REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !

POSTED BY: JAYNEZTOWN
UPDATED: Friday, November 8, 2024 05:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 37790
PAGE 2 of 5

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:12 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
The slow burn and continued problems pretty much say to me that this is being used as a political tool.


Bush's agent says to Dane paper print these cartoons, knowing the extreme Muslim responce will serve to raise dislike of the Muslim world in the West, and generate more public approval of Middle East meddeling, is that it?

Chrisisall, Conspiracies Anomyous

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

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:18 AM

CITIZEN


Well... I wouldn't put it past him...

In fact the editor of Jyllands-Posten where the cartoon was first printed stopped a similar cartoon about Jesus because of a possible outcry in 2003. Obviously not offending Christians is a higher priority than Muslims...



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  

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 8:21 AM

CHRISISALL


Well, offending Christians would serve no purpose....would it?

Chrisisall, feelin' like Jerry now

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

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 2:21 PM

KHYRON


Some interesting thoughts on the topic here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4678264.stm

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

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 3:20 PM

WALKERHOUND


Muslim protest are perfectly acceptable and i would say even desirable. there is a religious prohibition agenst depictions of Muhammad, and i respect a man/woman that is upfront and sireuase about there religious beliefs. in that vine i would applaud such actions as boycotts, petitions, letters to the editor /advertisers of the magazine in question. being RC i don't agree with them as such, but i consider the ability to protest what offends you as an obvious example of freedom of expression.

however rioting, arson and intimidation is not the same as using your God given right to tell somebody that there an ahole and have pissed you off.

ya in most of the country’s were the big riots are taking place it's being allowed by the government (in most cases actively encouraged). the powers that be are fine with there subjects going nuts about "out side" forces that are "attacking there culter/way of life/what ever". now if the protesters were to say be calling out against say the curapt and oppressive governments that are actually victimizing them? they would be meet with armored personnel careers and machineguns.

fletch2 i think the problem i'm having with the "we were like this in the past thing" is that it's an observation that....doesn’t' really have a baring on what is going on right now. yes it is a deferent culter yes in many way's it's a culter that is still stuck in vary old way's of doing things. but it's the hear and now that counts. before my grandfather died we had to take his car away form him. he was vary old and had gotten both to feeble to drive and so confused in his mind that he could not be trusted not to try (both driving or servicing the engine). in his youth he had been both a exlent driver and a amazing mechanic, but what had been true in the past had no baring on what was happening in the present.

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

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 4:52 PM

CARTOON


Everytime I see people rioting in the streets over something they disagree with, I'm really irked. Most things I see, I take with a grain of salt. I've seen a lot, and one gets used to most things with time. But for some reason, it's always made my blood boil, watching these crazies take to the streets as they do.

As long as I can remember, I've also always been similiarly irritated by terrorists. I remember the 1972 Munich murders all too well. And, for the life of me, I'd never condone giving in to anything these people demand. We should've learned from Munich (1938, not 1972) that you never get anywhere by appeasing your enemies and handing them their demands on a plate.

Until recently, I never understood what it was about these two kinds of acts which irritated me to such a degree. Then it dawned on me what it was about this behavior that seemed so familiar.

I'm sure we've all seen spoiled children taking tantrums in public places -- those little, irksome menaces who scream and throw a fit because they aren't the recipient of the attention they so crave. Terrorists and crazy rioters behave in the same manner -- like spoiled, selfish children.

Now, everytime I see these idiots behaving in such a manner, I just laugh, "what a bunch of spoiled brats". Unfortunately, they'll likely never grow up, and I fear their self-centered, spoiled tantrums are only the beginning of their childish mishavior, and they will likely cause a lot more harm than the juvenile brats they so perfectly mimic.

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

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 6:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


"I don't care what you believe - just BELIEVE!"
-Book

Can anyone spell the words "COINTELPRO" and "provocateur"? Or does that require too many brain cells?

Hamas was founded by Mossad. The Munich athletes were killed by German operatives. The neoNazis were run by MI6. The IRA was run by MI5. The 7/7 bombings in London were by MI5 and the accused terrorist mastermind is a confessed employee of MI6 with immuunity from arrest in UK and USA. Pentagon Zionists wrote Operation Northwoods to hire enemy soldiers to attack US military bases to blame Commie Cuba, to hijack and bomb US airliners by remote control using fake passenger lists, and hired Israel to sink USS Liberty to blame Egypt. AlCIAduh is "The Database" of CIA employees in Afghanistan fighting the Commie Russians. USAma Bin Laden lived in a US military hospital in Dubai in summer of 2001, while his brother Salem Bin Laden was George Bush Jr's first business partner in ArBUSTo Oil, and his other brother Shafig Bin Laden ate breakfast with his business partner Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire on 9/11/2001 (who now own Serenity The Movie via Universal and Carlyle Group). 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush Gang and their Zionist partners, to blame the Arab-Semites to steal their oil and block it from export to USA. That's why 9/11 victims and govt employees are currently suing the Bush Gang under the RICO Act for perping the 9/11 Massacres. Doh!

Quote:

Muslim Riots Aid Neo-Con Global Agenda

"Clash of Civilizations" Advanced by Naive and Controlled Groups

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infowarsnews/message/706

During collection of material that is posted on this website, we regularly scan political cartoon and artwork archives such as Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index. This is an archive for cartoons that appear in US newspapers nationwide on a daily basis. On numerous occasions over the past five years we have seen cartoons and caricatures that depict Mohammed. Why the sudden outrage now?

As Kurt Nimmo points out, the three most offensive cartoons that caused the outrage were not even printed in the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper but were added in and handed out by Danish imams who “circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries,” according to the London Telegraph.

It also appears highly suspicious that Muslims in Gaza City and other places had gained access to a plentiful supply of Danish flags to burn in front of the waiting world media as soon as the controversy broke out.

We have tirelessly documented previous cases where Muslim clerics and leaders were proven to be acting on behalf of Western intelligence agencies. Early indications strongly suggest that the original riots that led to worldwide demonstrations were staged managed.

Establishment controlled Mexican groups such as Aztlan and Mecha advocate killing all whites and blacks and driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic cleansing. Flags and placards carried at marches depict white people having their heads cut off, as seen in the picture below.

Those that protest such groups are then attacked by the establishment media and labeled as racists, despite the fact that the Plan of San Diego, a rallying cry for the Hispanic Klan groups, advocates total eradication of any race but Hispanics.

Mecha's own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."

Again, this racial warfare only benefits a smug elite who are content to sit back and watch all the chaos unfold, leaving a terrified middle class to beg for a choking police state to be instituted as the only solution to the problem, a problem manufactured by elite control of so-called minority groups in the first place.



Cartoon editor Fleming Rose and the tentacles of PNAC
www.total411.info/2006/02/cartoon-editor-fleming-rose-and.html

Quote:

It turns out the editor who originally publshed the "offensive" Muslim cartoons is a disciple of (Jewish Zionist CFR secret society member) Daniel Pipes and the "clash of civilizations" theory put out by Project for a New American Century. PNAC is the outfit (run by Jews Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Rabbi Dov Zakhaim, Richard "Prince of Darkness" Pearl) that called for a "Pearl Harbor event' in order to initiate a global war against the Muslim world.

Crhistopher Bollyn has more in American Free Press, Feb. 4:

The fact that the editors behind the anti-Islamic images claim to be exercising free speech while refusing to address Europe's strict censorship laws regarding discussion of the Holocaust and the ongoing imprisonment of historical revisionists reveals the existence of a more sinister agenda behind the provocative cartoons.



CNN VIDEO: UN had foreknowledge of Beirut cartoon riot
www.total411.info/2006/02/cnn-video-un-had-foreknowledge-of.html

Semite.
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and ARABS - b : a descendant of these peoples - 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.
—Merriam Webster Dictionary

ZIONAZIS BAN FREE SPEECH IN EUROPE, CANADA AND USA!

Pacifist book publisher arrested in USA without charges, deported to solitary confinement in Canada without charges, deported to ZioNazi Germany for mistrial without lawyers, denied bail on Death Row, for the thought crime of publishing a history book written by a British author. DON'T CLICK THIS LINK OR YOU MAY BE HUNTED DOWN AND ARRESTED FOR THOUGHT CRIME! Free book download:
www.zundelsite.org/english/harwood/Didsix01.html

"Half of writing history is hiding the truth."
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO (VERSION 2)
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

Pirate News TV
"Thinking outside the Idiotbox"
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
(no rocket exhaust as Apollo LEM "blasted off" from the "moon")
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org/hollywood.html
http://ufoetry.com


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

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:00 AM

CITIZEN


This has actually been going on since September last year, seems unlikely that theres no element of 'staging' going on.
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut
6-7 Feb: At least eight killed in Afghanistan as security forces try to suppress violent protests



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  

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 10:03 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


PHOTOS OF FRENCH PIGMAN WERE PHOTOCOPY PSYOPS AS FAKE CARTOON OF MOHAMMED


photo by WorldNetDaily.com

psywar.
short for PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE.
-Webster's New World Dictionary

psychological warfare.
the use of propaganda or other psychological means to influence or confuse the thinking, undermine the morale, etc. of an enemy or opponent.
-Webster's New World Dictionary

Quote:

New Evidence Suggests Muslim Riots Are Staged Psyop

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
February 8, 2006

As news breaks of four more demonstrators being shot dead in Kabul, fresh evidence has surfaced lending credibility to the assertion that the Muslim riots are a staged psyop or at the very least based on false pretenses.

Yesterday leading Russian MP Vladimir Zhirinovsky said that the riots were a manufactured psychological operation on the part of the US in an attempt to enlist hardened EU support for a military strike against Iran:

"A top Russian parliamentary leader has told Ekho Moskvy radio station that an attack on Iran is inevitable and that it will occur on March 28th. The leader of the Liberal Democrats Vladimir Zhirinovsky also believes that the Muslim riots were orchestrated by the US to garner European backing for the military strike. Zhirinovsky told the Russian radio station that: 'The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war. Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost,' said Zhirinovsky."
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/070206attackiran.htm

As first highlighted by this website and others, more evidence has come to light that confirms fake and misleading caricatures were bundled in with the more tame cartoons that were printed in Danish newspapers. Muslims were misled into believing that all the images were printed in newspapers when they were not.

World Net Daily reports:

"One of three especially inflammatory but undocumented Muhammad images distributed by a Danish imam as an example of an "anti-Muslim environment" in the European country turns out to be a poorly reproduced copy of an Associated Press photo taken at a French pig-squealing contest. The weblog NeanderNews pointed out the image used by Imam Ahmad Abu Laban was a faxed copy of AP's Aug. 15 photo of Jacques Barrot competing at the annual French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise."
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48718

Another two images which were erroneously added to the caricatures that were actually carried by the newspapers depict Muhammad as a pedophile demon and a dog raping a praying Muslim.

The US government is no stranger to using falsely attributed paraphernalia to fan the flames of racial tension. During the Vietnam era civil rights struggle, the FBI mass mailed coloring books that were attributed to the Black Panthers. The books portrayed white people as pigs and encouraged blacks to violently attack and kill them. Primarily mailed to white neighborhoods, the books had the effect of turning middle class sentiment against the black rights movement and leading to support of enhanced authoritarian crackdown.
www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/coloring.html

A CNN International news anchor reported that the United Nations had foreknowledge that protests in Beirut were going to erupt on Sunday.

"ANTHONY MILLS, CNN INTERNATIONAL: My understanding is, as well, that UN sources were reporting this morning that this was going to be a chaotic day, if you will... Or, certainly they were reporting --they were suggesting -- their workers shouldn't go to work today."

British ministers use cartoons anger to renew calls for 'glorification of terrorism' law:

"Charles Clarke (a popular "Jewish" name), the Home Secretary, gave a strong signal to the police to proceed with the prosecution of Muslim protesters. Mr Clarke sought to use the protests to challenge opponents of the Government's Terror Bill to drop their opposition to some of the most controversial proposals including a clause to outlaw the "glorification" of terrorism, which was thrown out in the Lords. His remarks are certain to intensify the row over the Bill when it returns to the Commons next week. Ministers appeared to harden their rhetoric after calls grew for prosecutions over the demonstrations in London."
www.infowars.com/articles/terror/danish_muslim_riots_justify_terror_la
w.htm


www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/danish_muslim_riots_staged_psyop.htm



Why would the Muslim clerics photocopy the wrong photograph, then falsely claim it was a cartoon of Mohammed?

Answer: P S Y O P

"'They're hurting us. Get me out.' The Government was playing with her brain."
-Dr T, censored Serenity pilot

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO (VERSION 2)
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php


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

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 10:23 AM

HIXIE129


I agree with much of what JaynezTown has said.

And I will never understand Islam and don't care too. I hate the way they treat women.

I saw this on MSNBC wed site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3917677/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/6
/var1/image_6

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

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:41 PM

CITIZEN


I have had this conversation on another thread. You know Islam and Christianity are virtually the same religion, they call their deities and holy texts by different names but they are pretty close. Islam Judaism and Christianity share some of the same prophets. It is largely held knowledge that the Christian Jewish and Muslim god is one in the same, they differ only in some details.

To understand the basics of Islam all you have to do is understand the basics of one of the other two. It is largely (government sponsored) ignorance that makes people believe that treating women badly et al is a 'Muslim' thing. It's a cultural thing if anything.

Guess what we used to beat women under christian law too. There are Christian honour killings going on right now. It's not Islam it's people, it is only ignorance that say's different.



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  

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:42 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


"I don't care what you believe. Just BELIEVE!"
-Book

Quote:

Originally posted by Hixie129:
And I will never understand Islam and don't care too. I hate the way they treat women.



At least the Muslims aren't taxed to death by Jewish "socialism" (Communism), so their wives can afford to stay home and raise the children. Tens of millions of American women would love the opportunity to do that, but they will never get that chance.

My wife has had to work and go to WAR IN IRAQ, just to pay our 50% tax rate to the international "Jewish" banksters, who then stole her military pension, as done to 95% of all US disabled-retired veterans. We cannot afford to have children, because of having to pay all our income in taxes for the first six months of the year.

If the "Jewish" taxes were repealed in USA, and 30-MILLION ILLEGAL aliens were deported, and US govt quit exporting factories to Commie China and Commie Mexico, there would be no reason to genocide 45-MILLION American babies since 1973, since most abortions are perped for reasons of poverty.

Gasoline cost 5-CENTS/gallon in Iraq (FULL SERVICE), until December 2005, when Bushes' "Jewish" neoCONS raised gas prices 1,500% to 65-cents/gallon.

So the so-called Muslims do have a superior sytem in many ways, never mind that their Mohammed was a brain-damaged homicidal psychopathic pervert with epilepsy.

And Iraq (Babylon) had the most liberal lifestyle for Christians and Jews (Kurds). "Jews" worship Babylon and its Babylonian Talmud and Caballa witchcraft, and worship Molech/Satan by human sacrifice at Bohemian Grove presidential compound, and hate God YHWH, and want to cut the heads off all Christians for blasphemy. Bushes' neoCON "Jews" attacked USA on 9/11/2001 to blame the Arab-SEMITES, which is why the 9/11 victims and US govt employees are suing the Bush Gang using the RICO Act.

Leave the Arabs the hell alone!!! Let them run their own damn countries. Let them protest all they want. US/UK/UN genocided 1-million Iraqi children, both Muslim AND CHRISTIAN. STOP MURDERING THEIR CHILDREN!!!

"'They're hurting us. Get me out.' The Government was playing with her brain."
-Dr T, censored Serenity pilot

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO (VERSION 2)
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php


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

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:26 PM

RIVERTAMKICKSASS03


Not being religious i can't understand why anyone would choose to beleif in hand me down beliefs from a book or from preachers.

I mean there is no way that if there were never any books or religious people that anyone would belive in adam and eve or noah's arc. (I assume these kinds of stories are in all religions holy scriptures)

I don't see why the cartoons would casue offence and DEFINATLY don't think a cartoon warrents setting fire to an ambessy

But i also don't see why the people don't just appoligize for the images. Its not like freedom of speach will somehow vanish if someone appoligizes for drawing some cartoons

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

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


I have a slight qualifier in my condemnation of the muslim response, which I don't repeal. When the paper ran the cartoons, they also received ones ridiculing Jesus, and refused to run them on the grounds that they might offend someone. Since they knew they had muslim readers in Denmark, the paper was taking a biased point of view, and therefore was itself intentionally ridiculing Islam. I still uphold it's right to do so, but I think they're schmucks because they claim to be a neutral party in this, which is clearly not the case.

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

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 4:09 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Since they knew they had muslim readers in Denmark, the paper was taking a biased point of view, and therefore was itself intentionally ridiculing Islam.

I don’t know that this is unqualifiedly the case. I’d have to see what kinds of images you’re talking about and what reason the paper gave for rejecting them. There are lot’s of reason why someone would choose not to publish such images that have nothing to do with bias. What you’re saying could be true, but it could also not be true.




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  

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 11:51 PM

CITIZEN


Jyllands-Posten's editor turned down similar cartoons in 2003 ridiculing Christ because of concerns that it would offend Christians and cause an outcry.

I'll try and find a source for you Finn.



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  

Thursday, February 9, 2006 5:35 AM

TAISHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
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.



Maybe I mistook what you were saying before. I agree that they are encouraging it, though it was initialized by the people.

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 5:46 AM

TAISHAN


Quote:

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.



In a way that has already happened, which is why there are so many different factions in the religion, and which is why different things are tolerated from country to country. An example is the United Arab Emirates which is a bit more liberal than Afghanistan. But this is what others tend to overlook. And the media is no help, they continuously show only the extreme side of Islam. There are black Muslims, white Muslims, Asian Muslims, Hispanic etc. (all non-embassy burning I might add), and yet all that is continuously shown are the fanatics who make up only a relatively small percentage of the total religious population. This is sad because so many are being wrongly stereotyped.

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 7:11 AM

CITIZEN


It's called propoganda, we can't be blaming muslims for all the evils of the world if they're just normal people too...



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  

Thursday, February 9, 2006 8:01 AM

TAISHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
It's called propoganda, we can't be blaming muslims for all the evils of the world if they're just normal people too...



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.




Exactly...Before long they'll be blamed for earthquakes and hurricanes as well.

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 8:33 AM

CARTOON


As an evangelical Christian, I see and hear things which offend me every day. The media is full of anti-Christian bias. How do I react when I'm offended?

I avoid the source of the offense.
Occasionally, I go off the deep end and actually send an email to the offender.

That's how civilized people react to offense. They don't burn and pilage like a spoiled, self-centered, tantrum-throwing child.


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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 8:52 AM

CITIZEN


Christians react in similar ways all the time. John Lennon recieved death threats for saying that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, they burned Beatles merchandise and there was some violence involved. Thats in countries that weren't supporting and stirring up the trouble.

Muslims aren't any worse than Christians Jews or anyone else. They're people and unfortunatly some people aren't the type you want to go have afternoon tea with.

To set up Christianity or any other religion as better than Islam takes enormous ignorance, dishonisty or just the same old childish games of "my religion is better than your religion, my god can beat up your god".



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  

Thursday, February 9, 2006 8:57 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by cartoon:
As an evangelical Christian, I see and hear things which offend me every day. The media is full of anti-Christian bias. How do I react when I'm offended?

I avoid the source of the offense.
Occasionally, I go off the deep end and actually send an email to the offender.

That's how civilized people react to offense. They don't burn and pilage like a spoiled, self-centered, tantrum-throwing child.




Yeah but you are actually following the teachings of your religion. Jesus forgave the people who had just condemned him to the most painfull and protracted form of execution the ancient world could think of. If he could forgive that, how could a Christian not forgive a minor insult?

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 9:06 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by rivertamkicksass03:

But i also don't see why the people don't just appoligize for the images. Its not like freedom of speach will somehow vanish if someone appoligizes for drawing some cartoons




But that's the crux of the problem.

If they apologize for printing these cartoons, they admit that it was the wrong thing to do.

But by the principles of free speech, it was not wrong.

Insensitive, perhaps. But wrong? No.


So, yes, apologizing for practicing free speech would undermine the principles of it.

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 9:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I just wanted to point out the US has its own extremists.

An artwork of the cross dipped in urine was banned from civic display. A picture of the Virgin Mary executed in paint and dung was similary banned. This 'blasphemy" was just too much for civic government.

The US, supposed home of political free speech, has flirted with making defacing the flag illegal - a punishable crime.

Sure the protests are being allowed by SOME governments to distract their people, even perhaps Syria and Iran like Bush claims. But Afghanistan? Why did the (deadly) protests there drop off US radar?

So I wonder, in this scenario where some are taking advantage to advance their own agendas, what agenda is Bush pursuing?


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 11:31 AM

20THCENTFOXHATER


Aaahhh, the wonders of being a Canadian. We're loved by all (well, for the most part), and apparently we love everyone too. All I can say to this, is that this debacle in the Middle East gives us in the first world just another reason to ignore them altogether. The Muslims over there are still acting like it's the bloody Crusades and Middle Ages.

No Muslims I know that I go to school with in Manitoba are chanting or crying out for death to the Danish, or what-not.

I believe that the problem for this does not lie in the people themselves, (as with people in most countries) but are easily persuaded and seduced by a select few lunatic leaders who blow anything remotely against them out of proportion.

I personally do not know any way for this problem to be resolved, as it would most likely end with someone having to bend over backwards to apologize for something that's not that bad in the first place.

If it stays over there, in the Middle East, all the better.

"I aim to misbehave."
"Can't do something smart, do something right".

HOMER: "Oh Lisa, you and your stories; Bart is a vampire, beer kills brain cells. Now lets go back to that... building thingy... where our beds and T.V.... is".

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 8:39 PM

WALKERHOUND


Quote:

An artwork of the cross dipped in urine was banned from civic display. A picture of the Virgin Mary executed in paint and dung was similary banned. This 'blasphemy" was just too much for civic government


define band? what was the name/number of the law that was passed forbidding there display? what legislator voted on it? what judicial branch revued it? what are the minimum and maxim penalty for displacing blasphemes art and ware in America are they enforced?

civic i assume(I could be wrong) you mean something like a government venue (some building owned and run by the local government). so say i go by the court house and they have some sort of art display up (not uncommon thing to happen) something in it offends me. as a constituents i complain to the Mayer /consul man what ever. i'm not the only one that dose this, maybe they receive many complaints some pitons and letters form concerned citizens groups. should thay ignore this after all they are there to represent the need's and wishes of there constituents. off course not every body in town will agre, but the question is what is the ratio?

it's like those list's of "band" books. there not really band, if you want one you can go and get it no problem. there are a lot of book's that were not in the library when i was in school and there are a lot that the public library might decide not to carry (for different reasons). so what, i can still buy them or brow them form somebody else. (now child porn is and example of something band. not for sale and if you do manage to find some and are cout with it you go to jail)

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

Thursday, February 9, 2006 10:39 PM

CITIZEN


It doesn't matter, point is when it comes to religious tolerance respect and sensitivity it's a Christian (and possibly Jewish) thing only. It's very telling that you couldn't see why that would upset Muslims.

The other very telling thing is how you see nothing wrong in curbing freedom of speech, no matter who is doing it, for the sake of Christians, but would even begin to countenance such an idea to spare Muslim feelings. Nice double standards.

You can’t use the freedom of speech defence and then defend curbing of freedom of speech when it’s to your benefit.




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  

Friday, February 10, 2006 7:26 AM

WALKERHOUND


that the editor of this publication (or any other for that matter) has at some other time in the past decided to not print something is not censorship. censorship is out side coercion, specifically by some sort of government (when the cops come and tell you not to do it or your going to get in trouble). further more how much dose that have to do with this? what were the pic's of Jesus like what did they say what could they be considered to say what was the objection to them what was the reason behind them in the first place.

from the Muslim side: the more fundamentalist section is outraged just by the fact that it is a depiction of Mohamed. doesn’t matter what the content is besides that (Jesus and Buda could be knelling at his feet and they would still be burning embassies and betting up suspected Christians).

ive' only seen two of these cartoon's one references terrorism the other oppression of woman. there pretty standard editorial cartoons (by the by the kind of thing i see all the time about Christianity /Catholicism.) now are these two cartoons that equate Islam with terrorism and oppression of woman offensive to Islam? yes, off course there meant to be.

if i called somebody a thief and a bully it's an offensive thing to do. now if that person has broadly speaking two chooses on how to respond. he could contest the accusation, in other words show proof that he is not a thief or a bully. or he could scream at me and start beating me about the head intille i took it back.

right now the Muslim world by and large (are all Muslims every ware moving in lock steep? agine no, it's not about good vs bad Muslims or even necessarily who has the majority in the community) scramming and spiting and beating and demanding that "we" take it back and admit that Islam is the bestist religion in the world.

the thing with these two cartoons (i have heard that some of them were in fact across the line from editorial to out right defamation /blaspheme. just word of mouth but i'm willing to believe it) is it's going to be hard for the Muslim world to answer them.

terrorism: well first explain all the bombs, beheadings (including Asian school girls for the crime of warring catholic school uniforms) and so on.

oppression of woman: well agine can you really say the shoe doesn’t fit?
i freely admit there are moderate Muslims in this world people that would never ever be involved in these types of excesses. further more people that may vary well be sickened by what these others are doing in the name of there religion. but should the anger be against the person pointing out the elephant in the room or agenst the persons that brought it inside in the first place?

sorry for the ramble i get cared away some times (also you know for the spelling
)

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:01 AM

LITTLEALBATROSS


Quote:

Originally posted by 20thCentFoxHater:
If it stays over there, in the Middle East, all the better.



Unfortunately, that may not be the case. Luckily, the protests in Canada have been peaceful in comparison with those in the Middle East, but they've had to cancel the protest in Montreal for fear that it could turn violent. And there's been backlash against a professor who displayed the cartoons.

The Toronto Star has more:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout
/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139526651816&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


I've had one instructor email the class a link to the cartoons and to an article about them, and no one seems to have minded - of course they did so because it's relevant to the class and we expressed interest in discussing it. The prof in the Star article seems to be courting controversy- at the best of times a lecture regarding the evils of religion is not likely to go over well.

I realize that the protests here are nothing compared to those in the Middle East, but I thought it was still worth mentioning.

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:37 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by walkerhound:
but should the anger be against the person pointing out the elephant in the room or agenst the persons that brought it inside in the first place?



The blame for the elephant in the room should be apportioned as follows...

1) It's George Bush's fault. No reason or explanation required. The Bush's are at fault for everything bad that's ever happened to mankind (and even stuff on other planets).

2) It's society's fault (specifically, Western society). After all, Western society promotes democracy, and democracy is a bad thing because it allows people to choose the way they want to live for themselves, and people are too stupid to choose, and need to have the choices made for them by people who aren't people.

3) It's the fault of the person who mentioned that the elephant was in the room. Duh... If this insensitive doofus didn't open their big mouths, surely everyone else (who are "sensitive" and "caring" individuals) would never had said a word, and everyone would've continued pretending that the elephant wasn't only in the room, but that the elephant wasn't actually an elephant, or that elephants in rooms are a completely natural occurence and/or acceptible lifestyle choice.

4) It's the elephant's parents fault. Obviously, they were inattentive, stupid parents who didn't know how to properly raise an elephant.

5) It's God's fault. After all, God made everything, so the elephant, the room, and the fact that the elephant is in the room is all His fault. This is applicable even for people who don't believe there is a God, because then the blame certainly has to fall onto the "idiots" who believe there is a God, and supposedly act in God's behalf.

The important thing here is that it's NEVER the fault of the elephant. That would be just -- well, uh -- just stupid.



