Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:50
VIEWED: 48936
PAGE 1 of 3
This one is all over the news - Danish cartoons, originally published in September and hardly noticed at the time, have escalated to near crisis proportions. Newspapers now in France, Germany, Italy, Holland, and Norway have published the papers. Boycotts have been met by EU threats to bring the matter to the WTO. Arab nations threaten a UN resoulution. Danish citizens have been advised to leave Pelestinian terroritory and have been declared targets by terrorists groups. One cartoon showed Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban, that's right folks, it's ok to portray Jews with hook noses, hoarding money, show Southern folk as 'redneck', showing off rude art like 'Piss Christ' a depiction of Jesus submerged in human urine and holy Mary covered with animal dungor even blaming world affairs on the Jewish conspiracy in the Arab op-Cartoons, but God forbid the same is done to them! Muslim protests and calls for boycotts continued to erupt around the world yesterday over cartoons regarded as an insult to Islam, few American newspapers followed the lead of European publications in showing the caricatures that were first published in a Danish newspaper in September. The protests spread to London with about 500 demonstrators chanting "Kill, kill Denmark!" and burning that country's flag as they passed the Danish embassy in a march from Regent's Park mosque.Anjem Choudhary, one of the leaders of the demonstration, refused to condemn the threat of another suicide attack in London on the scale of the July 7 bombings as a result of the perceived insult to Islam. "I am not in the business of condoning or condemning," he said. "The fact is that 7/7 was brought upon the people of London and Britain by the foreign policy of Tony Blair. There is no reason why there should not be more suicide bombings in London."
Passersby stopped police officers to ask why the marchers were being allowed to carry banners threatening further suicide attacks in the city.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=183722006
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27263255.shtml
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=103669
13
http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2006/02
/03/710927280
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews
But it ain't the first time this happened, The best-known example in the West is the row caused by Salman Rushdie's novel, which culminated in the notorious death fatwa against its author by the late Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeyni. In Egypt, the Nobel Prize winner, Naguib Mahfouz, survived a knife attack in for allegedly insulting Islam in one of his novels. Hitoshi Igarashi was the Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie's novel but a fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling for the death of japanese who spoke against Islam, and all those involved in the publication of Rushdie's book, Hitoshi is now dead. Another prominent writer, Farag Fouda, was gunned down in Cairo for alleged apostasy. The cartoons, first published by a Danish newspaper in September, appeared in the Dominion Post and the The Press based in Christchurch, both owned by Australia's Fairfax group. "It's important for our readers to see what the fuss is about and to make up their own minds. Ours is a secular society based on western ideals of tolerance and open debate, even if that may occasionally offend," said Tim Pankhurst, Dominion Post's editor."We do not wish to be deliberately provocative but neither should we allow ourselves to be intimidated," he added. Most American news outlets, caught in a dilemma between showing controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad so have declined to publish the drawings. In Washington, the U.S. State Department stepped into the fray backing Muslims against the NewZealand/European newspapers.Muslim protesters in London so faithfully lived up to their caricature "Freedom go to hell" read one of their placards. "Be
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some random no name makes a controversial cartoon here, he's praised for his 'honesty' and what not. Sure, folks might protest, or boycott this or that, but generally nothing comes of it.
Now, take the lovely Muslim world. Terrorist saw the heads off of innocent men and women? No protest. Terrorist blow up a night club in Bali ? No protest. Terrorist blow up a wedding reception in Israel ? No protest. 200 school children are murdered, some raped before hand. No protest. Terrorsit hijack 4 planes on 9/11, well, they actually danced inthe streets for that one. ( get the picture ? this list could go on for a while.... ) But! Allah have mercy.... a few infidel Danes crank out a mildly amusing cartoon here and there, and the Muslims are on the war path?
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps they figure wedding receptions are fair game, simply because of the number of them your airforce seems to bomb ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,748300,00.html
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/May/25
%20o/The%20Wedding%20Bombing%20at%20Maghar%20al%20Deeb%20By%20Mike%20Whitney.htm
http://www.doublestandards.org/oneill1.html
Mind you, when you don't control a media source such as aljazeerah.... well bombing them suddenly becomes an option ?
Don't think they give a shit
I'm with Signy and Rue
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Perhaps they figure wedding receptions are fair game, simply because of the number of them your airforce seems to bomb ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,748300,00.html
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/May/25
%20o/The%20Wedding%20Bombing%20at%20Maghar%20al%20Deeb%20By%20Mike%20Whitney.htm
http://www.doublestandards.org/oneill1.html
Mind you, when you don't control a media source such as aljazeerah.... well bombing them suddenly becomes an option ?
Don't think they give a shit
Well, one has absolutely nothing to do w/ the other, but I'm sure you sleep well at night siding w/ the terrorist. How, I don't even care to know. And one big difference, the US wasn't TARGETING a wedding party. That's the part you can't seem to wrap around your brick of a head.
Quote:
The Pentagon confirmed that a B-52 bomber did drop seven "precision guided weapons" on a cave complex, one of which missed the target.
It was dark, there was confusion, and during the heat of battle, the US crews thought they were being fired upon. Not much time for Q & A in that situation, sorry. There's no way for the pilots to know if a S.A.M. isn't about to be on its way to their plane.
Meanwhile, those whacky Pals over in Israel had strapped bombs onto their bodies with the specific intent to murder as many civilians as possible. The wife chickened out in this attack, I beleive, but the husband carried out his grim mission.
Bombing al jazeera seems like a viable option, as they are acting as the mouthpiece for the terrorist organizations. But if it's not been bomed yet, don't look for it to be. Not by the US, at least.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, I knew you cared. I feel all gushy inside.
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..
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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".
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Or, at least, that's how it must seem to some...I guess, right?
Somewhat confused Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fletch, I was brought up here, in this culture, and I say that I am disgusted with the treatment of women in this culture.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, but they're REALLY made in Sweden, y'know.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Oh and Swiss army knives come from Switzerland, a little land locked country between Austria, Italy, Germany and France.
Okay, I f***ed up concentrating on the (almost) funny.
Chris'bad
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Quote:Jarlsberg Cheese!
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
I have to agree with Fletch. The slow burn and continued problems pretty much say to me that this is being used as a political tool.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
Originally posted by citizen:
The slow burn and continued problems pretty much say to me that this is being used as a political tool.
Chrisisall, Conspiracies Anomyous
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, offending Christians would serve no purpose....would it?
Chrisisall, feelin' like Jerry now
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some interesting thoughts on the topic here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4678264.stm
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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"NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 proceeNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 l
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME