a lot of the same things as these modern day Muslims. The killings, the torture, and the murders were all done in the name of Jesus, our lord and savior. Anyone remember the Inquisition? If somehow those Christians back then were provided with modern day weapons and communications, you would have seen a level of killing and murdering by those Christians that would have made the angels weep.

Before you point the finger at the Muslims in this modern day and say how barbaric, cruel, and mean they are, or how immature they are acting, crack open a history book an enlighten yourself to the misery, and suffering the Christians of the past had bestowed to the world as a whole.

I personally believe that the western world operates on a double standard mindset and it makes me want to vomit.

You all make me sick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 1:09 PM

CantonMudder:

Quote:
You all make me sick.

Thanks.

Please read some of my posts here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=17510&m=244848

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 2:16 PM

CANTONMUDDER

I followed the link and found your thread. I'm glad you are one of the few that knows what he's talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CantonMudder:
In case some of you forgot, if you roll the clock back for just a few hundred years, you will find that Christians were doing a lot of the same things as these modern day Muslims. The killings, the torture, and the murders were all done in the name of Jesus, our lord and savior. Anyone remember the Inquisition? If somehow those Christians back then were provided with modern day weapons and communications, you would have seen a level of killing and murdering by those Christians that would have made the angels weep.

Before you point the finger at the Muslims in this modern day and say how barbaric, cruel, and mean they are, or how immature they are acting, crack open a history book an enlighten yourself to the misery, and suffering the Christians of the past had bestowed to the world as a whole.

I personally believe that the western world operates on a double standard mindset and it makes me want to vomit.

You all make me sick.

No one forgot. This is your imagination. Not a single person in this thread has argued that Medieval Christians were any better. In fact, Fletch2 had a very intelligent comment about exactly this thing.

But what exactly are you suggesting? Medieval Christians who reacted with zealous mob rule in the Medieval world frequently suffered Medieval consequences, such as being burned at the stake, the Iron Maiden or just having their villages burned to the ground, their women raped, their children enslaved, etc, etc. Maybe you should crack open a history book. Because Medieval Christendom was a bloody place for Christians who rioted. Are you suggesting that Muslims who react in a Medieval manner should be treated differently then Medieval Christians? Because that would be a double standard.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CantonMudder:
Before you point the finger at the Muslims in this modern day and say how barbaric, cruel, and mean they are, or how immature they are acting, crack open a history book an enlighten yourself to the misery, and suffering the Christians of the past had bestowed to the world as a whole.

No one forgot. This is your imagination. Not a single person in this thread has argued that Medieval Christians were any better. Maybe you should crack open a history book. Because Medieval Christendom was a bloody place for Christians who rioted. Are you suggesting that Muslims who react in a Medieval manner should be treated differently then Medieval Christians? Because that would be a double standard.

I'm forced to agree with Finn here, act in a Medevil manner, and expect to be treated as such. The idea that we should accept that bull***t now because it happened before by non-Muslims is crap.
And if that's not CantonMudder's point, he needs to get to it in a clearer manner.

No-Felgercarb Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:08 PM

WALKERHOUND

Quote:
I don't know why the Muslims are protesting in the streets. It would be best to play the childish, wests game by firing back with the defiling of their religious heros.

so basically what you would find in your average college level art class or every other swanky gallery exhibit? really how they could compete with the stuff put out by the west it self is beyond me?

contonmudder: so your saying we should compare the action's of the Muslim people’s of the world today to the action's of the Christian (or really any body) during the medieval(or when ever) age hundreds of years ago? that a time when (talk of the inquisition aside) more people were executed for stealing bread then were tried for witch craft. that a comen past time was to put a bull or bare(blindfolded) in a pin and set dog's on them. a time of both out and out slavery and serfdom. that this should be the bench mark by which a modern 21 century people should be measured?

Dos that seam odd to you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:27 PM

Walkerhound.

Suppose an advanced alien culture arrived on Earth tomorrow. For the sake of argument they are 600 years more advanced. They have completely banned religion, same sex couplings are not just tolerated in their society they are actively encouraged. They view pornography as the greatest artwork. Seperate children from their parents at age 5 and educate them in state run hives.

Are you suggesting that America should give up it's current culture and ape that of these obviously more advanced beings? The Muslim world is Medieval because they haven't gone through the upheavals that the Christian world went through. It's easy for us to condem their culture and for them to condemn ours if you dont share the same shaping experiences.

In our Aliens example there could be valid historical and sociological reasons where their society developed as it did that doesnt mean we'd nescessarily condone or understand the reasons for their seemingly bizarre culture. Only if we had gone through similar events is it likely we would have come to the same place.

We expect the Muslim world to accept the principles of our enlightenment, a cultural event they did not share. We express justified disgust with they way they treat women, but in the West women have had the vote for less than 100 years, equal rights for maybe half that. There are still fringe christian groups with very bad reputations for their treatment of women.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
We're talking about Denmark, and now the Norwegian (and I think Swedish as well) embassies here, not exactly what you'd call the epitomes of foreign aggression.

Ahhh, that area of the world has always been a hotbed of brutality and dictatorship, they just put a nice face on it, and keep selling us thier cheese and their Swiss Army knives, dripping with the blood of the oppressed Muslim workers.

Or, at least, that's how it must seem to some...I guess, right?

Somewhat confused Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:48 PM

Sweden used to be a regional superpower fighting wars as far a field as Poland and Russia. Oh and Swiss army knives come from Switzerland, a little land locked country between Austria, Italy, Germany and France.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
We express justified disgust with they way they treat women, but in the West women have had the vote for less than 100 years, equal rights for maybe half that.

Fletch, I was brought up here, in this culture, and I say that I am disgusted with the treatment of women in this culture.
They are indoctrinated by this penis-power society into kowtowing to wear RIDICULOUS cloths at work (High heels/stockings? Save that for the rhythmic mating rituals), accepting sexual abuse that when discovered, is denied by family or silently condoned by society by making the victim feel like she somehow made it happen, having to choose between career and family, effectivly de-valuing motherhood and child-rearing, and getting fifty cents on the professional dollar that men make in comparable jobs.
(Now just IMAGINE my contempt for how Middle Eastern women are treated...)

It's not about religion or culture for me, it's about treating your fellow HUMAN BEING in a manner in which you would like to be treated, i.e. common sense.

Everything else is poorly veiled struggles for power and control.

BTW, venting over and not aimed at you, Fletch.

Momentairly Vehement Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Oh and Swiss army knives come from Switzerland, a little land locked country between Austria, Italy, Germany and France.

Yeah, but they're REALLY made in Sweden, y'know.

Okay, I f***ed up concentrating on the (almost) funny.

Chris'bad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, I f***ed up concentrating on the (almost) funny.

Heh, I thought that was supposed to be part of the joke. Kind of like South Park had the "Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka", Chrisisall had the "Swiss Army Knife... from Sweden!".

But while we're at it, the Scandinavian countries aren't really famous for their cheese either, at least not inside Europe.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
We expect the Muslim world to accept the principles of our enlightenment, a cultural event they did not share. We express justified disgust with they way they treat women, but in the West women have had the vote for less than 100 years, equal rights for maybe half that. There are still fringe christian groups with very bad reputations for their treatment of women.

I don’t expect Muslims to accept the principles of our enlightenment if they don't want to, but I do expect them not to burn down our embassies because someone drew a picture. That has nothing to do with West vs East or their own underdeveloped cultural segments. Because in Medieval Europe you did not burn down someone’s embassy and not face very steep consequences for it. So to suggest that we should tolerate this today based on some hooey multiculturalist relativism is, I think, shortsighted.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
But while we're at it, the Scandinavian countries aren't really famous for their cheese either, at least not inside Europe.

Jarlsberg Cheese!

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 6, 2006 9:34 PM

I'm talking about some of the reasons why these folks are being antisocial, you are talking about why they aren't being punished for it. I'm not sure that's even the same question.

Folk will only get punished for this if their political master's wish it. I don't suspect that's changed in 1000 years. I think the none enlightened culture explains why folk are not very tolerant of satire, I think mobs can happen anywhere or any time you have young men dumb enough to be lead by opertunists and I think lack of punishment comes down to the fact that the Danes are easy targets.

If you want a riot to show that your country is "hard core" about "insults to Islam" Danes make a great target. Not likely they will retaliate with cruise missile, they dont have the economic influence to hurt your economy or a dirty big army on your border.

So if you are one of these tinpot Arab despots you can show your Pan Arab muslim credentials by letting the mob have it's way --- because the "Arab street" knows if it was allowed to happen then the local hard man authorised it--- you can speak out about the "west" without fear that your presidential palace will be a pile of rubble tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I'm talking about some of the reasons why these folks are being antisocial, you are talking about why they aren't being punished for it. I'm not sure that's even the same question.

I’m talking about why it is appropriate to condemn these riots. I’m under no illusion that the Islamic world is actively misinformed by its leaders to hate the West instead of the true source of their oppression, their own governments and religious leaders. However, that’s not what I took from your previous post, but thanks for clarifying.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 4:48 AM

TAISHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
It's not the fact that it's a mildly amusing cartoon, it's the fact that it's a picture of the prophet Mohammed, which is a major no-no to their religion (on a level with defacing the Koran). Mohammed is not allowed to be pictured, due to rules about icons and worshipping graven images. This is a huge challenge to their beliefs, a slap in the face, at least as they see it. They were first insulted, then every newspaper in the West kept printing the cartoon, wondering what the fuss was about. Each printing added insult upon insult, in their eyes.

I agree. It may be a cartoon but it is also an insult to their religion. This would be no different than Christians protesting against offensive images of God or Jesus, or if similar was to occur with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Those in the Western countries downplay all Muslims as terrorists, but they actually only make up a small percentage of the Worlds Muslim population.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:15 AM

What I'm saying is that 600 odd years ago at a comparative point in our cultural development we did what our political and religious masters wanted with the same blind trust. We burned people for heracy, witchcraft and any number of supposed religious sins. It took us a long time and a lot of blood to stop killing folk just because the leaders of our religion told us to. With that in mind seems somewhat bizarre to expect Muslims to show our current levels of tolerance and political cynicism when they are still a medieval society.

I understand why they get upset, I think from their point of view their anger is justified and I don't think it fair to say they should "shrug it off." However I doubt many of these folks would be so angry as to take to the streets burning buildings, that has the hallmarks of a staged event and like I said shows the involvement of some Arab governments.

So to sum up, I think they have a right to be upset, they have a right to peacefull protest and to avoid Danish goods, they dont have a right to burn buildings over it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TaiShan:
It may be a cartoon but it is also an insult to their religion. This would be no different than Christians protesting against offensive images of God or Jesus, or if similar was to occur with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

A man goes up to another man and asks "Is your mother a whore?" In answer to the question, the first man beats and pummels the asker relentlessly.
On the ground, bloody and broken, the man looks up and asks "Is that a 'yes'?"

If you react as an animal to a cartoon that depicts you as an animal, what does that really say?

"Sticks and stones, love."

Had it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:26 AM

TAISHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
What I'm saying is that 600 odd years ago at a comparative point in our cultural development we did what our political and religious masters wanted with the same blind trust. We burned people for heracy, witchcraft and any number of supposed religious sins. It took us a long time and a lot of blood to stop killing folk just because the leaders of our religion told us to. With that in mind seems somewhat bizarre to expect Muslims to show our current levels of tolerance and political cynicism when they are still a medieval society.

I understand why they get upset, I think from their point of view their anger is justified and I don't think it fair to say they should "shrug it off." However I doubt many of these folks would be so angry as to take to the streets burning buildings, that has the hallmarks of a staged event and like I said shows the involvement of some Arab governments.

So to sum up, I think they have a right to be upset, they have a right to peacefull protest and to avoid Danish goods, they dont have a right to burn buildings over it.

I agreed with everything except the government part. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that the people took to the streets, burning buildings on their own. Just like when riots break out among people, in their fervor anythign can happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So to sum up, I think they have a right to be upset, they have a right to peacefull protest and to avoid Danish goods, they dont have a right to burn buildings over it.

They have a right to be upset, but a DUTY to themselves to protest the fringe, violent element in their group or risk being seen as a pack of wild dogs by the West in general.
Or is it okay to use the Muslim religion to precipitate violence and hatred? I mean, every other religion has been used that way, so why should they be different?

Cartoony Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:38 AM

TAISHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by TaiShan:
It may be a cartoon but it is also an insult to their religion. This would be no different than Christians protesting against offensive images of God or Jesus, or if similar was to occur with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
A man goes up to another man and asks "Is your mother a whore?" In answer to the question, the first man beats and pummels the asker relentlessly.
On the ground, bloody and broken, the man looks up and asks "Is that a 'yes'?"

If you react as an animal to a cartoon that depicts you as an animal, what does that really say?

"Sticks and stones, love."

Had it Chrisisall

What I'm saying is that its no different from religious groups all over the world, whether they're Cathlic, Protestant, Jewish, or whatever. I'm not saying go out and burn things down but I can see why they would be outraged by it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TaiShan:
I agreed with everything except the government part. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that the people took to the streets, burning buildings on their own. Just like when riots break out among people, in their fervor anythign can happen.

The Syrian government actively suppresses Islamic parties, they have shot people demonstrating before. Like I said in an earlier post if something is allowed to happen there it's only because the government condones it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:56 AM