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

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:55 AM

TAISHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by walkerhound:
that the editor of this publication (or any other for that matter) has at some other time in the past decided to not print something is not censorship. censorship is out side coercion, specifically by some sort of government (when the cops come and tell you not to do it or your going to get in trouble). further more how much dose that have to do with this? what were the pic's of Jesus like what did they say what could they be considered to say what was the objection to them what was the reason behind them in the first place.

from the Muslim side: the more fundamentalist section is outraged just by the fact that it is a depiction of Mohamed. doesn’t matter what the content is besides that (Jesus and Buda could be knelling at his feet and they would still be burning embassies and betting up suspected Christians).

ive' only seen two of these cartoon's one references terrorism the other oppression of woman. there pretty standard editorial cartoons (by the by the kind of thing i see all the time about Christianity /Catholicism.) now are these two cartoons that equate Islam with terrorism and oppression of woman offensive to Islam? yes, off course there meant to be.

if i called somebody a thief and a bully it's an offensive thing to do. now if that person has broadly speaking two chooses on how to respond. he could contest the accusation, in other words show proof that he is not a thief or a bully. or he could scream at me and start beating me about the head intille i took it back.

right now the Muslim world by and large (are all Muslims every ware moving in lock steep? agine no, it's not about good vs bad Muslims or even necessarily who has the majority in the community) scramming and spiting and beating and demanding that "we" take it back and admit that Islam is the bestist religion in the world.

the thing with these two cartoons (i have heard that some of them were in fact across the line from editorial to out right defamation /blaspheme. just word of mouth but i'm willing to believe it) is it's going to be hard for the Muslim world to answer them.

terrorism: well first explain all the bombs, beheadings (including Asian school girls for the crime of warring catholic school uniforms) and so on.

oppression of woman: well agine can you really say the shoe doesn’t fit?
i freely admit there are moderate Muslims in this world people that would never ever be involved in these types of excesses. further more people that may vary well be sickened by what these others are doing in the name of there religion. but should the anger be against the person pointing out the elephant in the room or agenst the persons that brought it inside in the first place?

sorry for the ramble i get cared away some times (also you know for the spelling
)



The problem with the cartoons is that in their religion it is blasphemous to have any depictions of Mohammed. Unlike Christians who go around displaying Christ and cross at every opportunity, you will not see the same with Muslims. So of course it is offensive to them to not only have depictions of their prophet, but how he was depicted as well...As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it alone. You are trying to mix logic with stereotypes and generalizations.

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 10:53 AM

WALKERHOUND


Quote:

The problem with the cartoons is that in their religion it is blasphemous to have any depictions of Mohammed


ya i know that. personally i first learned it in Sunday school, then when i was older and started reading blog's (of meddles eastern and Muslims) i was reminded of it agine. i've already said that i sport any Muslim that wishes to make a complaint to the editors of any publication reprinting these cartoons (agine individual or groups complain to the editor the advertisers or even better take out one of those page adds explaining your position and included the names off all the people in your musce that agree with you). but i'm not a Muslim and i don't think the people running that magazine were either, for that matter most of Denmark isn't. for that matter what dose it have to do with the government of Denmark in the first place? Thay have free press to my knowledge this was an impendent magazine right, not a officially sanctioned government statement published in some sort of government mouth pice was it?

in my religion abortion is a hanise sin, not just murder but....it is a true evil. well there are a lot of people that aren’t members of my religion and some of them have no problem with abortion. if somebody say kill's an abortionist or burns down a clinic, thay are condemned by the majority of the mainline Christians (yes there are individuals that don't and the wako sects applaud them but agine there are a lot of people in the world thay don't usually all agree).

aside form a certain amount of basic politeness i as a nonmuslum have no obligation to avoid producing or viewing or distributing images of the prophet.

if i saw a Hasidic jew or a Muslim with the full bead and scull cap (or anybody i knew to be Jewish or Muslim) i would not offer them a ham sandwich. it would be incentive and more importantly it would be rude. now if somebody form a religion with dietary restrictions was to ask me for something that i knew to be forbidden by his religion i would (probly first i would make sure he/she knew what the food contained) give it to them. RC out side of lent and some fast day's has vary little to say about what food's a person may eat so as far as i'm concerned it's a no harm no foul. and if the Hindu (let's say) is knowingly willing to eat beef then as far as i'm concerned that's between him and the god(s) he believes in.



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

Friday, February 10, 2006 11:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by walkerhound:
that the editor of this publication (or any other for that matter) has at some other time in the past decided to not print something is not censorship. censorship is out side coercion, specifically by some sort of government (when the cops come and tell you not to do it or your going to get in trouble).


Not that it has anything to do with anything but you are wrong:
Censoring.
verb [vn] to remove the parts of a book, film/movie, etc. that are considered to be offensive, immoral or a political threat: The news reports had been heavily censored.

Where does that mention that it has to come from an outside source? To censor information is merely to prevent material from being released. If an editor of a newspaper refuses information that was too appear in it they are censoring it.
Quote:

further more how much dose that have to do with this? what were the pic's of Jesus like what did they say what could they be considered to say what was the objection to them what was the reason behind them in the first place.

A lot, actually. Everyone’s making a big thing of freedom of speech, but the same newspaper censors something pertaining to Christianity and you say “that has nothing to do with it”. Why? Because it’s about Christianity? What makes it okay to censor material potentially offensive to Christians, but an affront to freedom of speech to extend the same courtesy to Muslims? I believe the operative word here is hypocrisy.
Quote:

if i called somebody a thief and a bully it's an offensive thing to do. now if that person has broadly speaking two chooses on how to respond. he could contest the accusation, in other words show proof that he is not a thief or a bully. or he could scream at me and start beating me about the head intille i took it back.

That’s not actually analogous with this situation. How about if for months you called someone a thief and a bully, spread it around all over, and said it not just to them but anyone you could. When they asked you to stop you carried got other people to help you spread it even further and say it even louder. What then?

The cartoons were first printed in September, Muslims ASKED for them to not be reprinted, something done by Christians all the time and their wishes are, without exception in my experience, adhered too. What actually happened is every newspaper that could get their grubby little hands on them reprinted them. After that the media was going out of its way to insult any and all Muslims, not just the terrorists and fundamentalists. If similar insults were directed at Christians (which would never happen, because freedom of speech isn’t as important as not offending Christians) I promise you there would be riots in the streets, and in countries such as Pakistan it’s not beyond imagination that there would be all the things we see in the Middle East.

Before we get even more ‘holier than thou’ remember what happened when John Lennon made an off the cuff remark about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus.
Quote:

right now the Muslim world by and large (are all Muslims every ware moving in lock steep? agine no, it's not about good vs bad Muslims or even necessarily who has the majority in the community) scramming and spiting and beating and demanding that "we" take it back and admit that Islam is the bestist religion in the world.

It amuses me that you see a couple of hundred Muslims out of a population of over 1.6Billion and you say by and large. That’s like me saying by and large the Christian world supports bombing abortion centres and killing anyone inside. The rest is so ridiculous I don’t even know where to begin.
Quote:

terrorism: well first explain all the bombs, beheadings (including Asian school girls for the crime of warring catholic school uniforms) and so on.

This is a Muslim thing huh? Ever heard of the IRA, a group of predominantly Roman Catholic terrorists, since the IRA are terrorists and Roman catholic that means it logically follows to say Roman Catholics are terrorists, got it.
Quote:

oppression of woman: well agine can you really say the shoe doesn’t fit?

Yeah because there is no Christians/Jews/Other doing this, guess what oppression of women is actually intrinsically part of the Christian religion, as is blaming women for all the evils of mankind, so you earn no points on that one.
Quote:

i freely admit there are moderate Muslims in this world people that would never ever be involved in these types of excesses. further more people that may vary well be sickened by what these others are doing in the name of there religion.

That would be the majority of Muslims you’re thinking about.
Quote:

but should the anger be against the person pointing out the elephant in the room or agenst the persons that brought it inside in the first place?

No obviously it should be against every elephant that has ever lived .

Well the thing people keep missing when I talk about Christianity is that Islam and Christianity are no different. So if we were to take the actions of some Christians and (as many here are doing) assume that defines the average Christian, a Christian is:
A Terrorist, a murderer, a wife beater, someone who indulges in honour killings (yes Christians do this too) and fundamentalists.

Sure, there are some moderate Christians, but by and large all they want is for everyone to admit that theirs is the ‘bestist’ religion.




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  

Friday, February 10, 2006 11:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by walkerhound:
if somebody say kill's an abortionist or burns down a clinic, thay are condemned by the majority of the mainline Christians (yes there are individuals that don't and the wako sects applaud them but agine there are a lot of people in the world thay don't usually all agree).


Are you trying to say that the majority of Muslims aren't condemning the current riots, or the terrorists?

As an aside, I don't wish to berate you for poor spelling, I find it the lowest thing someone can do on a forum, but I'm finding it hard to follow your posts. If it is possible for you to put it through a spell checker first it would be much appreciated.




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  

Friday, February 10, 2006 12:03 PM

WALKERHOUND


Quote:

I don't wish to berate you for poor spelling, I find it the lowest thing someone can do on a forum, If it is possible for you to put it through a spell checker first it would be much appreciated.


first let me thank you it's the sort of courtesy that is harder to find than you would think. second i hat to say it but all my posts have gone through a spell checker (scary isn't it)

Quote:

Are you trying to say that the majority of Muslims aren't condemning the current riots, or the terrorists?


No I’m not, but manly because this is a question (i.e the relative % of support amongst the group in question) that is vary hard to answer with anything like confidence.

but going by the evidence of my eyes I’m seeing… a massed riot (now actual demonstrations peaceful…well I’ve already said I got no problem with) here, here and here. embassies burned (or looted or stormed ect ect) here and here. chanted slogans (death to ect ect ect) and burned flags…you get the idea.

(As an aside one of the blog’s I read from biran(Mohamed’s den. A moderate Muslim that has condemd the excessive violent response by the way) had a pic of one of there MP burning one. And a long rant about all the things wrong or going wrong with in his country that the MP’s could be trying to deal with, If you know they weren’t so busy)


Now I think it is clear that a certain amount off this is the media feeding on it self. The reprints of the original cartoons I feel were nothing than an attempt to provoke. in a way the first were as well, it was an editorial that grew out of the refusal of several artist to produce a Mohamed (or should it be Muhammad out of curiosity) pic for a book. Were the stated reson in a few cases was fear (Theo van g(?) stile).

And I’ll be back a little later with a response to the other post (well I’ll try as I think it makes clear that we have a basic deference in how we view the world, so me may just have to call each other crazy and call it a night)

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 2:43 PM

WALKERHOUND


Censoring: i'm making a distinction between censorship (i have been prevented from saying something) and self censorship(i chose for one reason or another not to say something). it's a fine line i grant you and it's a distinction that doesn’t always have a real meaning (there are lot's of reasons somebody may chose not to say something).

i haven’t actually been talking about freedom of speech my self. i don't think it realy has a lot to do with the situation. honestly to sum it up the paper had a right to print what they did, if they were willing offend a group of people well they are free to do that. in return the group that was offended has the right to make it known that they are in fact offended. in short both sides are practicing there right to free speech, YAY. personally i do object to the way that one side is professing there right's (i think it's both in a moral way unacceptable and in a practical way counterproductive)


this is the part coming up ware are world views may just be to far apart.
Quote:

something done by Christians all the time and their wishes are, without exception in my experience, adhered too


i'm not calling you a lire here, matter of fact i'm hesitant to respond cause these is the part were it can realy get out of hand in a online forum such as this. but since when? art work, articles(and other wrightings) speeches and even cartoons that are anti Christian (or at the lest anti some specific Christian church) are not hard to find at all.

the IRA well i could make a big long list of all the terrorist groups that are or have been active that weren’t grounded in islmofacistam. but it's a numbers game, there are just not as many non Muslim as there are Muslim ones. there have been times in the past when this was not true, but at this time it is. to paraphrase not all Muslims are not terrorists but a lot of terrorists are Muslim. it is simply an acnolgement of a state of being. who should be more upset about this nonmuslams who only have to worry about being murdered? or Muslims who not only have to worry about being murdered (prapornatly Muslim terrorist’s and strong men kill far more Muslims than any body else) but about how the terrorists are dragging down the name of Islam it self.

women.... i don't know what to say, really. it's your stated stance (as i understand you, not trying to put words in your mouth) of non-derfince (similarity ? equal ness ? not sure of the right word) i honestly can not rap my head around it. it's like were looking at the same data but drawing deferent conclusns. so there we are?

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 4:02 PM

CITIZEN


My stance can be summed up fairly simply. It's not Islam, its culture. Islam is different from Christianity only in some minor details; they're essentially offshoots from the same trunk. To blame Islam for Islamic terrorism these riots etc is no different to me blaming Christianity for the IRA, bombing of abortion clinics and many other things.

People calling for the destruction of Islam and its followers because they're evil savages are no better than the clerics calling for the destruction of Israel or the West because they're evil savages.

All the things being done by Muslims have been done and are being done by people of other religions and of no religion.
Quote:

Originally posted by walkerhound:
women.... i don't know what to say, really. it's your stated stance (as i understand you, not trying to put words in your mouth) of non-derfince (similarity ? equal ness ? not sure of the right word) i honestly can not rap my head around it. it's like were looking at the same data but drawing deferent conclusns.


I'm not sure what you’re asking? My attitude toward women? My opinion on Muslim or Christian attitudes toward women? The equality between the stances of Christianity and Islam toward women?
Quote:

i'm not calling you a lire here, matter of fact i'm hesitant to respond cause these is the part were it can realy get out of hand in a online forum such as this. but since when? art work, articles(and other wrightings) speeches and even cartoons that are anti Christian (or at the lest anti some specific Christian church) are not hard to find at all.

Maybe more on the whole rather than the rule. There are indeed news stories that are anti-Christian church in nature (though I've heard of little that is anti-Christian the religion). I however have no doubt in my mind that if the Cartoons had been offensive to Christians and Christians had spoken out against them, papers across Europe would not have reprinted them.

A lot of what is said about Muslims is propaganda. It's one sided (giving all the air time to the fundamentalists and none to the moderates) and in a very real way it's also being stirred up by the media.

The most disheartening thing is that so many supposedly intelligent people here have bought it hook line and sinker. Guys I have a sure fire bet, all you have to do is send me all your money and you'll all be millionaires .




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  

Friday, February 10, 2006 4:04 PM

20THCENTFOXHATER


Quote:

Luckily, the protests in Canada have been peaceful in comparison with those in the Middle East, but they've had to cancel the protest in Montreal for fear that it could turn violent.


And also in regards to the protests in Halifax, I have not heard of ANY of these, and I typically read the paper in the morning, watch the local news, and the national news, and I have not seen any mention of this on any Canadian news programs.

Even my Middle Eastern friends and Muslim friends don't care about this. They say that if someone says something like this, who cares? They don't see a problem with it, because it has no influence over their life.

If all Muslims acted like this, the entire world would be a more peaceful place.

"I aim to misbehave."
"Can't do something smart, do something right".

HOMER: "Oh Lisa, you and your stories; Bart is a vampire, beer kills brain cells. Now lets go back to that... building thingy... where our beds and T.V.... is".

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 4:35 PM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Islam is different from Christianity only in some minor details; they're essentially offshoots from the same trunk.



Pardon my indignation at this remark, but that's a load of nonsense. Christianity has nothing in common with Islam. But, don't take my word for it, take the word of two former Muslims.

Walid Shoebat and Ibrahim Abdullah -- both born & raised Muslims, both who were (by their own admission) former terrorists, who have since become Christians and have publically renounced Islam.

Walid Shoebat has his own webpage, which can be found here: http://www.shoebat.com/

Unfortunately, Ibrahim Abdullah doesn't have his own website (at least not one I could find).

I've seen Shoebat on TV many times over the past few years, but Abdullah (who I'd only seen for the first time this past week) floored me with his recent TV appearance (which is continued next week). I wish the transcript from his appearance was available now, but once it becomes available, I'll be sure to post it if anyone is interested.

Coming from their background, they're better able to repute this nonsense than I am.

Edit: I just found Abdullah's story at Shoebat's webpage here: http://www.shoebat.com/abdallah.php

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 5:05 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


"I got heathens aplenty right here."
-Book

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
It's called propoganda, we can't be blaming muslims for all the evils of the world if they're just normal people too...





"That's sounds like the Alliance. Unite all the planets under one rule, so that everybody can be interfered with or ignored equally."
-Mal

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO (VERSION 2)
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 5:24 PM

CITIZEN


And where does YOUR indignation come from?

As far as I can see both their issues are with interpretations of Islam (theirs in fact).

Islam Christianity and Judaism are branches from a common trunk; they share prophets and holy lands and aspects and stories from the scriptures are remarkably alike.

I don’t need you or ex-Muslims who have seen the light to show me the errors of my ways; I’ve studied the Bible and much of the Qur’an. My assertion that Christianity and Islam are similar is because they are similar.

Beyond that there’s nothing (that’s not a damn thing) in either of those links that supports what you said one iota.


I know Islam is an evil religion so can't possibly have anything to do with the enlightened all good religion of Christianity though. I hear they eat babies, it’s one of the main tenets set down in the Qur’an, what is it Surah 3:40, something about old men eating sons? .




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 6:09 PM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Beyond that there’s nothing (that’s not a damn thing) in either of those links that supports what you said one iota.



You obviously didn't read either of them. Shoebat (and Abdullah) have spoken at length about how Islam contradicts the Bible, and how they are as different as night and day.

The biggest contradiction of course is obvious to even a child. Islam is based on works, Christianity on grace, apart from works. Christianity teaches that man cannot save himself or please God through merit, and that salvation comes through the substitutionary sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Shoebat and Abdullah both recognized this and left the religion that taught them (by their own admission) to hate Jews and Christians.

I applaud Shoebat and Abdullah. Both freely admit they had been deceived and were wrong.

It's a shame that not everyone is as open-minded as they were.

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 7:42 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by cartoon:


The biggest contradiction of course is obvious to even a child. Islam is based on works, Christianity on grace, apart from works. Christianity teaches that man cannot save himself or please God through merit, and that salvation comes through the substitutionary sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Shoebat and Abdullah both recognized this and left the religion that taught them (by their own admission) to hate Jews and Christians.

I applaud Shoebat and Abdullah. Both freely admit they had been deceived and were wrong.

It's a shame that not everyone is as open-minded as they were.



Noooo

That's a Protestant idea, a heresy that would have had those nice men from the Inquisition visiting you 400 years ago.

Justification through faith alone is not accepted by Catholics or by Orthodox Christians. The Man said "by their fruits you will know them" not "You can be shitty your fellow man your entire life and get into heaven on a technicality."

Luther decided that Grace was such a profound gift that shitty human types could never be good enough to deserve it no matter what they did. Pity that because everything the Lord said (remember him? Jewish guy? beard?) was about how your conduct towards your fellow man WOULD be judged.

So no, works are still important for a whole bunch of Christians.


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

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:30 PM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
So no, works are still important for a whole bunch of Christians.



Works are evidence of faith, not means of salvation. Otherwise, you would have to conveniently ignore Paul's multitudinous statements about salvation by grace through faith, not of works.

And, yes, the world will be judged by its works -- and all be found wanting. The Lord demands perfection -- which none of us can achieve. Hence, the grace, and Jesus's saying to Nicodemus that a man must be "born again" (Jesus's words -- actually "born anew"). If man could earn his way, why would have to be born "a new" ("from above")? The whole concept of the Messiah dying a substitutionary death is by grace, to save a fallen mankind who is incapable of saving itself. If man could earn salvation by works, the work of the cross was unnecessary. And God would not have sacrificed His Son if we could earn our own salvation.

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

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:57 PM

FLETCH2


I'm not going to argue the Reformation with you, just pointing out that your statement on Justification is not considered complete by two of the three major branches of the religion.

All Christians agree that justification is by faith -- we all believe that Jesus died for our sins-- but to Protestants that is a passive process, you receive the gift and any good works that follow is a reflection of it. Both RC and Orthodox dont believe that the works part is more important, just that they *are* important ie slavation isn't a passive process. They view Pauls writings as being towards those early churches that insisted that people still follow the Jewish law to be Christians (ie saw Christianity as a Jewish sect rather than a new covenant.) The Rc and Orthodox churches realy more on James than Paul.

(as an interesting sidenote to this I tried to find the specific quote online. It's from James Chapter 2 and reads --

Quote:



14: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16: And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25: Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.




When I put in the citation looking for an online bible to copy/paste a quote I instead found probably 300 American Protestant websites "explaining" why this isn't actually what it appears to say. Pop in references to Paul's letters (some of the err... justifications for JBFA) and you find Catholic websites "explaining" how that isn't what it appears.)


Anyway, it's not especially relevent to the question in discussion. Muslims are by definition not Christians, questions of Justification hardly seem appropriate.

A question worth asking though and as you seem well read on the topic I will pose it to you. If an Orthodox Jew follows the Jewish law errr... religiously, will he still be saved since he is fulfilling the Lord's first covenant with Abraham? Logic suggests that Christ redrew that law and instituted a new covenant with men. In which case are these God fearing Orthodox Jews doomed?

Your opinion?

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

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:01 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originnally posted by Cartoon:
You obviously didn't read either of them. Shoebat (and Abdullah) have spoken at length about how Islam contradicts the Bible, and how they are as different as night and day.


I obviously did, but since I'm not a Christian fundamentalist I don't see everything ever written as either heresy or confirmation that mine is the one true god. I've read both the Bible and the Qur'an, I'd be somewhat surprised if you'd even thought about being in the same room as an alternate text.

So how about you give me the quotes I obviously missed from those links that support what you say, rather than just trawling up random links that apparently prove your rhetoric, and saying see, I have a link. It really doesn't impress me.

Furthermore I'm talking about the actual religion of Islam, not the behaviour of some of it's followers or propaganda that I saw on Fox news or the Christian Fundamentalist channel, which is obviously what you're repeating like a good little non-thinking parrot.

I never disputed there were differences, even outright contradictions between Christianity and Islam. For instance there's the fact that Christianity condemns all other religions in it's sacred text, where as the Qur'an clearly calls for secularism, by stating clearly that Muslims have no right to interfere with followers of other religions . I could quote reams of passages between the Qur'an and the Bible that are near identical though. Is it worth it, are you prepared to listen, or do you just want to support your preconceived notion that Christianity is wholly good and Islam is an evil religion deserving of persecution?
Quote:

Shoebat and Abdullah both recognized this and left the religion that taught them (by their own admission) to hate Jews and Christians.

There's nothing inherent to Islam that calls for the hate or persecution of Jews. There's no comparable statement within the Qur’an to the Bibles:
Which say they are Jews [[]Those that follow the teachings of Christ, i.e. Christians[]], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan [[]Revelations 2:9[]]

Christians have been persecuting Jews for centuries, and some still do, so you earn nothing by trying to make anti-Semitism a Muslim thing.
Quote:

It's a shame that not everyone is as open-minded as they were.

Let me get this straight, denouncing an entire religion based on one's own prejudices is open-minded? If that wasn’t so scary a position it would be funny.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

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

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:39 AM

CARTOON


If you are interested in hearing why these former Muslims have rejected Islam and turned to the Lord, I recommend you check the audio or video links to their televised appearances available through the link below.

(Unfortunately, I've tried the video links at the Shoebat site, and they would not load for me. I don't know if it's because I have dial-up, or because the links are dead.)

However, Ibrahim Abdullah will be on the "Zola Levitt" program again this week -- I believe it airs on ABCFAM at 1AM Eastern Time, Monday (late Sunday night).

I cannot speak with firsthand knowledge about practicing Islam. I can speak with firsthand knowledge about practicing Christianity.

They can speak with firsthand knowledge both about Islam, having both been ardent, practicing Muslims (and both self-admitted terrorists), and also with firsthand knowledge about being practicing Christians -- and why they did a complete turnaround and rejected their former beliefs. I cannot.

One can "study" the military, but they will never have the knowledge of someone who has actually been a soldier. These gentlemen (and others like them) have been actual soldiers -- ardently practicing their beliefs on both sides.

As such, they are far more qualified than someone who has only been on one side (like myself), or others who have never been on either side, but have only read about it.

I've heard their testimonies, and I would be doing them a disservice without a transcript (which is not available to me at that present). Similarly, the brief excerpts from their bios at that site hardly do justice to their stories -- which are quite remarkable -- hearing from their own mouths why they left Islam, and why they now openly reject it, and what such a stance has cost them in their lives.

If this is something you are genuinely interested in, I highly recommend you attempting to view Mr. Abdullah tomorrow night on TV, and/or check Mr. Levitt's site for video clips...

Mr. Shoebat's TV appearances on Levitt can be found here ( http://www.levitt.tv/ ) under the category: "Program Archives: Muslims".

Unfortunately, Mr. Abdullah's TV appearances on Levitt are not available through the webpage. I assume they will be shortly (within a few weeks).

Regarding "Christians" who have persecuted Jews -- as I've stated here elsewhere (probably more than once), anyone who has persecuted Jews (or anyone for that matter) is not a Christian. Words are cheap, walking the walk is the true measure of what a person believes.


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

Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:22 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Cartoon:
However, Ibrahim Abdullah will be on the "Zola Levitt" program again this week -- I believe it airs on ABCFAM at 1AM Eastern Time, Monday (late Sunday night).


I live in Britain so I won't be able to watch this, I will try the television/radio links on the website.
Quote:

One can "study" the military, but they will never have the knowledge of someone who has actually been a soldier. These gentlemen (and others like them) have been actual soldiers -- ardently practicing their beliefs on both sides.

Well they obviously weren't very good 'soldiers' as you put it. Despite Mr. Abdullah's assertion that he studied the Qur'an he obviously missed a huge number of passages that talk about Jews and Christians, and missed the concept of the Dhimmi and how its as bad to commit any crime against one under Islamic law as it is to commit a crime against a Muslim. The fact is he wasn't really a Muslim, since he only followed Islam as far as it supported his pre-conceived prejudices and no further. This is no different from your defence of Christians later on in your post. Either both Christianity and Islam call for persecution of Jews, or neither does.

There are extremist Christians who plant bombs in abortion centres, so do we assume that Christianity supports the bombing of abortion centres, or that some people who say they are Christian missed the point entirely and are just sick arseholes?
Quote:

Regarding "Christians" who have persecuted Jews -- as I've stated here elsewhere (probably more than once), anyone who has persecuted Jews (or anyone for that matter) is not a Christian.

I have no problem with this statement save this:
If one wishes to use this as a defence for Christians you have to extend that to Muslims. There is nothing in Islam that calls for persecution of anyone on religious grounds, and much that forbids it. It is stated in the Qur’an that Jews and Christians are ‘people of the book’ and are expressly protected under Islamic law as Dhimmi. The laws which pertain to the practice of Islam (Shar'iah Law), DO NOT apply to non-Muslims, this, as well as explicit passages within the Qur'an, teach (or at least should do) not only religious tolerance, but also a degree of Secularism (that is allowing anyone to practice their own faith, not separation of state and church) within the Islamic state.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

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

Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:57 AM

CARTOON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I have no problem with this statement save this:
If one wishes to use this as a defence for Christians you have to extend that to Muslims. There is nothing in Islam that calls for persecution of anyone on religious grounds, and much that forbids it. It is stated in the Qur’an that Jews and Christians are ‘people of the book’ and are expressly protected under Islamic law as Dhimmi. The laws which pertain to the practice of Islam (Shar'iah Law), DO NOT apply to non-Muslims, this, as well as explicit passages within the Qur'an, teach (or at least should do) not only religious tolerance, but also a degree of Secularism (that is allowing anyone to practice their own faith, not separation of state and church) within the Islamic state.



Well, I can't speak for the Qur'an, as I've never read it, and was never a practicing a Muslim, but I can refer you to the statement of a man who was a practicing Muslim, Zachariah Anani (from http://www.shoebat.com/anani.php)...

"A lot of people think that Islam is okay," says Anani, and "that those who are making these terrorist attacks are not from Islam. It's actually the other way around. The people who are nice are not really true Muslims—all you have to do is read the doctrine. Chapter (9) of the Qur'an is nothing but a declaration of war."

As regards to your living in Britain, I imagine the show will shortly be available via that webpage. I checked the links to the Shoebat shows on Levitt, and both worked fine. I hope you will check them out if you are interested.



BTW, I visited Britain once in autum of 1983. Only for 8 days, but I loved it. Part of my ancestry is British, and I have a great affinity for the British people.

I do feel personally slighted, however, as Her Majesty saw fit to leave for the United States on the day I arrived (I believe to buy some horses in Kentucky), then returned on the day I left. I can't help but feel that was intentional, and that she was trying to avoid me.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:26 - 13 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:01 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 23:46 - 4761 posts
Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts
Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, November 23, 2024 14:38 - 945 posts
Convicted kosher billionaire makes pedophile Roman Polanski blush
Sat, November 23, 2024 13:46 - 34 posts
The worst Judges, Merchants of Law, Rogue Prosecutors, Bad Cops, Criminal Supporting Lawyers, Corrupted District Attorney in USA? and other Banana republic
Sat, November 23, 2024 13:39 - 50 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL