Adventure Game Studio

I think we all know what I am talking about. Even the muslims members of the forum will agree that no cartoon, no matter if the artist painted a duck or Hitler f*cking the dead corpse of your mother, deserves to set a price for the head of the artist.

This people with torches burning embassies is really mad, what the hell is going on in his heads? A general wave of indignation of this caliber is totally out of place. I wouldn't move a finger is the "Gaza times" publish a porno image of Christ and Mary Magdalene, or the most annoying thing they can imagine...

Note that I am criticising just the angry mob. I am not attacking the 99.9% of the "normal" muslims in the world.

The REAL discussion is about apologising. The newspaper had apologised, but the governments claim that, whereas they could desire a sincere apology, they can't use their authority to oficially ask for an apology. I agree. Freedom of speech is important. What do you think?

I think that attacking a whole nation based on the action of a couple of people is the reasonable thing to go about it.

What I think is strange, is that a lot of muslims will say that they shouldn't be judged by the acts of radical muslims, but that a the same time a lot of muslims are judgeing a whole country for the act of just one newspaper.

Well, not strange, most people are hypocritical...

EditL what haddas said basically :)

I agree, Farlander.

I find it silly that it was a Danish newspaper that published the drawings so they are now boycotting every single Danish product + Norway and Sweden as well! I don't know if they are boycotting Finland yet but I seriously hope they won't.

I don't think these cartoons have something to do with the reactions, they are only a feeble excuse which occured at the right moment for political gains and if this situation Ã, continues nobody will remember how it started but they will keep building on this new reason for tension.

Quote from: Petteri on Sat 04/02/2006 21:46:22
I agree, Farlander.

I find it silly that it was a Danish newspaper that published the drawings so they are now boycotting every single Danish product + Norway and Sweden as well! I don't know if they are boycotting Finland yet but I seriously hope they won't.

Freedom Fries.

Petteri: Your fear for Finland is justified... The Paquistani foreign affairs Minister has called 9 embassadors to explain his complains: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Low Contries, Hungary, Norway and Czech Republic.Ã,  Ã, :-\ Totally crazy.

Holy crap this is such a major overreaction.
Its a comic!
Omfg!11!!!

I think I must say a few things as I am a Muslim member of the forum.

I must say that I felt really bad when I saw that comics on net. Alright, I am not someone too over-conservative as I told in another thread, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't be very happy to see them. You may find me strange; but Mohammed is very important for the Muslim world. This kind of serious things require respect.

But on the other hand; I find wrong what all people in other Muslim countries. I do agree with all of you about this. Furthermore; I know some of you Westerners sometimes make fun of with your own prophet Jesus Christ, anyway (by the way, we do believe that Jesus is a prophet, too).  All the over-anger and boycotting is useless, I think. Only asking the newspaper an apology would be enough.

Please PM me if you want to learn more opinions of me.

Ah yes. But to Christians, Jesus is not a prophet, but the saviour, the one through whom you wust go to get te heaven. He is what separates Jews from Christians.

"There are many causes I am prepared to die for but no causes I am prepared to kill for."

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

-Mahatma Gandhi


Just a lil' something to seperate the beilevers from the hypocrites.

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 04/02/2006 21:40:20Note that I am criticising just the angry mob. I am not attacking the 99.9% of the "normal" muslims in the world.

That 0.01% of "crazy ass" Muslims did a nice job burning down the Norwegian and Danish embassy, start a riot in København, boycotting Scandinavian food products, burn our national flags, threatening Scandinavians down at Gaza who's only there to help out and other rather rude acts against people who happen to be from the same country as some cartoonists.

Y'know, I really try to be tolerant of other people's religion, but this makes it rather hard for me.

It seems like alot of muslims place their religion over everything, but they need to understand that alot of western people don't take religion seriously(or look at it in another way), and will do things that might be looked upon as insulting. That's what got Theo Van Gogh killed.

I don't defend these cartoons, but I defend every right to publish them.

EDIT: Sweet crap, just look at this:

(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/223/11390694100852585lw.jpg)

(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/3411/11390700495254064rb.jpg)

(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/3533/11390696860906283sq.jpg)

http://www.vg.no/video/videoplayer/player.hbs?id=2472

So I guess this is kind of true:

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-- Blaise Pascal

Quote from: HillBilly on Sat 04/02/2006 22:15:51
to understand that alot of western people don't take religion seriously(or look at it in another way),

Unless someone other but them criticises it. Westerners don't want religious discriminations in their schools, provided that christian symbols are omnipresent, of course. They may laugh with homemade cartoons of their local clergy, but they don't tolerate other nations drawing tehm.  I can't see any difference with the current muslim cause.
This is why I believe it is just...politics.

Quote from: cp on Sat 04/02/2006 22:24:04

Unless someone other but them criticises it. Westerners don't want religious discriminations in their schools, provided that christian symbols are omnipresent, of course. They may laugh with homemade cartoons of their local clergy, but they don't tolerate other nations drawing tehm.  I can't see any difference with the current muslim cause.
This is why I believe it is just...politics.

I think you're thinking of the United States, which is pretty bible humping, yes. But I was thinking more in the direction of Scandinavia. From my experience, we're pretty low on the whole respect thing.

I can understand that muslims get angry because of this cartoons, but nothing justifies threatening people or burning embassys.
What I can't understand are the newspapers. All right, one newspaper printed these cartoons and people get angry. Why do other newspapers print these cartoons as well? Is it that difficult to respect other peoples religion and feelings?

Quote from: HillBilly on Sat 04/02/2006 22:29:49
I think you're thinking of the United States,

No, I 'm thinking of Europe.
Personally, the only thing that would bother me about a cartoon, any cartoon, would be an uninspired caption, but again, I 'm the kind of person who thinks "If you can't make a joke of it, then it's not serious enough on its own"

And, Sinitrena, when were newspapers famous for their tactful manners if it's money and top stories involved? Cartoons sell, discussions about the cartoons sell, criticism and political manoeuvres because of the discussions about the  cartoons sell...etc

Actually, one of the Finnish top newspapers has been pondering whether to publish the drawings or not, in fear of getting attacked because of them. As far as I know, they haven't published them yet. Same for Finnish television channels, they have been very careful with the matter.

As they should be. Even with freedom of speech, conflict is ALWAYS the last option.

If you can avoid trouble then why get into it?

Quote from: Haddas on Sat 04/02/2006 23:08:44
As they should be. Even with freedom of speech, conflict is ALWAYS the last option.

If you can avoid trouble then why get into it?

"Use your enemy's hand to catch a snake", let your antagonists publish troublesome content and then follow up with controversial discussions...

When some (religious or other) dogma is demanding self-censorship of me, I think the trouble is already there, and it's no longer a matter of getting into or not.

Conflict is what the free press and our tradition of political debate/parlamentarism is about - avoiding it is a quick surrender to whoever threatens to become offended, imagine a future like that...

Seems to me like it's an excuse for hardliners to riot. The firey nature of Islam is infectious, and once some people start up a furore, it catches on quickly.

Ironically, these cartoons were first published on the 30th of September last year. The rioting started after newspapers in France, Spain, Italy and Germany all REpublished the cartoon after the Danish paper that originally showed them was forced to apologise by islamic pressure. The republications were on February 1st.

I think that pretty clearly shows that this is a kneejerk reaction. The fact that it didn't start before republications seems to prove that some people out there merely wait for an excuse. It's not like the whole of the muslim community jumped up and swamped the press as soon as the caricatures were published, it's more that this time, the people who enjoy burning flags and firing AKs into the air caught hold of it.

This isn't to say that the blame lies entirely with the extremist activists who are leading the mob. The newspapers, although understandbly taking umbrage at the threatened curtailment of free speech, were too brash in their actions, but I can't really disagree with their general point. However, I don't think making the turban the shape of a bomb was a clever idea on the part of the original cartoonist.

In the end, though, the blame must lie with the hate-inciting minority that lead the mob.

Just a small footnote: Nowhere in the Qur'an does it forbid images of the Prophet.

Quote from: Haddas on Sat 04/02/2006 23:08:44
If you can avoid trouble then why get into it?

Because some fights are worth fighting.

Sorry Gord, but I believe that 99.9% of the people who practice your religion are ignorant, intolerant, xenophobic, assholes who are full of themselves.  The last I heard Europe was a free democracy where freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right of the people.   I think the publication of the cartoon was a good thing because it was an exercise of this right and it served to demonstrate to the whole world what the practicioners of Islam are truly like.  Yes, I can make a statement like that because the protests spread world wide so it was not just a few holigans getting out of hand.  If Muslims can't handle living in a free country then they should get the fuck out!

I think this incident is a good thing.  The problem with dealing with muslim  terrorists (or is it freedom fighters, or jihadists or ...) is that they are cowardly cunts who are affraid to show their faces and hide amongst the innocent population.  They know they can do this because they know the US and Europe are reluctant to put innocent people (yes even Muslims) in harms way.  I think we need to have more of these kinds of incidents so that we csan identify the enemy and eliminate them.

I just can't respect a religion whose practioners don't respect mine and who wish to force me to take up their religion under threat of violence.   

Quote from: DR. ANIS SHORROSH - focusing-on-islam.com
This verse orders Muslims to fight in order to establish Allah's kingdom
on earth (world domination) by any means:

From Quuran:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war): but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". 9:5

In other words, the only way for the pagans (or infidels) to be spared from being slain is to become Muslims.

From Focusing On Islam (http://www.focusing-on-islam.com/FAQ.htm#corrupted), authored by a Palestianian Christian ...

Quote
Is Islam a peaceful religion?

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, we have heard from our Government Leaders,
The Media, and Islamic Clergy/Scholars that Islam is a peaceful religion. They further state that terrorists
are made up of only a small group of extremists. Lately, questions are starting to arise as to the validity
of those claims. The Quran has many, verses that call for violence towards anyone that does not believe
and follow the ways of Islam. But don't take our word for it, Click HERE (http://www.focusing-on-islam.com/QuranVerses.htm) to read them for yourself.

And here is an article from an another author (arab/American) LINK (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33898)

And here is an article from the  that may be of interest to all you folks from across the pond.

Gord10, I'm sorry if my post makes you feel bad.  I have always known you to be considerate and someone who I enjoy colaborating with on these forums.   I know that nobody called and asked your opinion or permission to riot or blow up the twin towers.  So I hope you realize my remarks are not directed at you personally.   It seems world events are larger than either of US and that we don't have much choice about how we feel about them or what opinions we may have.  The only thing we can do is be honest  about it.

Cheers
Rick

(http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.htmlAsia%20Times%5B/url)

I think the reactions of the people who are going totally apeshit over these images are completely out of this world. They're revolting over a couple of lines drawn on paper. They're revolting because of images of their prophet being published in papers. What about all the images that were published in Middle Eastern countries that had his face displayed quite clearly? Sure, common practice was to leave his face out, but there were still a LOT of images with him just standing there, face shown and everything.

I also think respect for people's religions is very important. The islamic world has shown some signs of prejudice and inflamatory mindsets. The terrorist attacks going 'round the world are a good show of this. It's a sad thing there are so many innocent civilians who, every time a bombing happens anywhere, shake their heads and say "Oh boy, there we go again..." just as we respond when it happens. But there are always the bad apples in the bunch, and seeing as how a lot of the things we know and hear of the ME are what we hear through the media, our visions of that part of the world is coloured to say the least.

I know people from Jordan, who are very relaxed and respectful. I know an iraqi, who is an awesome guy and has a lot of respect for those who do not believe in Allah. As he says "We're not taught to hate those who don't believe in Allah. We are taught to respect their choice, and to pray for them."

I've been attacked by Morrocans many times. I've been mangled, beaten up, had bricks thrown at my head while I was walking away from them. Why? Once because one of them came up to me and demanded that I hand over my bike, then proceeded to beat me up with 3 of his friends when I declined. Once because there was a group of 3 Morrocan guys sitting on a bench right opposite of my house, and they overheard me talking with a friend about me being jewish and related issues. They threatened me and my friend. I tried to calm them down and stayed calm myself, but eventually said that I didn't want to fight and walked away. They started shouting I was a coward and started laughing. When I got my bike from the stand, me and my friend calmly walked away. Then a brick hit my ear and landed on the ground in front of me. My friend freaked and wanted to run, but I told him to calm down and just walk as if nothing happened. When I got to the bar we were going to, I cracked.

But even after going through all this, I'm not prejudiced. When I meet someone, I judge them based on the experience I have with them personally, not with their "group". When Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Morrocan, I went to the wake that was held in Amsterdam. There were a lot of muslims there, and shaken by what had happened that day I was kind of scared that some form of a riot would break out. But as it turned out, most of them were there to pay respect to him too. Even if he insulted them and wrote awful things about muslims, these people were here to pay their respect to someone they didn't agree with, but felt (as I did, and many along with me) that nobody should be murdered for what they believe in or stand for.

I went up to a muslim guy, and asked him why he was there. He told me he was incredibly shocked when he heard the news and just kept thinking "Please don't let it be a muslim". He said that he was there to show that not every muslim was scary in their belief, and without respect. In his own words "I do not condone people killing in the name of my god", and he meant it. I shook his hand and thanked him for being there. He thanked me for listening.

I went home and thought about it. And when I heard about this news I thought about it some more.

The western world is indeed becoming less of a religious place than it used to be. The Middle East is still very, VERY religious. When the west was religious, we'd go out and burn those who didn't believe in the same God. Remember the Cathars? Remember the "moors" the Crusades were supposed to fight? Those were the muslims. The Christians stole Jerusalem from the muslims, and held it for a hundred or other years, and then lost it again.

Sure, we've gone beyond that, but we've BEEN there. We've been just as bad as they were. The total disrespect the white man and christianity has shown to those who were different is still evident, but doesn't mean the current white men or christians should be blamed for old mistakes.

But we also can't blame Muslims for doing that which we would probably do as well, if we were still 95%+ actively religious Christians.

The world is a changing place. Some say we're more evolved than the people from the Middle East. I say we've changed. We've gotten to a point they might reach one day as well. But in their relative solitude, they've kept to their beliefs as we haven't.

And regardless of what should be allowed to be said, respect matters a lot as well.

Burning embassies is dumb. Boycotting countries that have nothing to do with the origin of the cartoons is possibly even dumber. Threatening to kill residents of said countries is pretty much the most retarded thing to do. But what's retarded, dumb and inconceivable to us, might be the truth for others.

And you can't ignore that.

(concerning the previous post)

The problem with the Qu'Ran is that it's not supposed to be translated. Also, those who have translated the Qu'Ran have either been ex-muslims or non-muslims, and their view on the Qu'Ran might be incredibly coloured. So unless you know Arabic and read the original manuscript, I think it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about, as do most of the people who say there's passages in the Qu'Ran about this and that. It's the same with the Bible, really. Who's to say what the original manuscript said, as all most people know is their specific translation. I can imagine there'd be differences between a Dutch Bible and an American Bible as well, however small they migth be.

The good thing about freedom of speech is that when radical opinions are expressed openly, everyone can see how lame they are - they aren't surrounded by secrecy and "swear-on-your-life-to-join-the-club" rituals that are probably half the attraction to many young people.

Props to Voh.

Why does freedom of speech mean that you need to go out of your way to piss people off?

It doesn't mean that.
It means you should be able to say what you want without fear of having your head cut off.
Its not entirely unreasonable.

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 05/02/2006 03:32:50
but I believe that 99.9% of the people who practice your religion are ignorant, intolerant, xenophobic, assholes who are full of themselves.Ã, 

Is that based on experience or hearsay? Can you say the opposite about christians? I mean, that 99.9% of them are decent? Because I can easily make it 99.8% When you say that the west is not ignorant, intolerant etc, do you include the remote christian villagers in several countries where analphabetism and limited access to the media is a common thing? Do you include the christian grannies that spent their days around the local priest, which sometimes happens to be a wonderful wonderful person but he can also be a fanatic or an ignorant who's telling them that the muslims are making a fuss somewhere, burning embassies and all that, but doesn't tell them how it started in the first place? I think your statement above makes you quite intolerant and xenophobic.

Just to clear things, I'm not a muslim.

I have been in Damascus!

I have spent an amazing week in there. I'm Greek, Unan! We are a little alike. Damascus reminded me very much of Athens. And Athens is in Europe right now!

From what I've seen in my life, the further south you go the more things get political incorrect. more "uncivilised". More "wrong".

And I'm pretty sure that if you got a muslim and let him stay for ten years in Sweden or something, he then would never even consider doing the things that are being done in Damascus. Who says that these people know what they're doing. Everybody's following what they have been taught in their lives. So much supression, so much pain, so much war and so much pressure from the UN and US and EU and all the two letter bullshit around us...

The right thing to say would be that "nothing justifies so much violence and hatred..." but I find that a lot of things do...

Muslims != evil. Though I believe that extreme muslims are more likely to cause trouble than extreme Christians (I'm talking about the present), it doesn't degrade muslims because the extremism doesn't come out of a "real" christian or muslim.

My country is illegally divided in two parts by force (but nobody cares or knows because we don't have oil). We have a greek (supposedly christian) part and a turkish (muslim) part. A couple of years ago travelling to the other half became possible and me and my family went to see my dad's village where he lived before the turkish invasion that forced greeks to move to the south part and vice versa. We met a few very nice people so far, way friendlier than the people from my part. However, we also met a crasy-assed person who would have seriously considered killing us if he was carrying a shotgun with him at that moment.

We've also checked out a small cemetery and saw that the crosses on the graves were all violently smashed. Some churches were turned to stables, even. The rest are turned into muslim temples. However, all the turkish temples are still preserved in the Greek part.

My point is that, speaking from experience, muslims are generally good people. They do have some nasty extremists, though. And if an ordinary muslim gets extreme on some issues, it's not always because he's crazy or hateful. It's because muslims are generally more faithful than Christians and hold a lot of things sacred.

@RickJ: To be honest; I think you're right with most of the things you said.

But the ratio %99,9 is too much. Yes, it was a very crowded riot which burnt the embassy buildind etc., but it doesn't mean %99,9 of Muslims are xenophobic. I believe your only information source about Muslims is the media; you could just learn the way we are shown. Me, my friends, my family and all my environment are Muslims; but we are not assholes who wants to destroy the civilization of Christanity.  As Guybrush said; Muslims are not equal to evil.

I want to note that the Westerners who visit Turkey usually changes their mind of prejudices. They see Islam is only a religion, not a thought of evilness or barbarianism. Also I believe I'm a good example of this, too. I had tried to be a part of a univarsal community, and guess I'm successful.

http://drawmohammed.com/

I kinda expected this.

There's a difference between doing something like this to piss people of, or doing it to make people think. I think the problem is that most people can't see through that, and think it's meant to be purely insulting.

Gord10: You said "99.9% of us are not xenophobic". Re-read my post and notice that I have said that 99.9% of muslims are normal, not the oposite. I totally agree with the spirit of your posts (Cartoons=annoying, enough to burn embassies? no!).

Actually, his post was directed to RickJ, so no worries Farl

I noticed... late ^_^. Anyway, saying that all this piss is made because they're religious is wrong, IMO. They make all that buzz because they're morons, not believers. I am sure there must be a lot of lines in Coran saying, more or less, that the acts they're doing is not allowed by Islam.

A bit off topic, but I recall some German youth making a christian calendar with pornographic pictures from the bible. Shame I can't remember the address.

Quite off topic...

Quote from: voh on Sun 05/02/2006 03:46:06
The western world is indeed becoming less of a religious place than it used to be. The Middle East is still very, VERY religious. When the west was religious, we'd go out and burn those who didn't believe in the same God. Remember the Cathars? Remember the "moors" the Crusades were supposed to fight? Those were the muslims. The Christians stole Jerusalem from the muslims, and held it for a hundred or other years, and then lost it again.

Exactly. There are very few Christians these days who take their religion so seriously that they'd start a riot or burning things, just because somebody insults Jesus. But as you say, several years ago, this was a completely different story.

Look at what happened with the Jerry Springer Opera last year -- it was highly blasphemous and did attract protests from Christian groups; however nobody stormed the theatre or set fire to the cast.

On the other hand, a lot of Muslims still take their religion very seriously indeed. This in itself isn't a bad thing, of course, but it does mean that they are more likely to get very upset if someone comes along and takes the piss out of their beliefs.

At the same time, as with any large protest, these cartoons have given a lot of people who aren't particularly upset with them an excuse to come out and demonstrate and have a bit of a riot. And I did find it quite funny that at the protest in London they were holding up banners promising more terror attacks, even though the cartoons hadn't actually been published here...

Does that mean we're 500 years ahead than the muslims Voh? Because if you were trying to deffend them that's not a good stalement, I guess...

QuoteSure, we've gone beyond that, but we've BEEN there. We've been just as bad as they were. The total disrespect the white man and christianity has shown to those who were different is still evident, but doesn't mean the current white men or christians should be blamed for old mistakes.

But we also can't blame Muslims for doing that which we would probably do as well, if we were still 95%+ actively religious Christians.

The world is a changing place. Some say we're more evolved than the people from the Middle East. I say we've changed. We've gotten to a point they might reach one day as well. But in their relative solitude, they've kept to their beliefs as we haven't.

If you re-read that part very carefully, you'll notice that I actually say "Some say we're more evolved than the people from the Middle East. I say we've changed."

We've changed from a society that's all about religion to a society that's all about freedom and the ability to choose your own future. Whether that's a good thing isn't something I'm keen to judge on, as I honestly don't know. The muslim world, however, is still a society that's all about religion. I was trying to relate the history of Christian behaviour towards non-believers to the way some muslims are treating non-believers. I never judged anywhere in that text, and I definitely didn't say they were 500 years behind.

The muslims are in this time space, as are we. We're all in it together. There are still Christian communities that are very, very scary, and there are muslim communities that are very, very scary. The difference is that the west has changed to a non-religious society, where religion takes a back seat to other things that we value. Perhaps the Middle East will become like that too, in the future, but they've hung on to their religion for so long that I doubt it.

Also, the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam actually has a whole slab of laws and rules for society to follow (Sharia, if I'm not mistaken), that takes precedence over other laws in many muslim countries. Following that logic, I can understand why there are major conflicts between muslims and non-muslims, since we do not follow their laws, and because we're not muslims, don't understand half of what they follow.

Quote from: Farlander on Sun 05/02/2006 14:59:46
Does that mean we're 500 years ahead than the muslims Voh?

We are. Mohammed was born in the year 570, Jesus in year 0.

Zing!

So where are the Jews, then?

Quote from: Farlander on Sun 05/02/2006 14:59:46
Does that mean we're 500 years ahead than the muslims Voh? Because if you were trying to deffend them that's not a good stalement, I guess...

It's a sentiment that does seem to crop up in the Western Media frequently though, and is entirely wrong-headed.

I'd argue that the lack of religious fervour among Western Europeans has more to do with the Protestant work ethic facilitating the growth of international capitalism. We're not less religious because we're more advanced. To a great extent we've internalised elements of faith to bring our modes of worship in line with with modern capitalism.

In the west, worship is about what you believe, not what you do. Sola Fide and all that. Consequently we forget that what you do is very important in religions like Islam.

Quote from: Redwall on Sun 05/02/2006 16:49:33
So where are the Jews, then?

Right here! :P

I agree with Ali that capitalism and protestantism have been linked in very convincing ways.

Max Weber was the first to write about it, argueing that, according to Luther, man was a born sinner and condemned to hell, salvation being only possible through a personal effort. And still, one could never be sure to go to heaven. This is similar to working off an endless debt, which, in short, leads to captitalism and the notion that hoarding riches is a goal in itself (whereas for instance the catholics had a much more relaxed view on wealth - spenders, rather than hoarders). I think the "time-is-money"-paradigm is still very much visible in the christian world as opposed to other parts, and being non-religious myself, I'm not sure I can deny my cultural heritage in this respect.

About militant islam, I think it has a lot to do with the Islamic countries' tradition of political leadership. When some are violently outraged by cartoons, it's only because they've learned that this would be the reaction of their leaders towards themselves if they dared break the rules. And their leaders have kept them comfortably unaware that freedom of expression is a human right in other parts of the world. Hopefully this conflict will screw up that plan.

Today the Prime Minister of Finland went on telly and warned Finnish people abroad to stay alert. This whole situation is a sad sad blow to the diplomacy we still have with the islam world. It's a good thing though that most of the high-ranking muslim clerics have stated that they concur with the westerners' opinions. It just seems like public outbreak is very easy to initiate in the muslim community. Is it the restrictive and strict religion or outcry for better conditions that's creating this kind of behaviour? An editor at the newpaper in question went on record saying the cartoons weren't the real reason for the riots. He believed the living conditions were the real timebomb.

Second generation immigrants are - from my impressions - usually struggling with their identity. Do you belong to the country, or do you belong to your heritage? Within that, youths who need direction are easily malleable to imams or incendiry tongues.

What's worse is that as young muslims are encouraged to shun the west and to preach their cause, it further isolates the religion from the rest of the world. This then creates more disaffected and 'lost' young arabs and asians who turn to the people who seem to know what they are doing.

Read White Teeth. Read Brick Lane.

Footnote: I found it ironic that some muslims who protested in London had banners that said "Free Speech go to hell", when it is free speech that gives them the right to say such things.

Quote from: ildu on Sun 05/02/2006 19:00:27
It's a good thing though that most of the high-ranking muslim clerics have stated that they concur with the westerners' opinions.

Perhaps, although I was talking to a Muslim friend about this, and he was saying that as far as he's concerned, the high-ranking Muslim "officials" have been corrupted by the West, are too liberal and don't reflect the views of real Muslims.

But I think you're right that it's not the cartoons themselves that have caused so much anger, they've just been the catalyst that has brought people onto the streets over pre-existing tensions.

Publish a cartoon of a political leader and people laugh.

Publish a cartoon of a religous leader and people get mad.

Publish a cartoon of the first religous leader of a faith that is renowned for justifying the deaths of at least 10,000 in the last 10 years, it's kind of obvious what's going to happen (refer to avatar).

Some people are really, really, really stupid.
Especially cartoonists.

- Huw

Quote from: Huw "Dave" Dawson on Sun 05/02/2006 20:01:39Especially cartoonists.

I don't really think it's the cartoonists that's the problem here.

A cartoonist's point of view.
(http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/7606/cartoon4ef.th.jpg) (http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cartoon4ef.jpg)

Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 05/02/2006 19:58:12

Quote from: ildu on Sun 05/02/2006 19:00:27It's a good thing though that most of the high-ranking muslim clerics have stated that they concur with the westerners' opinions.

Perhaps, although I was talking to a Muslim friend about this, and he was saying that as far as he's concerned, the high-ranking Muslim "officials" have been corrupted by the West, are too liberal and don't reflect the views of real Muslims.

Well, that depends on how one defines a real muslim. A lot of people are swayed by the fundamentalists and extremists, so basically the youngsters have become more extreme and violent than the conservative oldies. For example, Bin Laden is a big-ass radical in the muslim world. He's totally against the traditional methods and represents a new extremist way. For example, before, a fatwa could only be issued by a high-ranking cleric in the community. Now as Bin Laden and other radicals have emerged, it's publically acknowledged that anyone can issue fatwas against anyone. And the youngsters have gone this route. So, it would pretty much be better for the rest of the world, if the conservative values were once again embraced.

So... the highly criticised "Vatican model" (say a lot of things, but so old fashioned that nobody will care about) is better? Because that's been my point for years and everybody yelled to me...

Gord10, 
I was glad to see your post last night but was too sleepy to reply then.  Again, as long as you don't take any of this personally, I'd like to share more of my thoughts with you and listen to anything you may have to add or disagree with.   I guess the easiest way is to just go point by point.

Quote
@RickJ: To be honest; I think you're right with most of the things you said.

I am glad that you and I seem to have a meeting of minds and that we are able to talk about our differences in a calm manner in spite of my inflamatory remarks.   You seem to have a cooler head than I and you have my respect and envy in this regard.   

Quote
But the ratio %99,9 is too much. Yes, it was a very crowded riot which burnt the embassy buildind etc., but it doesn't mean %99,9 of Muslims are xenophobic.

I'll have to concede that my assertion that 99.9% of all Muslims as evil doers is an exaggeration.  On the other hand one could argue that my assertion is just as valid as the previous assertion that only 0.1% of Muslims have extreme beliefs.  It's interesting that this assertion went unchallenged and mine did not. 

Anyway I did lump an awful lot of adjectives together to make my point but doing so kind of complicates the math.  The main point of my statement is that Muslim intolerance of other religions and points of view is underlyoing this whole mess.  Here is my reasoning:

• It is widely published by news media, books, religious decree, and statments by Muslim leaders, etc)  that Isalm should be the only religion in the entire world and that it is God's will that all be converted to Islam by any means, even by force. 
  
  
• Conversion by force is discussed in the Quran and the practice is  given the blessings of the prophet and indeed were employed by him to spread Islam in the first place.   Indeed if not for Muhamad invading and conquering his neighbors it is likely very few, if any of us would have every heard of Islam.  This has been a continous conversion process and practice of Islam since it's inception.  I have read translations of the Quran and some of the the history of Islam myself and have aslo been told the same by numerous people who read/write Arabic and have first knowledge of these practices.
  
  
• Intolerance of other religions and beliefs by Muslims is on display world wide every minute of every day.   Just look at what's going on in Sudan for example.  In nearly all so called Muslim countries this intolerance carries the force of law to one degree or another.  Try taking a Bible into Saudai Arabia or Google for news stories about the recent sunami relief efforts that were hindered because Mulims didn't want to have Christians come and help the people.
  
  Intolerance and conversion by force are tenets of Islam prescribed in the Quran and practiced by Mohamad himself and others continously ever since.   It seems to me that devout followers are necessarily obligated to, or by definition must, adopt and practice these views/values.    That's what all these protests are about anyway aren't they.  If tolerance and acceptance of others people's beliefs were an Islamic virtue then there wouldn't be anyone to protest or riot would there, at least not devout Muslims as these rioter claim to be and that no one has denounced as unfaithful.   Though I conceed that 99.9% was too large, by the same token 0.1% is far too small, IMHO.
  
  

  Quote
  I believe your only information source about Muslims is the media; you could just learn the way we are shown.
  

  In fact Gord10 this is far from the truth.  Though I am not an expert I have traveled far and wide and have lived, worked, and played with people from all the world.   Here is a short list just to give you and idea.
  
  
• The professor who mentored me through garduate school (masters Degree in Electical Engineering) is from Egypt.  We spent much time together over a 2 year period.    On numerous occasions we took a break from work to muse about life, etc.  He told me his family was Christian because Christ had supposedly visited his ancestor's home  and/or village way back when.   He told me how poorly Christians are treated in Egypt and other middle eastern countries. 
  
  
• When I was employed at GE I workd on a project in the south of France for about a year.  In that time I met a lot of people from Algeria and a few from Turkey.  There was one guy from Turkey about my age that used to talk to me about politics.  I don't speak very much French and understand even less so we got some high school kid to translate for us.  He told me that since he was in France his eyes had been opened to the reality of the world situation.  We also managed to share a few jokes.  The funny thing was that the kid who was translating for us didn't get any of the jokes and did not have much undcerstanding of the other things we were talking about.
  
  
• My wife's gradfather is from Bethlem, making him a Palestinian.  We have arabic style cusine at our house on a regular basis.  I also have three nephews named Hassan, Husein, and Ahmed.   I get from her and her family their perspectives on world events and media coverage, whether I like it or not. ;)
  
  
• One of my wife's close friends is from Jordan.  Her grandfather moved his family here to the US,  because in Jordan they were being persecuted doley for being Christians.  Her mother and uncles were kids when they moved and have many stories about how badly they were treated by Muslims just because they were Christians.
  
  
• My niece on my wife's side married a Saudi who turned out to be a piece of shit.  That whole episode made it necessary for me to interact with officials from the local Mosque.   I can tell you from my own direct personal experience these people are the most evil mother fuckers I ever met or can even imagine existing.   
  
  
• I do ocassional investigative work for a local anti-discrimination orgainization.  I get paid a little gas and burger money but it's pretty much a voluntary gig.   The who coordinates my assignments is from Iran and a Muslim.  We have a cordial, friendly relationship professionally and socially.  We have ocassion to have dicussions about many things, including world events.  I didn't know it but he tells me that, up until the last few decades, Iran had a human rights tradition going back several thousand years, that was tolerant of many different religions and cultures.
  
  
• I do watch the news but regardless what the comentary says, facts are facts.  There isn't much a news reporter could say about a bunch of Arabs chanting Ala Akbar whilst cutting someone's head off is there.  I mean there's the video and audio, there's the guy's headless body found and there's video again.   Do you really think it matters to anyone what the reporter has to say about it?  These sorts of thing have been happening on for a long time and have been on a regular basis for at least 35 years that I am aware of.   
  
  

  Quote
  Me, my friends, my family and all my environment are Muslims; but we are not assholes who wants to destroy the civilization of Christanity.
  ...
  I want to note that the Westerners who visit Turkey usually changes their mind of prejudices. They see Islam is only a religion, not a thought of evilness or barbarianism. Also I believe I'm a good example of this, too. I had tried to be a part of a universal community, and guess I'm successful.
  

  You seem like a decent fellow and as I have said before my comments aren't directed at you personally but rather at the culture and religious beliefs common in your part of the world.  I am sure that you have a fine and honorable family and I will take your word that your friends are decent people also.  I would enjoy meeting you someday and having a few laughs about all this.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could put all the assholes in the world (yours and mine) on a giant spaceship and send them on their way to another planet ala HGTTG. 
  
  Well my friend I think the only thing we can do is make peace among ourselves pray that the rest of the world does the same they blow the whole damm thing up.   Tell your family I said hello and that I wish them well.   
  
  Best Regards
  Rick
  =============
  
  I have one more observation I'd like to share and ask everyone to think about.   
  
  If Islam is a religion of peace where beheadings, bombings, kidnapings, etc are truly against the tenets of the faith, and if these protestors are protesting because they are devout followers and defenders of their faith then where is their outrage against Al Queada and other terrorist groups who blaspheme the faith by carring out such evil atrocities in the name of Islam?  Hmmm, perhaps this cartoon atrocity has more to do with intolerance than with offence?   
  

I find it amazing how people can still find excuses to hate each other. My humble opinion is, nowadays, with much worse stuff around, people should start thinking with their heads instead of whatever. I suppose Monty Python should be stoned to death because of Life of Brian? Sure, I understand it got some bad publicity from the church or whatever, but it's still around and generally regarded as a heck of a good film.

By the way, what WERE the cartoons? I hadn't knows about it until I read this thread. What did they show?

EDIT - On a sidenote, I saw on the news some cartoons that are a sort of counter-attack. One of them was Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. Now, I don't find that offensive - I find that childish and ridiculous, not to mention rather unfair. But hey - I'm not about to get violent about it. Better for the world to ridicule them, as they could have ridiculed the cartoons.

Rick, if you think like that, then the terrorists have won!  ;)

I'd like to point out that the Muslim kingdoms before the crusades and in Al-Andalus in Spain were far more accepting of other religions than their contemporary Christian countries were. The only penalty put on non-Muslims was higher taxes, which compares to what Christians were doing to Jews and Muslims at the time very unfavourably.

It was only after the Christians started holy wars on Muslims that they got the idea to do it back. And Arab countries must get pissed of with the West moralising about democracy etc. with things like the US and UK kicking out the democratic government of Iran in the 50s, Guantanamo Bay and in recent days all the pressure on the election winners in Palestine. Freedom to Vote - unless we don't like who wins...

Maybe the real difference between the Muslims and the US/Europe, is that we are more subtle... we keep our nasty bits better hidden. The Muslims do it out in the open. Which is more honest?

Are you REALLY serious?

To hide our nasty bits, of couse. Start a Yijad, burning cars (Remember Paris '05?) and rioting everytime you are pissed is a behavour of... monkeys.

Much better to invade a whole country and overthrow its rulers on the pretext of defense against WMD. What was I thinking?

Well... If they go on behaving this way next invassion will be done without any futher pretext.

Quote from: Farlander on Mon 06/02/2006 16:48:15

<snap> burning cars <snap>and rioting everytime you are pissed is a behavour of... monkeys.

I thought we were talking about the cartoons...When did football (or soccer, if you like) got in the way? :P

Or is this about strikes??

Quote from: Farlander on Mon 06/02/2006 16:57:19
Well... If they go on behaving this way next invassion will be done without any futher pretext.

In other words "We have the power to invade you, while all you can manage is to burn one building". I can see why you see the Muslim position reprehensible.

What I am saying that if million of people are mobilised by 12 paintings, that society shows such amount of hate that it become obvious that they would take further actions if they were capable to.

That's why we will continue invading them. Are asking me that invading them each X time is correct? My reply is no. Are you asking me that if our position is more honest? My reply is yes.

EDIT: On the other hand, the "fact" that in your opionon makes our society less honest than the muslim one (The invassion of Iraq) was a decission took by a few leaders with the massive opposition of the society. Whereas the "facts" that I say as few honest of the muslims (Riots in Paris and the embassies stuff) has been just the opposite, a movement of the society with opposition of the leaders.

So, should I understand that I can apply to the muslim society the same bad words that you said to... for example... Bush?

I think you don't undderstand how offensive these pictures are to Muslims. Imagine that a paper had published a picture of your mother with a dog, but then apologised. Then, a bunch of other papers say that they shouldn't have apologised and republish the pictures. Right, now imagine they had done something so personal to every single person in Spain, supported the right of Britian to Gibraltar and mocked the "Invicible Armada". Now imagine how people might feel about it and that maybe one or two were violent thugs anyway and used it as an opportunity to throw some molotov cocktails ina situation where they were unliekly to be cuaght. Not that what those people would do is right, but its hardly surprising.

Now, consider the race riots in Los Angeles. Did anyone say they should deny those black people protesting American citizenship? No? Now, compare to Paris.

I don't condone violence, but if you understand where people are coming from then maybe you can work on the causes of things like this rather than just knee-jerk agaist the "symptoms".

As I said, nothing in a paper would make me piss me enough for doing something more serious than a verbal complain. For leaving your home, get a weapon, or gas and a lighter, and move to the nearest embassy to burn it, you be must deeply retarded. And I don't fear to offend anybody here by saying that, because here there are good muslims, not this morons we're seeing in TV this days.

Anyway, as an atheist, the most offensive thing they could do now is to burn my national flag, no need to go further with the Invincible fleet. They're doing so. I am offended? not specially, and of course, not enough to make something.

But you really don't get it. To some Muslims, Mohammed means more to them than their own family. Which is I gave the example of someone photoshopping a picture of your mother doing a sexual act with a dog: you're telling e that burning a flag is more offensive to you than this. To muslims this is PERSONAL.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 06/02/2006 20:59:07
Which is I gave the example of someone photoshopping a picture of your mother doing a sexual act with a dog

:P
What an example. And Farl still don't get it.

Farl they have grown up differently than you and me. Simple. You may not understand it but the fact that it is happening globally must at least give you an idea that something must be wrong... And not with the Muslims I'm afraid. At least not only with them.

Btw, I condemn violence as well...

Yes... I can't understand the mentality of someone killing for a group of lines and some blobs of colour.

Well, hang on... the only deaths over this so far have been protestors.

And you really can't see how someone deeply offending someone closer than a family member might make an individual angry. And then if you do it to whole countires full of people how there might be people angry enough to get violent.

It's all very well to incite this and then say "oh no, but  you shouldn't get angry and hit, I'm telling teacher," but thats what bullies do in school playgrounds and the bully and the bullied both know who is really at fault, even if the teacher does get the bullied one into trouble.

It is true that the cartoons were very offensive. I am not someone too religious, I must confess I do some religionally forbidden things, but I felt really bad and angry when I saw that cartoons. I wasn't surprised even a little when I saw the angry riot; if even I could get angry with them, then the over conservative people should had get mad to attact to an embassy. Because Mohammed is very important for ALL Muslims, someone like in our family (and more for some more religious people).

But of course the violence is not the true thing to do. As I had said before; all the race riots were whole meaningless. It wasn't what should had be done.

What an irony... famous pacifists of the forum understanding the reasons of massive rioting and the assassination of 6 people, including a priest. I am terribly sorry to type this, but this just smells that you're so anti-Bush and so anti-USA that you give people who has been pissed by him a letter of Marque to do everything.

Thanks Gor10, agreeing with a muslim here means a lot for me.

How did you come to this conclusion, I wonder? Who said that violence is the right thing to do? I just saw someone saying that although not justifiable whatsoever still there are reasons.

Go one post above, and see the word "UNDERSTANDING" brighter than a neon notice.Ã,  ;)

Understanding is not equal to approve.

Anyway, don't take this in a so personaly way (If someone is doing so).Ã,  ;) This is debate and I am just trying to do is shake your mind and put you in the place I was when I was deffending the use of the force in other debates.

And your reply allways was "Violence is bad and it has no justification, violence is bad and it has no justification,Ã,  violence is bad and..."Ã,  :P

Quote from: Farlander on Mon 06/02/2006 21:13:28
I am terribly sorry to type this, but this just smells that you're so anti-Bush and so anti-USA that you give people who has been pissed by him a letter of Marque to do everything.

It's not the understanding that my post was for.

btw, for once in these forums I haven't taken anything personally. Maybe it's the way I write... but don't worry. I actually like very much two three posts in these forums tonight...

Just like the muslims are offended by the cartoons, a lot of other people are seriously offended by Sharia Laws, tyranny in general, and the lack of respect of human rights. But when we take action, it's in the form of fleeing, making statements or drawing cartoons, not by violent action. I think the trade embargos against Denmark is a sad, but at least lawful and civilized response for those offended by the cartoons, much like I wouldn't personally want to shop where I suspected I wasn't respected. But don't be naive, though many are offended, the protests are staged mainly for political reasons, and a lot of lies have been spread about these cartoons and the motives behind them. Don't forget that muslims all over the middle east are being kept in the dark by their leaders, who deny them a free press and means to educate themselves about anything that doesn't fit the agenda. That's why they can so easily be mobilised when the one and only "authority" demands it. I agree that Bush and the west in general have caused a lot of hatred and anger in the region, but I refuse to listen to those who want even more of exactly that. Violence is bad and should be monopolized by the state.

note: minor edit to clarify point

Fair enough, I can see how they could be so offended by the cartoon, but I don't understand why they take it out on whole countries.

If someone had indeed photoshopped my mother having sex with a dog, I would seek revenge upon the artist themselves and anyone who allowed the publication of it in the first place. Not a whole nationality. Also, i know that my mother would not want me to use physical violence to get revenge.

I drew a few cartoon scripts of me and my workmates. Did I take the cartoon to work with me and show them? Nope, I buried it somewhere in my room. I've hurt someone with a charicature of them when i was young. I didn't realise it would offend them, and I deeply regretted it. I managed to apologise years later when i saw them again. I learnt that lesson when I was 14. If only the cartoonists had learnt that lesson as children.

Mind you, I'm still of the opinion that it's just a good excuse to start a war.

If I saw someone had photoshoped my mother having sex with a dog, I would get over it. The same with mocking my religion, I would get over it. Happens all the time. It's called being an adult, and maybe having a little bit of humor to help temper yourself.

What frightens me is that full grown people woud act in such a stupid manner over a stupid picture.

What Squinky says.

No verbal or drawn insult is so big you need to burn buildings or threaten people for it.


And what do the other people in Denmark have to do with it anyway? It's not like all 8 or 10 million of 'm decided together to print these comics.

Well, I'm from Denmark :-X, so perhaps I've been especially aware of this incident, but that's not the reason I comment on it. When I see how split the western world is on the issue of a free press and personal freedom of expression, I guess I feel obligated to make a stand for it. It seems some people don't realize, that without a free press our culture will be discontinued. I'm shocked that some seem willing to "sell it" just to calm down some fanatics and appease their self-appointed leaders. They must grow up, culturally, to paraphrase Squinky, if anybody is ever going to trust them at a political negtiation.

The thing is, the state is NOT responsible for what the paper prints. And the PEOPLE do not have anything to do with the paper. Free Speech = The PAPER can do whatever it wants. The paper does not portray the opinionsn of the PEOPLE. The paper ONLY portrays it's OWN opinions. I wish people would understand and stop attacking Danish things for the sake of being Danish.

HADDAS is stating to SOUND like an INDIANA JONES game.

Violence is bad and is only justified in true self defence. If everybody of the thousands who had protested at the Danish embassies in Syria, etc. had weapons with them and intended to attack the embassy with fire etc, don't you think that the damage and casualties would have been much higher? Yes. Everybody wthere was angry but not everybody was violent. Because some violence happens, we all assume that everybody there was involved. But if I go to a football match and some rival fans have a punch up, it doesn't mean that I was violent.

And Squinky, that's not it... it that they did the same personal attack to nearly every citizen  of your country, then apologised for it and then some other people said they shouldn't have apologised. It's that last bit that would make me most angry, and the same happened here: riots only after the RE-publishing. And the muslims will "get over it" too, but in the meantime some of them might get very angry.

Quote from: veryweirdguy on Tue 07/02/2006 09:33:33
HADDAS is stating to SOUND like an INDIANA JONES game.

I'm just POINTING the IMPORTANT things!

Do you really think this is only and exclusively about the cartoons?Ã,  Ã, ::)


Edit

And the other side's reaction (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2027749,00.html)is really silly... if not openly provocative.

Quote from: cp on Tue 07/02/2006 15:27:30
Do you really think this is only and exclusively about the cartoons?   ::)

No, it's also because the muslims are jalous because we have puppies.

I get what you are saying SSH, but I just simply disagree with you.

One of the "cartoons" supposedly added by the imam who instigated this whole deal:

(http://images.fok.nl/upload/060207_519_Mohammed_met_varkenssnuit.jpg)

And here's the original:

(http://images.fok.nl/upload/060207_519_Foto_varkenssnuit.jpg)

It's Jacques Barrot, who won a contest where the goal was to imitate animals.

There were two other "cartoons" that were added, and were never actually in the paper, or supposed to be. And it just happens to be these 3 cartoons which pissed muslims off the most. And with so many people burning flags, and little of them stopping and critically thinking about it, it just goes to show that sometimes all people need is an excuse to go out and burn things.

I saw a piece of video last night of people rioting, and some were shouting "DEATH TO USE, DEATH TO ISRAEL". WTF does that have to do with anything?

I am now of the opinion that a lot of people are stupid, blind sheep. And that they should be safe-guarded from themselves.

Jesus...

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 07/02/2006 15:52:21
I get what you are saying SSH, but I just simply disagree with you.

Can we test this... could you post a photo of a close family member?

SSH, the riots happened after republishing of the cartoons, but the official demands for an apology from the Danish government came before that. Our prime minister said he couldn't get involved in the case and have a diplomatic meeting with representatives from the Arab world, because the offense would have to be tried at a court and was not a political matter. This in particular offended the muslim representatives, probably because in their own countries the head of state is in control of the media and they didn't understand or believe in this difference, or in the concept of a free press.

Also, the cartoon is not personal. It's aimed at a historical person, and a lot of people chose to take it personally. Guess they are burning our flags to invoke the same feeling in us, which is just ridiculous. In the west, anyone who gets some public attention is prepared to have papparazzis and cartoonists make their best shots at them, which must be irritating, but which is inseparable from our political wish that all authorities should be occassionally questioned, just like they are at the elections. We see the reason in this, because without it, something like nazi germany may happen again. Same reason church, state, courts and police are separate institutions.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 07/02/2006 21:23:34

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 07/02/2006 15:52:21
I get what you are saying SSH, but I just simply disagree with you.

Can we test this... could you post a photo of a close family member?

So, are you saying that if we post a pic of our mom and you photoshop it to make it offensive, we are going to go to your house and burn it?

Let's be serious.

Quote from: Farlander on Tue 07/02/2006 22:23:21

Quote from: SSH on Tue 07/02/2006 21:23:34

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 07/02/2006 15:52:21
I get what you are saying SSH, but I just simply disagree with you.

Can we test this... could you post a photo of a close family member?

So, are you saying that if we post a pic of our mom and you photoshop it to make it offensive, we are going to go to your house and burn it?

Let's be serious.

I don't really want to test it, heh. I thought about it and realized if I was being truthful I would give you a picture of one of my kids to let you photoshop because that would provoke me the most. I still don't think I would go apeshit on you though. Different conditions though wouldn't you say?

If somebody photoshopped my mom having sex with a dog, I would laugh and show it to my dad, and we'd both laugh.

If you get angry about that sort of thing, you're too tight. WAY too tight.

ok, not giving a damn is one thing. But showing it to your dad and laughing with him about it?! No offence, but that's sick.

I have no idea what this thread is about. What cartoons? What's happening? o_o

look who's awaken from hibernation! ^_^

Try living in Japan, where international news is few and far between.

there's still the internet if you're looking for international news. but i apologize if i sounded mean.

Quote from: tc on Wed 08/02/2006 02:02:30
ok, not giving a damn is one thing. But showing it to your dad and laughing with him about it?! No offence, but that's sick.

It's called not taking yourself too seriously. Try it, you might like it.

i'm afraid i won't. there are certain limits.

Quote from: tc on Wed 08/02/2006 02:27:52
there's still the internet if you're looking for international news. but i apologize if i sounded mean.

No, no, no. I didn't take it that way at all.

In regards to voh's comment, just remember that people are different. You might imagine that to be a mean laugh he has with his father, but I'm sure what voh meant is that they're both so secure in their own feelings for their mother, that any attempt to anger them with a silly little meaningless picture is just laughable. Kind of like "Pfft, whatever. This this sucks. Ah well, back to lunch"

I have to say I admire some our you guys restraint (if you are being honest with yourselves). Anyway, Squinky, even if it wouldn't annoy you so much, how about the last guy who left your correctional establishment... how would he react? Maybe it was a guy who just got out of jail who caused the fire in the embassy... it certainly was a guy on parole who dressed up as a suicide bomber in the London protests.

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 03:22:31
In regards to voh's comment, just remember that people are different. You might imagine that to be a mean laugh he has with his father, but I'm sure what voh meant is that they're both so secure in their own feelings for their mother, that any attempt to anger them with a silly little meaningless picture is just laughable. Kind of like "Pfft, whatever. This this sucks. Ah well, back to lunch"

*PING* You may continue on for the microwave!

:)

Quote from: SSH on Wed 08/02/2006 08:10:28
I have to say I admire some our you guys restraint (if you are being honest with yourselves). Anyway, Squinky, even if it wouldn't annoy you so much, how about the last guy who left your correctional establishment... how would he react? Maybe it was a guy who just got out of jail who caused the fire in the embassy... it certainly was a guy on parole who dressed up as a suicide bomber in the London protests.

Well, a lot of people are in Jails simply because of bad judgement ability or impulse control issues....I can agree on that, but it seems to me that this facet of your argument equates the muslim populace (those who were involved) to criminal thinkers?

http://arabeuropean.blogspot.com/

European-Arab league blog. The e-reference for all that people who LIVES and WORKS in our countries.

EDIT: Changed [ i m g ] for [ u r l ], sorry.

Quote from: Squinky on Wed 08/02/2006 18:54:15

Quote from: SSH on Wed 08/02/2006 08:10:28
I have to say I admire some our you guys restraint (if you are being honest with yourselves). Anyway, Squinky, even if it wouldn't annoy you so much, how about the last guy who left your correctional establishment... how would he react? Maybe it was a guy who just got out of jail who caused the fire in the embassy... it certainly was a guy on parole who dressed up as a suicide bomber in the London protests.

Well, a lot of people are in Jails simply because of bad judgement ability or impulse control issues....I can agree on that, but it seems to me that this facet of your argument equates the muslim populace (those who were involved) to criminal thinkers?

No, as I said... it only take a very small minority of angry and violent people in an angry but peaceful demonstartion to make the whole thing look violent.

I like Allah. I call Him God, though. Others call him Jahweh or Jehovah. He doesn't seem to bother, then why do we?

Small minority? Which photos have you seen? I've seen groups of 3,000 people or more...

(http://www.libertaddigital.com/fotos/noticias/ipakistan190106.jpg)

A very small minority!

Quote from: Farlander on Thu 09/02/2006 12:11:11
Small minority? Which photos have you seen? I've seen groups of 3,000 people or more...

And from that photo can you tell how many of them are being violent? You didn't read what I said.

No... I can say it by the 20 corpses and by the burning embassies.

EDIT: Sorry. I missinterpreted the news. There have been only 15 deaths by the comic stuff.

The 22 deaths have been just for a battle between chiís and sunnis in Pakistan. And another 15 in Afghanistan, Sunni/Chii war again. That makes 52 deaths by violent riots in one week. Still, we can blame it to the Capitalism and to the hegemonist position of the United States in the world, no?

It only took a small crew to drop Little Boy... so what does a burning building and some fatalities prove about how many peopel in the crowd were violent? Your reply is a complete non-sequitir

So, a riots who caused 20 "fatalities" can be labelled as "non-violents"? Mobilisations in Spain when the "not to War" stuff were stimated in 15 million people in the streets (not me). And 0 people were wounded. That was a non-violent crowd. What you can see now in Damascus, Islamabad or Baghdad is not.

Be HONEST and post here what would you post if the riots were caused in Germany, by nazis, burning mosques and causing "fatalities" because a satyrical magazine in Turkey had published 12 cartoons of Hitler. Please, POST WHAT WOULD YOU TYPE IN A POST ABOUT THAT. And then compare with the "polite" posts you're writing about the Islamists stuff. Can't you see that you aren't being honest?

I know that a an europeans we have the morale dishonor for the crusades, having lighted off the world twice in the XXth century, the colonizations and allowing genocides in our land in the last decade (Kossovo), but you can't reply to that moral disbilty being ultra naive and being so tolerant that you become totally blind about intollerance.

The anti Bush stuff is ok, but you gotta be consistent. Remember the threads about the war in Iraq? How many people was there deffending the peace? Mr. Colossal, DG MacPhee, Andail, CJ, Anarcho... As far as I can see no one is here deffending your position, because they are CONSISTENT. I am sure that they will agree with the fist part of your stalement ("We have annoyed the muslims..."), but not with the second ("therefore, we can understand what they are doing").

It's ok to have stickers with "Nuclear? No thanks" But if Iran wants to have nuclear tecnology and there are high probabilities that this techs will work for making nukes, the correct position is to say "no" again, and not being comprehensive with them just because "they are people who has been annoyed by the americans".

It's ok to be christian. But it's not logical to be tollerant with some other religion when your own religion is being attacked in foreign countries.

And it's ok to be feminist... So, be consistent and denounce the position of MILLIONS of women where the Wahabism or Sharia is strong and their freedom is severilly cut.

You are supposed to be a peacifist, but if you go on with this "understanding" about the riots you'll finally be a) Unmasked as just an antihegemonist who just wants "peace" when one of the side attacks, or b) A naive with a an absolute innocence with the muslim reality.

And I can say almost with 100% of security that it's option b, and that makes me love you more. But I really really hope that you don't ever reach a position in the scottish government.Ã,  ;D

And now I think I am going to abandon this debate because I honestly think that everybody, except those with absolute innocence, agrees with me. I honestly think that I have won and, whereas you'll go on gaining love because of your ultra-tolerant attitude, everybody dissagrees with you, and I like you, and I don't want anybody to deeply dissagree with you.

So, unless I have pissed off with my quick writing and offended anybody, and have to come back to apology, bye, and thanks.

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 03:22:31
In regards to voh's comment, just remember that people are different. You might imagine that to be a mean laugh he has with his father, but I'm sure what voh meant is that they're both so secure in their own feelings for their mother, that any attempt to anger them with a silly little meaningless picture is just laughable. Kind of like "Pfft, whatever. This this sucks. Ah well, back to lunch"

your mother having sex with a dog = silly little meaningless picture? hello?!
Not to give a damn that your own mother has been belittled in the worst way in the eyes of millions of people is a pretty strange way to show your love for her. but what the heck, we live in the 21st century, who needs moral values? Anyone who "cares" and "takes things serious" is an oldfashioned idiot.

Good reason or bad reason, it's still an awful shame to see whole Europe sneaking away like a beaten dog.

What a shame. No one dares to tell them to stfu.
What if some of them crazy (oh sorry, deeply insulted, i mean) people declares war on some European country? Invades? There's lots of men with power and resources to do that around there. Then what? Others watch and say "umm, it's your own fault."?

And soon, I'm taking a ship to a ski trip into Norway, the holy land of Allah a.k.a the Far North Middle East Colony?

I have 2 positions here:
* don't mess with muslims, they command our oil
* but if they mess with us, punish them

I use "muslim" as a general name for these crazies here, not as directly the believers of that faith. I have no clue who's good or bad muslim here. But fact is that they have done enough bad already: While not all muslims are terrorists, almost every terrorist is a muslim.

And offense against god != offense against nation or country.
Let Allah punish the infidels and leave embassies alone!

So, every "tolerant by modern level of sucking up" westerner rushes to "understand" these poor people. Do they care? If we were in global faith war, these mega-caring westerners would be shot along with others.

They are hostile against us and they are not hiding this. Why make good face in the bad game? Why aren't the flags and embassies of Afganistan not burning yet? Why aren't diplomats sent out of western countries?

Nowadays, everyone needs their own Bush.

Quote from: Farlander on Thu 09/02/2006 13:54:12
So, a riots who caused 20 "fatalities" can be labelled as "non-violents"? Mobilisations in Spain when the "not to War" stuff were stimated in 15 million people in the streets (not me). And 0 people were wounded. That was a non-violent crowd. What you can see now in Damascus, Islamabad or Baghdad is not.

People were injured in the Poll Tax demonstrations in the UK, and in the Miner's Strike and on many other occasions. Does that mean that every miner and anti-poll-tax person in the UK is a violent extermist? Of course not. People get attacked over football matches for goodness sake, all over Europe every week!

Quote
Be HONEST and post here what would you post if the riots were caused in Germany, by nazis, burning mosques and causing "fatalities" because a satyrical magazine in Turkey had published 12 cartoons of Hitler. Please, POST WHAT WOULD YOU TYPE IN A POST ABOUT THAT. And then compare with the "polite" posts you're writing about the Islamists stuff. Can't you see that you aren't being honest?

The difference is that I believe people should be legally allowed to be Muslim. I don't believe that they shoudl be allowed to be Nazis. Thus, why would I ever support Nazis in anything they did? This type of argument is a fallacy called a "Straw man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man): set up an faulty analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy) and attack THAT instead of attacking what I am arguing about.

Quote
The anti Bush stuff is ok, but you gotta be consistent. Remember the threads about the war in Iraq? How many people was there deffending the peace? Mr. Colossal, DG MacPhee, Andail, CJ, Anarcho... As far as I can see no one is here deffending your position, because they are CONSISTENT. I am sure that they will agree with the fist part of your stalement ("We have annoyed the muslims..."), but not with the second ("therefore, we can understand what they are doing").

I understand their anger but do not condone their violence. Once again, understanding and condoning are being confused, as are anger and violence. And I am consistent: I am saying that we don't necessarily need to respond to violence with more violence. It is for sure NOT going to make the situation better if we do. Sometimes the best thing to do is to "turn the other cheek" and let the anger burn itself out.

Quote
It's ok to have stickers with "Nuclear? No thanks" But if Iran wants to have nuclear tecnology and there are high probabilities that this techs will work for making nukes, the correct position is to say "no" again, and not being comprehensive with them just because "they are people who has been annoyed by the americans".

I would feel a lot safer if Iran didn't have any nuclear programme. However, I don't think there is any moral high ground against it that Europe and the US can argue from. Its basically a matter of "We don't want anyone new to have it and we'll punish you if you try, unless of course that would be too complicated as with Pakistan and India and Israel and North Korea"...

Quote
It's ok to be christian. But it's not logical to be tollerant with some other religion when your own religion is being attacked in foreign countries.

Let me see, you're encouraging a religious person to be intolerant? Ã, :o

Now, what did the man say?

Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you.
If a man hits you on one cheek, let him hit you on the other cheek.

Quote
And it's ok to be feminist... So, be consistent and denounce the position of MILLIONS of women where the Wahabism or Sharia is strong and their freedom is severilly cut.

I do denounce opression of women in any country. I don't see what that has to do with attitudes towards these cartoons. They were annoyed at the blashpemy against muhammed in drawing him at all more than any one cartoon that may have been critical of regimes oppresive to women. There wouldnt be all this fuss if it was a cartoon of just any old Arab guy oppressing a woman in a burqua...

Interestingly, many feminists are very against pornography, just to link with the other hot debate thread

Quote
You are supposed to be a peacifist, but if you go on with this "understanding" about the riots you'll finally be a) Unmasked as just an antihegemonist who just wants "peace" when one of the side attacks, or b) A naive with a an absolute innocence with the muslim reality.

I want peace all round. I don't think opposing your earlier statements like "Well... If they go on behaving this way next invassion will be done without any futher pretext." is non-pacifist.

Quote
And I can say almost with 100% of security that it's option b, and that makes me love you more. But I really really hope that you don't ever reach a position in the scottish government.Ã,  ;D

Well, the Scottish parliament was against the Iraq war... they don't have any input on UK foreign policy.

Quote
And now I think I am going to abandon this debate because I honestly think that everybody, except those with absolute innocence, agrees with me. I honestly think that I have won and, whereas you'll go on gaining love because of your ultra-tolerant attitude, everybody dissagrees with you, and I like you, and I don't want anybody to deeply dissagree with you.

It's not about winning, its about understanding each other. If we all thought more and truly put ourselves in the other guy's shoes then there would be more peace in the world.

Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth
These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for
My faith is falling away
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Once there were trenches and walls and one point of every view
Fight 'til the other man falls
Kill him before he kills you
These days the edges are blurred, I'm old and tired of war
I hear the other man's words
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey are all that I find
When I look to the enemy line
Black and white was so easy for me
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey are all that I find
when I look to they enemy line
There ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colours I see

Simply put, if there is a crowd of people who become violent and rioting, then you yourself are considered part of the problem if you decide to stay there. Lots of folks have been tear gassed for just being in an angry mob, and could have avoided it if they just left.

Let's say all the nonviolent protestors had left before the infractions, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been any violence then, there would be noone to show off to, nobody to bolster the mob mentality.

They are all guilty of those deaths and crimes commited.

Someday, I want to see a bunch of wallstreet stock brockers roting on the street over the price of oil. But it won't happen....

I'm not picking at this particular post, I'm just using it because I'm too tired to scroll back to the whole thread.

Quote from: InCreator on Thu 09/02/2006 14:26:48
While not all muslims are terrorists, almost every terrorist is a muslim.

I'm glad you remembered that there are far right/far left christian extremists that act as terrorists (they bomb civilians etc), that we have/had western Ã, organisations that are terrorist/regarded as terrorist , depending on which side of the line you are standing (IRA?)

Quote from: InCreator on Thu 09/02/2006 14:26:48
If we were in global faith war, these mega-caring westerners would be shot along with others.

a)I'm not a pacifist in its strict sense, I'm not mega-caring westerner unless it is about children and environment and I'm quite a racist if we analyse it for more than 20 minutes, but I don't like the generalisations we make about the muslims, because if we get used to generalisations they can be applied to almost any nation/religion/community etc.
b)The point is not to find ourselves in a total, global, religious hate-generated war, because if this happens, we're cooked! (litterally). I agree that if this war happens nobody will ask me if I'm an "understanding " westerner, they'll shoot Ã, me me right away, but I guess the same applies vice versa as well. So if this happens (for the millionth time in world history), I 'll try and follow a favourite saying of mine."Do not unsheath me without reason, do not return me without honor."

Quote from: InCreator on Thu 09/02/2006 14:26:48
Why aren't the flags and embassies of Afganistan not burning yet?

Because they don't have any left? Ã,  Or should we include all the muslim countries and communities Ã, in the world, even if we don't need their oil or their land for our gas pipes? Oops, sorry, I mean if they are not very hateful/ retarded/ uncivilised/ intolerant/ oppressing etc...

Quote from: InCreator on Thu 09/02/2006 14:26:48
Why aren't diplomats sent out of western countries?

Because we'd have a new World War? A big one which won't happen thousands of miles away from most westerners' homes and it won't stop to their embassies? Ã, Is this suggestion a demonstrations of the West's tolerance, advanced culture and minimal oppression??

I said I was not goint to reply, UNLESS I offended somebody. I think that with the example of Nazis burning mosques is very offensive because I put nazis and muslims in the same position. My intention was to put SSH in the position of making the mental exercise to imagine a group of people he does not like doing the things that the muslims are doing. It's evident that my mistake has been including in the example an illegal and criminal group. So, i am going to change the example. This time I am going to use a group of people that SSH does not like, but which is legal.

QuoteThis morning the masses of american republicans have started burning mosques. The reason? 12 cartoons that the "Riad chronicles" published last september. The Republicans are shouting "death to Hosny Mubarak and Ahmadinejad!!!" (who have nothing to see with Morocco, but, hey! Who cares?) and are burning flags of Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan... Groups of 3,000 people are rioting the embassies and burning them with shouts of "death to Islam" The results in deaths it's at the moment of 15, 14 manifestants and a Muslim Imam. It is curious that before this facts, the UN council was going to discuss about the legality of an american electoral law which can keep the republicans in the white house forever. Some foreigns observers claim that this riots are clearly an overall tactic of Gerge W. Bush for divert the attention of the discussions in the U.N. council

And now... Allow me to write two possible replies. Choose HONESTLY which is closer to the reply you should write.

a) "This bastard Bush is again behaving as an asshole, attempting to freedom of speech of the muslim culture, and has arranged this all mess. It's pitty that all those extreme-right accollites he has are following his will as stupid monkeys and burning the embassies, the most visible sign of collaboration between cultures"

b)"Well, the conflict between the american right and the Islam is long, and it's obvious that the cartoons are offensive enough to create this riots. We can see in the pics masses of people, burning buildings and flags, and some "fatalities" but we can't say that the pics are really showing a violent mob. It's just a minority which is giving bad name to the whole pacifical, respectable, republican mass. We should restrinct the freedom of speech of the Islam media because it's obvious that the republicans have enough reasons for feeling provoqued".

Please, honestly reply with an "A" or a "B", and not with a poem.

I would get Vin Diesel to kill the Republicans and Chuck Norris to take out the Riad Chronicle. Or vice versa.

Your hypothetical situation is at the same level as the ones in the podcast and your a/b choice is a false dichotomy. I'm not going to argue this further as I think you just want to win your point which I disagree with.

And now for something completely different (well, not THAT different):

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html?gusrc=rss

I live in Norway, and I think all this is stupid!
Yeah, I can understand that the muslims dont like the drawings and get sad etc. of it.
but its no reason to threaten to kill someone etc. And do what many muslims have done allready..

I doubht Mohammed would done that if he saw those drawings of him? right?.

its just drawings.

Iam so fed up of drawings being so bad, showing the finger being so bad, and swearing being so bad etc..

All these are human made and showing the finger wasent really anything "bad" before someone said it was something "bad".

I would never get offended by someone making a drawing of me nor making a drawing of a person that is really important to me. cause its just a drawing..

Its good most muslims dont act the way many have, but its sad that there is still many muslims acting bad..

Quote
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

[/b]
I guess we can rest easy, knowing that the prospect of millions of Danes and other Europeans going apeshit and rioting all over the world has been averted. 

Quote
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

Sounds like a resonable criteria for accepting or rejecting content to me.   Would you publish something on your website or in your game that you didn't think was funny/entertaining or appropiate?   Who else but you should decide what content you get to publish?   

I can see the point though.  Clearly the Muslim world is light years ahead of us poor infidels here in the west in terms of morality and fairness; they would have published them in a heartbeat.

To be honest I didnt read all of your comments, but a picture
is worth a thousand words they say! And those pics are BAD!
Tried to google couldnt find these silly cartoons causing all
this crap.

Some people are just situated on the lower intellectual bracket.

Riot control... Some people have to learn the hard way!
CAUSE AND EFFECT!

If that's as much as you choose to educate yourself on the situation, you don't really deserve to voice your opinion on it.

Quote from: Afflict on Sat 11/02/2006 03:45:24
Some people are just situated on the lower intellectual bracket.

Riot control... Some people have to learn the hard way!
CAUSE AND EFFECT!

Right! That's a great idea! Teach them the hard way. And btw, we can do that since we are on the higher intellectual bracket!

You've got to be kidding here...

Just for the record I totally agree with SSH on this thread! Totally. So Farlander you've got 1 people backing up SSH 100%.

Now, what I see that most people do is try to put themselves in the position of a Muslim/Syrian/Iraqi or whatever else. Well, people this doens't work this way. If you really want to do this:
Brain wash your selves.
Forget everything you know about freedom of speech.
Have Allah to be the HIGHEST value in your life! More than family, more than offsprings, more the goverment.
Have the representatives of Allah, tell you what to say/do/act/feel.
Have no other way of knowing black from white (and let's forget any shade of grey).

I'm not really certain that this is the way these people think, but actually since I've been in Damascus I have to say that that was the generall idea I was getting from random people on the streets, or the Hammam, or while smoking narghiles...

(Oh, and they adore the dollar. The normal was 1$=36 pounds, and we found people offeing us 55 (!) pounds for 1 dollar. <-off-topic a little)

Quote

Just for the record I totally agree with SSH on this thread! Totally. So Farlander you've got 1 people backing up SSH 100%.

Quote

Ergo... Loving husbands with two little kids become absolutelly innocent.  ;)

I consider myself to be a pretty strict muslim. From the point of view of a Muslim who "does everything by the book":

1) The actions by the Newspaper does not fall into the category where violence is justified (and yes, Islam, unlike Christianity, does allow fighting in some cases- This does not make Islam a bloodthirsty religon).

2) When someone insults Islam, the proper course of action is to leave until the topic has changed

3) If you want to show some sort of protest, it should be using the following behaviour:

4) You cannot in any case whatsoever insult another religion.

5) You must not defame, degrade or use insulting language.

6) If you somehow find that the place you are living in is restricting you from practicing your religion, you are obligated to leave it. You cannot use "The law does not allow me" as an excuse.

And for the sake of information:

7) Forcefully converting someone to Islam is not considered a proper conversion.

8 ) A "fatwa" has absolutely no power or importance. Just because someone wrote a fatwa, doesn't make it obligatory for Muslims to follow it. It is simply the opinion of author with (if it is to be considered relevant) backing from the Scripture.

9) Islam has no heirarchy. There are no "Higher Clerics" and "Lower Clerics". You don't have to pass some exam to become an Imam, and the only function of an Imam is to lead the prayer. There is no "Organisation" behind Islam.

As you can see, from an Islamic approach, the muslims who do this are not following Islam!

Saying all that, I'd also like to add that what I found sad about the cartoons was the fact that it actually takes muslims to be like that.
I don't see why everyone keeps pushing "Freedom of Speech" for this. Does anyone say that publishing these cartoons was a GOOD idea? Freedom of Speech does not mean Compulsion to say everything. Personally, I think that Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person (a whole subset of questions there: What HURTS a person- I am including mental anguish here). Thus, writing something about "How muslims are doing this and this and this wrong things" or even "This and this thing is wrong with Islam) would be OK (or understandable), but publishing Cartoons that openly insult the entire Islam is not nice.

I also think that the republishing was an immensely foolish thing to do. There are other ways to show support. I'm sure they realised what they were doing. Now because of that (not that I say the blame is on the newspapers), people belonging the publishers country who are in some muslim countries are in danger.

What do you personally think about point 9?

(This is out of topic, it's jut that I think that's one of the big problems of Islam...)

I disagree a bit. I think that publishing these pictures in the first place was a good idea. Actually I think it is the only wasy for people to realize what they should or shouldn't do. I think we in finland should also have published them too. No that I'm a racist or anything and I don't want people to get hurt in such occasions.
Ã,  In my opinion the fault of people getting hurt is completely those muslims who started rioting. how can they say, thatwe should watch what we do, when a)None of us would have been angry for such that concerned us and b) because muslim papers have published much more offendingpictures about my religion. Now I don't give Ã, fuck about that, but if they start judging us by what we have done, well it's just hypocracy. And I will never, might this be their way of doing or not, adjust my ways of acting so that it'll serve other people's needs if they don't even try to do the same. Maybe this time they should try to understand, that to us this would never be such a big deal.
Ã,  Ã, Globally speaking, to me there is no thing more stupid than blindly following a religion, any religion. I think that if one sets his moral rules by what is written in any book, leaves it him as an empty husk and not able to do his own rational decisions. I think trying to find shelter behind something that cannot be proven to exist is weakness, and I think all religions were invented just to help people Ã, hide their fear and lack of knowledge. It's something that you turn to when you need help or advice but can't get it in real life. But using it as a weapon or even as a reason to justify anything... That I cannot accept.
Ã,  Ã, And how fucked up is christianity? We claim that ours is the only real religion, that we have caugh from a fantasy novel. And did you know that in the sequel there was this man called Jesus who used to hurt and kill people because hecouldn't control his "superpowers"? And that all this was removed from it in the middle ages just that it would suit our morals? And at the same time someone decided to collect money from stupid people in exchange for a place in heaven. And how we laugh at scifi movies where aliens give out sacrifices as we did, or how they have all rituals while we go to church every sunday to repeat the same words that we have repeated every week for our whole lives.
Ã,  Ã, Not to mention the fact that we go killing people who "serve" the same God but have a different name for it. I will never start saying what I want and that's because I was granted freedom of speach and a freedom to choose my religion and to express my religion. And today I read in the newspaper, that in some countries the law can order some sentences withdrawn because they offend someone's beliefs. Withdrawing them offends my beliefs in freedom of speech. Not until they say in the constitution that everyone must follow the same religion. This is just why laws are set, to keep that from not happening.

(http://www.geertwilders.nl/images/stories/m9.jpg)
I think it's funny. No haha-funny, but hehe-funny.
But yeah, freedom of speech above the will of the ignorant masses.

There were manny "political incorrect" cartoons after that airplane hijacking thingy in 2001. I didn't hear any muslim complain about them (maybe because they were living in caves a.t.m., maybe because I only know one muslim which I didn't knew at the time).
Arab papers insult the jewish religion all the time. Hypocrites!
English embassies are targeted. Generalisation!
Taliban members shoot in the crowd to raise the rage. Evil!

Quote from: Babar on Sat 11/02/2006 15:24:13
I consider myself to be a pretty strict muslim. From the point of view of a Muslim who "does everything by the book":

1) The actions by the Newspaper does not fall into the category where violence is justified (and yes, Islam, unlike Christianity, does allow fighting in some cases- This does not make Islam a bloodthirsty religon).

2) When someone insults Islam, the proper course of action is to leave until the topic has changed

3) If you want to show some sort of protest, it should be using the following behaviour:

4) You cannot in any case whatsoever insult another religion.

5) You must not defame, degrade or use insulting language.

6) If you somehow find that the place you are living in is restricting you from practicing your religion, you are obligated to leave it. You cannot use "The law does not allow me" as an excuse.

And for the sake of information:

7) Forcefully converting someone to Islam is not considered a proper conversion.

8 ) A "fatwa" has absolutely no power or importance. Just because someone wrote a fatwa, doesn't make it obligatory for Muslims to follow it. It is simply the opinion of author with (if it is to be considered relevant) backing from the Scripture.

9) Islam has no heirarchy. There are no "Higher Clerics" and "Lower Clerics". You don't have to pass some exam to become an Imam, and the only function of an Imam is to lead the prayer. There is no "Organisation" behind Islam.

As you can see, from an Islamic approach, the muslims who do this are not following Islam!

It's always debatable what a religion "really" instructs. The most objective measure is to look at the behavior of its followers. Your list does not seem to describe the behavior of a large group of Muslims (especially point 5).

QuoteI don't see why everyone keeps pushing "Freedom of Speech" for this.

QuotePersonally, I think that Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person

That's why. People keep pushing Freedom of Speech because you want to take it away from us.

When you say "Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person," what I hear is "We shouldn't have Freedom of Speech." Freedom of Speech that does not include the right to say things that are not "nice," or that might cause some people "mental anguish," is no freedom at all.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 11/02/2006 16:43:09

When you say "Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person," what I hear is "We shouldn't have Freedom of Speech."

I think it's more like "My liberty stops where the other people's liberties start to get violated." Kind of democracy.
Liberty is the right to make mistakes, not the right to do the wrong things.

There's also the "Freedom means being able to say things that people doesn't want to hear"

-George Orwell, in his book, 1984.

Freedom of speech mustn't be restrained unless you enter into criminal messages. I've been hearing cartoonists this days. They say "People say we mustn't do cartoons that might annoy muslims... So? Where do we paint the line? Can we do "leftists" jokes, or can't be because it's going to annoy the right? Can we do "rightists" jokes? Which cartoons are we allowed to do? the ones annoying less than a million people, or those annoying less than 10?"

So, where do you paint the line? Shall we remove all graphic humour?

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 11/02/2006 17:28:02
There's also the "Freedom means being able to say things that people doesn't want to hear"

-George Orwell, in his book, 1984.

Freedom of speech mustn't be restrained unless you enter into criminal messages. I've been hearing cartoonists this days. They say "People say we mustn't do cartoons that might annoy muslims... So? Where do we paint the line? Can we do "leftists" jokes, or can't be because it's going to annoy the right? Can we do "rightists" jokes? Which cartoons are we allowed to do? the ones annoying less than a million people, or those annoying less than 10?"

So, where do you paint the line? Shall we remove all graphic humour?

You put a line yourself : "unless you enter into criminal messages". Not that I believe that the cartoons were criminal messages, I just used your line. But again, if you ask ten people about waht is criminal you'll get twelve answers.
I said earlier in the thread that I'm not offended by cartoons and I never think a situation is not suitable for humour (even a death). If it's not humour-resistant, it 's not serious enough. I was talking about freedom in general, not only freedom of speech. Why aren't I free to dump my waste in my neighbours garden, if freedom should not be restricted? I think that small restrictions make what I call civilisation. I don't say we should hide the truth, only that we accept that a coin has two sides.
For the record, I find nothing more insulting than political correctness, tiptoeing around tricky terms and avoiding the issue altogether.

So, if you don't think they're illegal, what the hell are you talking about?

The point isn't that freedom of speech shouldn't have any limits whatsoever. The point is that restrictions like "as long as it's nice," or "as long as it doesn't cause anybody mental anguish" defeat the whole point of the freedom. Speech that isn't controversial doesn't need protection. We have freedom of speech in order to protect precisely the speech that some people won't like to hear.

Farlander, if you're going to quote Orwell, be accurate, or at the very least grammatically correct.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
--George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

I quoted from spanish and then translated... Do the same with a sentence of the Quijote into English, smart ass...  ;)

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 11/02/2006 17:48:32
So, if you don't think they're illegal, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about generalising and being ready to react like the ones we blame for being "sheeplike" while we claim we are different. About ignoring political agendas and blamingit to people who are less informed and less free(yes, I agree here) than me. About not putting those who don't participate and may not even know about the riots under the same label with those Ã, who make me think bad things about the human brains.

I don't think I ever agreed with the riots and the violence, or that they were right in the first place, but someone has to realise that if we throw their ambassadors out and if we keep talking about racist/hateful/uncivilised muslims we 're going to have a war for Ã, no real reason. And I think that if a war can be avoided it should Ã, for as long as peace doesn't get worse than war, which may happen, of course. I think the current peace is good enough to spoil it for some hot-headed fanatics. Ã, 

If a violent crowd of hot-headed christian football fanatics from Ã, my country come and burn cars and smash shop windows and even stub people in your country,after a game they clearly lost for no reason, say that the referee was unfair to them, Ã, will you be willing to declare war or will you think "What a bunch of d*icks?" and spare the generalisations?

Hehe, Farl, he gots you on this one! Be correct next time you quote somebody!!!!! ;D

Now, Jet, thanks for showing this. I didn't have a chance to see any cartoons yet, but I find this quiet funny to be honest. And I can understand how someone that dresses up like this, and have at least a cuople of women dressed up like that, could be insulted.

Of course I can never see why these people should start violent acts. And of course I don't think what BBC or CNN shows us! Do you?

Now, about freedom of speech, everything is nice a cute and all and I think that it's just an excuse to say whatever you want. It is an excuse and nothing more.

Of course by having freedom of speech in here, I get to say and write this post. But in the meantime I take care that I don't insult anyone, be polite, or strict when the need arises, have fun. As far as I've seen bullshit posts are erased! Or answered accordingly. So where's the freedom of speech here? Heck, Gilbot erased LJUBIs' post in the prite contest thread. And now Kinoko sees him like a giant 10ft tall! (<-Check the thread...) where is the freedom of speech here? Nowhere.

Actually my definition of freedom is sort of the one lie Babars. My freedom ends where someone elses starts, unless we have agreed on something so it ends elsewhere. Simple as that. I'm free. It doesn't mean that I can go stealing, fucking, raping, whatever. But I'm free!

With this idea in mind I can't go swearing, insulting, saying whatever I want. But I have freedom of Speech!. Well taught luck!

The discussion is if there's something wrong with a culture with makes this riots for 12 cartoons.

The "we are generalisating" stuff is irrelevant, because if there is a group of people (a family, let's imagine) who hasn't commited a crime, and there's another family composed with the same number "x" of members, with a member who is a criminal: Wouldn't you think that there's been a mistake in the family enviroment for having a criminal? Parents, brothers and grandparents must be responsible for the education, we can simply say "hey! only one criminal, he is the only guilty!"

No. Things happen for something. Islam has problems. And I really loved Babar's post, because it confirmed my suspects that there is nothing in Coran that supports this behaviours (and when I talk of problems, I am not talking af the Riots, I am also talking of the bad treaty to the woman, etc...)

Islam's message is being intentionally changed by bad intentionated people for having an army of sheeps disposed to attack by their will.

I don't really think that if Mohammed raises his heads would agree with diverses "Sharias" and bad intentionated "Ashuras", with "burkas" and "Yihads".

It's great to see that there are good muslims, but it's very disencouraging that people from "here", is disposed to abandon this good muslims understanding the acts of the bad ones.

Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 11/02/2006 18:12:08
Of course by having freedom of speech in here, I get to say and write this post. But in the meantime I take care that I don't insult anyone, be polite, or strict when the need arises, have fun. As far as I've seen bullshit posts are erased! Or answered accordingly. So where's the freedom of speech here? Heck, Gilbot erased LJUBIs' post in the prite contest thread. And now Kinoko sees him like a giant 10ft tall! (<-Check the thread...) where is the freedom of speech here? Nowhere.

You're right. We don't have freedom of speech on these forums.

QuoteWith this idea in mind I can't go swearing, insulting, saying whatever I want.

Actually, you can. Just not on these forums.

It's not understanding, it's "trying diplomacy before act of war". I can't believe it's really the cartoons that caused it, but that they were a means to the end: the riots. I thought that the riots started after the cartoons were republished, to which I found a political agenda and I've been reading a million of world newspapers to try and see who's favoured the most at the moment.
I think the West is no free of criminal behaviour. We have bad seeds among us, which are not muslims, and this should mean something. Ã, I also think that there is something wrong with Islam, or else I would become a muslim myself. But I can also find mistakes in other religions as well, including christianity.
If it is convenient for some to forget that there are muslim women without burkhas, it's also convenient for me to remember that there are places in the west where premarital sex is a mortal sin while shooting the woman for the offense isn't.

I am not claiming that the West is free of sin, but the spirit of a lot of people during this days is saying is that East is, or at least, has less sins than the ones the West have.

And, sorry, but... no.

Snarky, we do have freedom of speech in these forums, in the sense that we're actually free to post whatever we want. We are free to insult people. However, we will also have to deal with the consequences of what we've said. In some cases, the consequences is it being deleted because we didn't follow a certain rule or other, or because we are among people who think that what we said was highly questionable.

Consequences. Freedom of speech exists, but people need to have the brains and the maturity to figure out and accepct consequences.

In this cartoon issue, do I think cartoonists should stop making political/religious/controversial humour? Not at all. But they should know the possible consequences. And I daresay they do, if they're going to go controversial.

It's not their fault that some people think some silly drawing are worth killing for.

Ok, let's put it like this: Some guy thinks it's funny to make a drawing of a religious leader. Many other people think he's blasphemed, and in course of rioiting against one drawing kill 12 people. Don't tell me it's the artist who should have realized people would kill because of a drawing. Especially not nowadays, when we're all so proud of being so globalized and free and democratic and stuff.

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 11/02/2006 18:36:45
I am not claiming that the West is free of sin, but the spirit of a lot of people during this days is saying is that East is, or at least, has less sins than the ones the West have.

And, sorry, but... no.

And I'm trying to say that it's not comparison of cultures that matters to me at this point, since I have already compared and chosen the ways of the West, but how we are going to handle the situation. What we are currently doing is adding oil to the flames and giving ammunition to the fanatics. I don't like us reacting the way we blame others for using. My concern is not culture-clash related, but political manipulations from both sides. Culture is used from both sides to ignite flames and I don't like it.
As for freedom of speech, it's my side's actions I'm worried about.

Sometimes when I am really depressed I think we should REALLY leave them alone. I mean, leaving them with their petrol and with their religion, if that's what they really want...

And take away the planes (was it an invention of the Wright brothers, no?), and the electricity (It was Franklin who started to understand how to use it, no?) and the TVs, and the guns, of course, and the cars, which were invented by a german guy, and the computers, the internet, the printers, the DVDs and the CDs, the atomic energy, and everything smelling to the West.

But then I calm down and I think that they don't deserve to come back to the middle age because just a little portion of them really wants to.

So, Cp, they must choose, as you did. It's not possible, IMO, just to have the good things of the West and remain with the things we don't like, like fundamentalism. Do they want to share? Ok... renounce to something.

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 11/02/2006 19:03:24
And take away the planes (was it an invention of the Wright brothers, no?), and the electricity (It was Franklin who started to understand how to use it, no?) and the TVs, and the guns, of course, and the cars, which were invented by a german guy, and the computers, the internet, the printers, the DVDs and the CDs, the atomic energy, and everything smelling to the West.

And after that let's kill 'em and take their petrol as well!

Yeah!

This is what I call being a proud European!

btw, don't forget that Number invention (as we know them today) bellong to the Arabs. Have fun doing all of those things without numbers.  ;D

Point 1: The "bomb them and take the petrol" is something you added, and it would offend me quite a lot if you were pretending to put that words in my post. I've typed "Leave them with the petrol..."

I don't know if you haven't quoted my uncorrecty by mistake or it's  been intentioned... Hope it's been a missunderstood.

Point 2: (The numbers) It's a vox populi that has spreaded quite well and I knew someone was going to say that. Unfortunatelly for them, the fact that we're using their numbers doesn't imply that we wouldn't have been able to develop the mathematics with another kind of symbols. All the cultures have did it.

Please don't get offended. It was a pethetique try towards sarcasm... I knwo you didn't say that. I quoted you to make sure everybody knows you didn't say that...

About the numbers, I aslo know you would say that, but the same goes for the other things you mention. Simply put, I find your post to show and idea of western superiority... and this is something, although westener myself, I don't agree...

We're friends right?

 ;D

He's chopping!!!

I knew you were going to say that! See! I was right when I said you are too pure!  ;D

I was kidding. But, back on topic, you're essentially wrong about the "numbers stuff". Because whereas the numbers are a "basic" knowleadge, the inventions I talked about come from the industrial and tecnological revolution, and it's assuming too much saying than any culture would finally reach that point. Actually, only one archieved it. We can't stablish that the conditions that made both revolutuions possible could have been possible in other place and in other time.

;)

Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 11/02/2006 19:06:29
btw, don't forget that Number invention (as we know them today) bellong to the Arabs. Have fun doing all of those things without numbers.Ã,  ;D

You don't mean numbers as a whole, I suppose . I guess multiplying XVIII*XIXÃ,  or IK*IH is going to be a pain since I'm used to 1,2,3..., but it can be done.


Oh, and when we talk about the East, do we include China, Japan, India etc etc or only "mainly muslim" ones?

Not sure! I am studying now the history of Japan, and ASAP as I finish I'll be able to tell if they could have reached the pre-industrial revolution state. But that must wait. I am at the shogunate period atm.

What I can say that IMO Japan is a good example of keeping it's religion and costumes without renounce to the good things that the West have *cough*after the WWII, of course*cough*

As for China and India, well, I was talking of the muslim world, as fas as it concerns about this thread.

Farlander, I actually think it's a good idea that there is no hierarchy. I personally don't believe it is necessary. There were very few Caliphs (leaders of the Islamic People) who did much good.

Tuomas, I realise you don't believe in religion. I do. We do not agree on this point. Ok. But I don't blindly follow anything. I question everything I see. I haven't seen anything to dissuade me yet.

Jet, somehow I knew, that if those cartoons made it to this thread, you'd be the one to do it. Kudos to you  :D. Very interesting opinions you have there!

Snarky, the points I posted are very clearly written in the Quran. I can't answer for what large groups of muslims do. Somehow, because I claim to be Muslim, I am expected to answer for all other's who claim to be Muslim, otherwise I'm supporting them. Just for the record :P, I condemn all the violence that these people are doing.
About the freedom of speech thing- well, I see it like this. Like I said, if someone has something to criticise, they can criticise it. If you have a problem with this or that religion/political group/person/whatever, say it. Explain it. I don't however, find it the slightest bit productive to (for example) call them an asshole. I'd hope that common sense would generally prevail. Even if I had the absolute Freedom of Speech to insult someone, why should I do it? Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that peace with my fellow man is more important than the freedom to insult them. In this way, I could say with absolute assurity that the cartoonists knew they were going to incite muslims. There was no positive aspect to what they did. They were not published with a view to informing the world of the evils that occur in Islamic countries. They were published, plain and simple, for the heck of publishing derogatory images of Muhammad. That was clearly intentioned. They didn't publish cartoons of "a person" doing these things.
That is why I mentioned hurt and mental anguish. There is no place in the world where "Freedom" means the right of one person to hurt another. For example, I cannot bodily injure someone because I live in a free country. However, I have the freedom to bodily injure someone so as to incapacitate them so that they would not injure someone else. In the same way, Freedom of Speech does not mean the right of one person to hurt another. Admittedly, if someone is doing something wrong, I should not be prevented from saying it. However, this does not mean that I should purposely insult someone.

But Babar, there must be some way to avoid any moron to becom Imam and say whatever hw wants. Here in Spain there was the Imam of Fuengirola which wrote in a book "the propper ways of hitting to your wife, with a wet orange tree stick to avoid making scarfs" and no senses like that... That makes the Islam to have a very bad raputation, and that's unfair. And it's dangerous because you seem to keep more attention to what Imams say, whereas we usually don't give a **** about what the Pope says.

Which is the tool Islam has for protecting itself against those "moronics Imams"?

Quote from: Babar on Sat 11/02/2006 20:53:34
About the freedom of speech thing- well, I see it like this. Like I said, if someone has something to criticise, they can criticise it. If you have a problem with this or that religion/political group/person/whatever, say it. Explain it. I don't however, find it the slightest bit productive to (for example) call them an asshole. I'd hope that common sense would generally prevail. Even if I had the absolute Freedom of Speech to insult someone, why should I do it? Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that peace with my fellow man is more important than the freedom to insult them.

I agree with what you're saying here, but we cannot limit the Freedom of Speech in any way. Who's to decide what can or can't be said?

If we for example made it illegal to draw Mohammed, or insult Islam, it would not improve the situation. Sure, it's not a very nice thing to do, but where would it end? Soon other religions would demand the same. Then we'd have to remove all the Jesus jokes from Family Guy. You'd be punished for making fun of Scientology. There's just too many beliefs out there to respect them all. And what of the atheists, like myself? I don't believe in any God, should I be insulted by the one dollar bill("In God we trust")?

The world is getting smaller and smaller. And the best thing any muslim who feels insulted by this could  do, is deal with it. People will piss you off and insult you, in one way or the other. I don't think this has too much to do with freedom of speech, but more with not having to accede to another religion's taboos and beliefs in today's multicultural society. Just because a religion is really big, don't mean we have to agree with it.

I think we're heading for quite the cultural clash, and it should be interesting to see how this evolves during our lifetime. :)

As a side note, 1500 muslims demonstrated in Oslo today, and not a single rock was thrown! They did, however, write a letter to our goverment to bring back the Blasphemy Paragraph. If that ever happens, I'm moving to Sweden.

Farlander, an Imam is really just a person who leads the prayer. That is their only function. What an Imam says is not any more right than what anyone else says. I could lead a prayer once, and give myself the title of Imam because of that (infact I did! So I will! Henceforth I shall be known as the Imam Babar!) and then write a book about "How best to cook the infidel". It doesn't make my opinion correct. People should use logic about what they hear and read.

Hilly, I didn't say it should be made illegal. Why can't people be nice on their own, without needing laws as an excuse to be nice? The Newspaper had full knowledge about the contents of the Cartoons and the feelings that muslims would have for them.

Quote from: Babar on Sat 11/02/2006 21:47:47Why can't people be nice on their own, without needing laws as an excuse to be nice?

Because being "nice" is relative, and people have different opinions around different subjects. If someone videotaped a whole day of my life, I'm sure at atleast one point would do something that offended someone. I'm still not going to regret living that day.

Quote from: Babar on Sat 11/02/2006 20:53:34
Snarky, the points I posted are very clearly written in the Quran.

I'm sure they are. But why is your interpretation of the Quran more valid than, say, Osama bin Laden's?

You say these people have abandoned the principles of Islam. Osama would probably say the same thing about you. There's really no objective way to decide who's right, or who gets to call themselves a Muslim.

QuoteAbout the freedom of speech thing- well, I see it like this. Like I said, if someone has something to criticise, they can criticise it. If you have a problem with this or that religion/political group/person/whatever, say it. Explain it. I don't however, find it the slightest bit productive to (for example) call them an asshole. I'd hope that common sense would generally prevail. Even if I had the absolute Freedom of Speech to insult someone, why should I do it? Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that peace with my fellow man is more important than the freedom to insult them. In this way, I could say with absolute assurity that the cartoonists knew they were going to incite muslims. There was no positive aspect to what they did. They were not published with a view to informing the world of the evils that occur in Islamic countries. They were published, plain and simple, for the heck of publishing derogatory images of Muhammad. That was clearly intentioned. They didn't publish cartoons of "a person" doing these things.
That is why I mentioned hurt and mental anguish. There is no place in the world where "Freedom" means the right of one person to hurt another. For example, I cannot bodily injure someone because I live in a free country. However, I have the freedom to bodily injure someone so as to incapacitate them so that they would not injure someone else. In the same way, Freedom of Speech does not mean the right of one person to hurt another. Admittedly, if someone is doing something wrong, I should not be prevented from saying it. However, this does not mean that I should purposely insult someone.

You can have opinions about what others should or should not do. However, it's their choice. The question is whether, if they choose to insult someone (purposely or otherwise), should they be stopped from doing so? Should they face legal consequences? Should they be fair game for violent payback?

Well, there have been a lot of opinions here... but, we can agree than Babar's interpretation of the Quran is better than Bin Laden's, can't we?  :D

So... What can be done to spread Babar's interpretations better than the Bin's one? It must be difficult without a religious leader or a "council" or a "Vatican", call it the way you want...

Dunno... I'll have to investigate more, this is weird for Christian standarts. Ginny, can you PM giving info about the "pope" in Judaism, if he exists?

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 11/02/2006 22:53:04
You can have opinions about what others should or should not do. However, it's their choice.

I think pervs and serial killers are bad. That they should not do what they do, becasue it is not moral and it threatens other people's lives or wellbeing. You say I have to accept their choice for freedom's sake? Or that we should discuss whether they are immoral and threatening?

I don't apply the above to the cartoons , of course.

Snarky, my points 1 to 7 are written clearly, black and white in the Quran. They don't really leave room for interpretation. I could post the relevant verses, but I don't want this to turn into a quote-fest. If you really want them, I can PM them to you. The point about fatwas, like I said, it depends on whether the fatwa is in line with the Quran.
I'd also be very interested to see Osama's interpretation of the Quran. He bases his fight on the assumption that America has overtaken Mecca. That's a far stretch. Farl, it is also Osama's mission to become the Caliph. Like I said, I think Islam is better off without a leader right now.

Like I said, it would be so much better if everyone could be nice for the sake of it, not because of the law. However, the law is not the only limit to "Freedom of Speech". As funny as it sounds, common sense is also a limit. When such a broad sweeping generalised insult is made, there are bound to be borderline cases that DO use "violent payback". It's not legal, it's not correct, it shouldn't be so, but it is.

Quote from: cp on Sat 11/02/2006 19:34:05
You don't mean numbers as a whole, I suppose . I guess multiplying XVIII*XIXÃ,  or IK*IH is going to be a pain since I'm used to 1,2,3..., but it can be done.

True, but in that case, you won't be able to use the concept of zero...

Quote from: Babar on Sat 11/02/2006 23:19:32
Snarky, my points 1 to 7 are written clearly, black and white in the Quran. They don't really leave room for interpretation.

There is always room for interpretation. I just read about naskh, or the concept of abrogation (one law overruling, or deprecating, another) in Islamic law. Or just take "jihad." One simple word, but enough to generate a dozen different interpretations.

QuoteLike I said, it would be so much better if everyone could be nice for the sake of it, not because of the law. However, the law is not the only limit to "Freedom of Speech". As funny as it sounds, common sense is also a limit.

This may be turning into a semantic argument; but no, it isn't. Common sense, decency, sense of responsibility or whatever you like to call it, that's between me and my conscience. "Freedom" of speech means that the decision is left up to me as an individual, and I can make my choice based on whatever I like.

You don't have to like that the paper didn't (in your opinion) use common sense when they chose to publish those cartoons. You can criticize them for it. But you cannot demand that they must use common sense. That's what freedom means.

Actually, I don't agree that it was a bad choice to publish the cartoons originally. There were arguments for publishing them as well as against it, and I would probably have come down in favor, as well. However, I don't want to discuss it, since I think it's an irrelevant and dangerous distraction from the much more important issues.

Babar, you write that there's no place in the world where freedom means the right to hurt another person. It's not true, and it can't be practiced, because people are hurt by sometimes the most absurd things, and it's impossible to avoid hurting anybody. There's no objective criteria. If you count in the lunatics, there's probably someone to be offended by anything that can be expressed. For instance, some freak tribe may invent and feel very intimately for an abstract notion of their own superiority, and be hurt whenever somebody points out that it only exists in their own imagination. And a common word in one language may be an insult or a blasphemy in another language.

So "hurting someone", for western legislation to deal with it, need objective criteria. Like someone being physically hurt, tortured, or lied about, in a way that it can be proven. And by these criteria, hurting other people is illegal. Whatever else people are hurt by, it's their own mess.

I think the whole thing's been "over reacted".
Anyways, just seen a news article I thought was a bit funny.. now the traditional name for "Danish Pastry" is now re-named "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed" pastries. *Sigh*Ã,  ::)
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.danish.pastries.ap.ap/index.html
Ã,  Ã, 

This whole thread proves one thing:

Religion sucks.

If religion didn't exist, I'm pretty sure human beings would find another way to be ignorant in the same manner. It's human nature.

No, i believe the moral of the story is that people enjoy bitching about stuff--no matter what it is.  This is ridiculous...

On a similar note, my older brother drew a picture of Bhudda: 2165.  Bhudda's back from nirvana, and he's pissed.
Even the bhuddists(sp?) laughed at it... one even told him it should be a comic strip.  The people who complain are much louder than the ones who are content.

Chuck Norris could kick Bhudda's ass.

Some times I think people go too far with freedom of speech. If you know Muslims have a past of not allowing this stuff, and you know they will get angry why do it ? Its to irritate muslims, its not a show of freedom or a testament to the greatness of the west. This whole thing could have been avoided, but it wasn't. I think Muslims have the right to be mad and protest, but peacefully. But at the same time the west has to realize the gravity of this thing to the muslims and that they won't take it as a joke.

As for boycotting danish goods im all for it, 1.its the muslims' right, 2.It shows how serious this is.

I don't endorse whats being done, but all I have to say is that you sort of brought it on yourself. Mess with the bulls, be prepared to get the horns.

Quote from: Karimi on Sun 19/02/2006 19:47:31
I think Muslims have the right to be mad and protest, but peacefully.

Hey, you're right.

But guess what?  They don't.

Quote from: Squinky on Sat 18/02/2006 01:50:47
Chuck Norris could kick Bhudda's ass.

God could kick Chuck Norris' ass. General relativity kicks God's ass.

Quote
As for boycotting danish goods I'm all for it, 1.its the muslims' right, 2.It shows how serious this is.

1. Yes, it's their right. But they don't have a right to burn down buildings, post a $1 million for killing the artists, etc. I don't see how any of these would be counted as "peaceful".

2. No, this is not serious, this is laughable (sad, too.) Muslims went into a screaming frenzy because of a series of badly drawn, unfunny pictures. Boycotting danish goods is one way to go about it, but the kind of "kill everyone" gut reaction that we normally get from muslim countries when they feel they're hurt is pathetic.

There would be hundreds of actually peaceful ways to counter those drawings (which I think were quite idiotic, with the exception of maybe one. I'd actually have thrown them out, not because of the guy in the drawings, but because they're not funny.)

The proposed actions by muslim countries (start denying the holocaust, make crude drawings of Jesus, etc.) plainly show how these countries are unable to think in a flexible, creative way. What kind of a "revenge" is it going to be to draw Jesus with a broom up his ass? Or doing a prostitute? That's going to be some satisfaction, isn't it? It's pathetic, I hope they were just kidding.

It'd be ten times funnier if they tried drawing the stupid Danish artist trying to come up with something funny, or whatever. If muslims started thinking a bit (instead of boycotting and burning things), I'm sure they could come up with an idea so that half of the world would soon laugh at the Danish newpaper - they'd then think twice to post something as crappy as their drawings.

Now make note: I'm not calling all muslim people pathetic (god forbid, someone would read it and boycott me, too! That would be freedom of speech, after all.), I'm calling the muslim leaders pathetic, because they're actively making this mess.

I can see some people being offended by the drawings (they're quite pitiful pictures), and I wouldn't mind them *peacefully*demonstrating or boycotting Danish stuff, etc. But that's not what's happening and that's ridiculous.

Btw, I only believe in science, so if you want to hurt me, you'll have to start swearing at... say... quantum mechanics. :)

Kirimi said that boycotting was their right, Kirimi never said burning buildings down is their right, so I don't know who you're talking too.

You say it would be funnier if they did this and this... They aren't trying to be funny. The offended people don't take jokes when it comes to their religion, I thought that much was obvious. You can't demand they just start laughing about their faith.

You're right, I didn't want to imply that Kirimi said that - I was just pointing it out that that's what's happening. I'm sorry if it came through otherwise.

Your other remark: what I meant was that the handling of the situation from muslim countries is very poor. It's quite obvious that they're offended and that they want revenge (and they aren't trying to be funny.) It's obvious, because they're burning down buildings, posting bonds to kill the artists (it was the *leaders* who did this, so it's an official way of thinking - this is not some angry crowd raising their fists, it's an order for murder!), etc.

So what I meant was that taking a different kind of revenge would actually be more powerful than shooting in the air and throwing rocks (which we do see very frequently.) Violence will  not give a clue to anyone, it'll just make everyone all the more adamant in their views. The Danish newspaper thinks it was right to publish these drawings because of freedom of speech, muslims think it was wrong because of religious beliefs. In their own views they're both right, but that won't solve the situation. The editor-in-chief shouldn't have published the pictures in the first place (because they're poor, unfunny) and muslims should try to understand freedom of speech - that when someone say something offending, the next person from the same country may not agree with it.

Demanding that there be laws against religious tokens won't help, because freedom of speech in the western world wouldn't allow any such restrictions. However, going about a different route may actually help - that's why I said that boycotting is one way to go. And I (again personally) would find some sarcastic/funny reaction a lot more appropriate in the situation.

Boycotting Danish goods (while it's definitely a right of people whe feel offended) shows the utter lack of understanding of freedom of speech: not all Danish people think that those images are good in any way but boycotting hurts all Danish people.

As a sidenote (concerning all religions): I find all religions unacceptable, simply because they require people to accept statements without critically thinking about them. In this case it's relevant, because muslim people are offended because of a *drawing*. Not because someone was actually hurt, shortchanged, etc., but a stupid, bad drawing. They have a right to be offended but I feel that the current events are a bit over the top. And many of them are offended because they're are told to be offended. However, this would be true of any religion, in a different case.

Quote from: Traveler on Sun 19/02/2006 21:50:39
I find all religions unacceptable, simply because they require people to accept statements without critically thinking about them.

Are you SURE that your statement applies to ALL religions?

Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Mon 20/02/2006 03:41:43
Are you SURE that your statement applies to ALL religions?

Of course, I'm not sure about all possible religions, but I'm quite sure about the major ones. Do you have an example where my statement wouldn't apply - I'm open to arguments.

(Now as I think of it, I could probably be convinced otherwise about Buddhism, although I'm not too familiar with it. This may be a very naive thing to say, but as far as I know, Buddhists are very relaxed, laid-back people, not trigger-happy as some in other religions.)


The very core of religion is belief in something supernatural, which needs admiration and unconditional acceptance - to accept statements without proofs. This also requires believers to accept statements from their religious leaders; if they have their own agenda, they'll use their immense influence to gain and stay in power. Take a look at Iran or the Vatican; there are other examples, too.

Perhaps it came through already, but in this stupid cartoon-scandal, what I find most appalling is the bounty for the artists' life, simply because it's not just overreacting: it's a cold-blooded, calculated call for murder from influential people who would do anything to anger their people by pointing out a common enemy and talking about mortal danger, so they can stay in power through the chaos they cause. The fake cartoons that were used to ignite the demonstrations come to mind, or the frequent mention of the crusades (which happened 800 years ago, for heaven's sake!)

This whole thing wouldn't be anything but a storm in a teacup, but the extremely conservative and authoritarian muslim governments can use it as an excuse to create one more enemy.

Quote
Some times I think people go too far with freedom of speech.  If you know Muslims have a past of not allowing this stuff, and you know they will get angry why do it ? Its to irritate muslims, its not a show of freedom or a testament to the greatness of the west. This whole thing could have been avoided, but it wasn't. I think Muslims have the right to be mad and protest, but peacefully. But at the same time the west has to realize the gravity of this thing to the muslims and that they won't take it as a joke.

First of all who the hell do "the muslims" think they are that they can tell the Danes what they can and can't do in their own damm country??   It's not the Danes fault that muslims have a long history of being humorless dick heads nor is it their responsibility to worry about it.   The whole purpose of political cartoons and humor of this type is to illustrate the absurd with absuridty.    The cartoons effectively served that purpose by exposing many tens of thousands of muslims as being the insecure, violent, intolerant, bigoted assholes they are.

Second of all  I am deeply offended and angry with people who have this sentiment about freedom.   The US was founded on Judeo-Christian values as espoused in our Declaration of Independance and our Constitution.   Many people through out our history, including many of my family, have fought and/or died for these values and to secure the freedom we in the US and EU enjoy today. 

Declaration of Independance (http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html)
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, ...

US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You see in our tradition FREEDOM IS GOD GIVEN AND IS NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM US BY ANY OTHER MAN OR NATION.   Notice the wording of the first amendment of our constitution above.  It begins by saying that "Congress shall make no law ....".  That means that the freedom of speech cannot be taken away from anyone by any man made law.  It was given to us by GOD and only GOD can take it away, got it?   Can't you see that what is being demanded of the west is impossible?

Why can't muslims respect my God and my beliefs in the way they would like me to respect theirs?    I am just as insulted, offended, and angry as they are!  Don't I have a right to be?  Perhaps I don't have the same rights because I am not muslim?   

At this point I think the only sensible thing for people in the west to do is make more cartoons that make fun of the behavior of the many muslims that rightly deserve it.

Just my two cents worth...

Quote from: RickJ on Mon 20/02/2006 05:44:00
You see in our tradition FREEDOM IS GOD GIVEN AND IS NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM US BY ANY OTHER MAN OR NATION.Ã,  Ã, Notice the wording of the first amendment of our constitution above.Ã,  It begins by saying that "Congress shall make no law ....".Ã,  That means that the freedom of speech cannot be taken away from anyone by any man made law.Ã,  It was given to us by GOD and only GOD can take it away, got it?Ã,  Ã, Can't you see that what is being demanded of the west is impossible?

You're confusing the USA and "the west".

Quote
Why can't muslims respect my God and my beliefs in the way they would like me to respect theirs?Ã,  Ã,  I am just as insulted, offended, and angry as they are!Ã,  Don't I have a right to be?Ã,  Perhaps I don't have the same rights because I am not muslim?Ã,  Ã, 

If the muslims have a right to "[no law] prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" then how can you say what they should or shouldn't get angry about?

Is the same discussion still going on?  What pisses me off are people that resort to violent acts in demonstration of their hatred.  The fact that they're demonstrating utter fucktardedness by responding in this way to illustrations only serves to reinforce my feelings about that issue.  Muslims are offended?  I don't give a flying fuck. 

We've got plenty of religions to offend and none of them can be kept consistently happy without compromises made by others or by a massive lobotomy-induced adoption of utter obsequiousness.  Of course, any posts in the tone of mine are automatically lumped together with statements of racial or religious bigotry.  I'm not isolating Muslims in my irritation - it was every bit as stupid (perhaps more so) when there were renamings of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" and abysmally simple-minded of US citizens to advocate the Iraq conflict based upon the same reactionary jingoistic (what's the word of the day again, kids?) fucktardedness. 

Religious or not, this skin color or that, people as a whole are profoundly stupid. That much is no surprise.   If only some groups would recognize ignorance for what it is and either laugh at it or ignore it.  They're only words, pictures, or statements that happen to rub a specific group the wrong way - anybody who thinks they're worth killing over is somebody whose life has little worth anyway. 

If they'd like to boycott or rename their food, they're more than welcome to do so.  The only thing it demonstrates to me is that they take themselves too seriously.   

In cases of "humor" demonstrating igorance, it'd be nice if the offended group moved towards correcting misimpressions instead of confirming them ? (Why is it that after a lengthy post everything I wanted to say can be summarized in one sentence? Too damn long-winded)

[edit: Checked out the drawmohammed.com site.  After looking at a few and neither finding quality nor wit I figured I should give equal time to something in refutation.  I checked out the drawjesus link figuring I'd find the same sort of content.  It would seem, however, after clicking through a couple links that at least some people are capable of being the bigger person in petty squabbles: http://perihanacehan.com/index2.htm. While I could give a damn about their theology at least they preach a peaceful message and attempt to educate.]

In case someone hasn't read it, here's the official explanation from Jyllandsposten's editor:

http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3566642:fid=11328/

I think it's worth the read, it brings up alot of valid points.

QuoteWe have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and
other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

QuoteOne cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

QuoteOn occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

Quote
You're confusing the USA and "the west".

I was thinking about the Magna Carta, the valiant Scotts that resisted Roman and British oppression/domination, the French reveloutiobn, the first and second World War's,  etc.  Perhaps you are right about the Britian/EU having made less progress with respect to freedom than the US.  The documents I cited are from the US and were used to rid ourselves of a King; many EU countries still think having a king is a good idea.

Quote
If the muslims have a right to "[no law] prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" then how can you say what they should or shouldn't get angry about?

It's my opinion and I have a right to voice it.  I didn't say that Islam should be outlawed did I?  I think it's long settled jurisprudence that one's rights end wehre another's begins.  So the free exercise of one person's religion doesn't take precedence over another person's right of free speech.   Similarly murder and mayhem,. in the free exercise of one's religion, are not justifed.   

Quote
... But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.

And that's exactly what they are after isn't it, our submission?

oh yeah? What I think is, that this whole thread and all you people in it suck.

Quote from: RickJ on Mon 20/02/2006 15:21:45

Quote
You're confusing the USA and "the west".

I was thinking about the Magna Carta, the valiant Scotts that resisted Roman and British oppression/domination, the French reveloutiobn, the first and second World War's,Ã,  etc.Ã,  Perhaps you are right about the Britian/EU having made less progress with respect to freedom than the US.Ã, 

That's not what I said. There is no right to freedom of speech in the UK. Especially now that we just passed a law banning glorification of terrorism. It's OK to glorify rape or murder, though. We also have blasphemy laws, and an established church.



Anyway, carry on with your pre-judgement (aka prejudice)

Quote from: Tuomas on Mon 20/02/2006 15:45:37
oh yeah? What I think is, that this whole thread and all you people in it suck.

Please think before you post

Freedom of speech should not equal the freedom to ignore common sense, respect and understanding for other people.

I don't condone either the publishing of the cartoons, nor the reaction of the extremist Muslims.

Just because you CAN say something, does not mean you SHOULD.

QuoteFreedom of speech should not equal the freedom to ignore common sense, respect and understanding for other people.

If it were only possible to legislate about "common sense, respect and understanding of other people". But you can't, as long as people are allowed to define their own common sense. Any such law, in my opinion, would be idiosyncratic and probably outdated by the end of the week - but I'd be happy to hear your suggested phrasing of this law, on a level of "what words and doodles can be accepted in public debate".

In such a law, would anything that someone considers their "religion" be included? What about the church of the flying spaghetti monster? Should we respect their taboos, in case they make up some? Could the depiction of spaghetti become blasphemous?
http://www.venganza.org/

We can't make laws to prevent people from disagreeing. And when they do disagree, they should be allowed to make their statements normally - publish articles, write essays, make satirical drawings, preach their opinions in church, and protest in the streets in an orderly fashion. Actually, that's how our laws are made and sometimes modified - following a debate in parlament and sometimes in public, cartoons included.

If the muslim countries want their voices to be heard and our laws to be changed accordingly, they could start out by allowing a public debate in their own countries. In the least, these debates would assure that they come to the table with something better thought out than "agree-or-be-slain". Lifting censorship would also make it alot more obvious to the west, that islam is something that people want for themselves, rather than something that are forced upon them because the alternatives are illegal.

Quote from: HillBilly on Mon 20/02/2006 12:06:49
In case someone hasn't read it, here's the official explanation from Jyllandsposten's editor:

http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3566642:fid=11328/

I think it's worth the read, it brings up alot of valid points.

QuoteWe have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and
other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

.

Quote

Oh come on , thats bs.  We are making fun of you to show you're one of us ? Maybe it would be better if they showed respect to the muslims I find that to be a more respectable way to win their favour.

The thing is ,most people see this from a western perspective, the muslim perspective is that this is an assault on their faith and a man they have an amazing love for. To give you  an example of this, Hassan Nasr-Allah said in a speech a few weeks ago "We will defend our prophet's honour with our blood". Muslim culture is different from western culture , muslims believe in a society that has some censorship to protect its members , it believes in respecting others. Freedom of speech has been confused with anarchy I think, freedom of speech is the right to speak out against a cruel ruler, or to teach others something, its not to incite hatred and anger.

Muslims are different and should not be judged as you would judge americans because the culture is completely different.

I agree we took it too harshly and did some bad things. But on the cartoonist's part it was a bad move.

To put it in other terms :

Whose fault is it when the crazy kid at school hits you for making fun of him ? Is it his fault or yours for intentionally making fun of a crazy kid ?

(I don't mean to say muslims are crazy though, they aren't)

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
Muslims are different and should not be judged as you would judge americans because the culture is completely different.

Agreed, as are the Danish people compared to them. The muslims need to realize this point excactly. Thank you.

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
Oh come on , thats bs.  We are making fun of you to show you're one of us ? Maybe it would be better if they showed respect to the muslims I find that to be a more respectable way to win their favour.

I agree with you that the newspaper press release is BS. I don't think they actually published the images out of freedom of speech, they published it because of a lapse in quality judgement. However, it is their right to publish trash and it is your right to ignore it or to criticize them for it. If enough people criticize, the newspaper will lose customers and go out of business and then they won't publish more sh*t.

The way I see it, if the drawings were actually funny, there would be grounds to defend them. But they weren't, so muslims took them as offensive (which I can understand to some extent), and right now the newspaper keeps repeating "freedom of speech", like a dumb parrot.

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
The thing is ,most people see this from a western perspective, the muslim perspective is that this is an assault on their faith and a man they have an amazing love for. To give you  an example of this, Hassan Nasr-Allah said in a speech a few weeks ago "We will defend our prophet's honour with our blood".

See, here is where you're wrong. Defending the prophet's honor against a *drawing* is not a "different society", it's just plain stupidity. This person that you quote is an idiot, period. There is nothing to defend here, because nothing happened to whatever honor your prophet had. The only reason this idiot is screaming because he wants a fight and the drawings are a good excuse to start screaming.

And who would be the "enemy" he wants to defend something against? All the Danish people? Every westerner? The artist? The editor? When would muslims say that the prophet's honor has been defended?

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
Muslim culture is different from western culture , muslims believe in a society that has some censorship to protect its members, it believes in respecting others.

Muslims have all rights to accept censorship if they so desire. But they have absolutely no rights whatsoever, on any grounds, under any circumstances to apply such censorship to others. I may despise the drawings but on a theoretical ground, the newspaper had every right to publish it. As I stated, muslims have every right to boycott, stop reading western news, etc.

I also fail to see any respect towards the western society (and I don't remember seeing any for the past 20+ years.) There are individuals, who are respectful, educated and reasonable people (some of them are right here, on these forums), but they're not the ones who scream about blood. On a state level, I find muslim countries in general aggressive and trigger-happy. (I found the Bush government aggressive and trigger-happy, too.)

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
freedom of speech is the right to speak out against a cruel ruler, or to teach others something, its not to incite hatred and anger.

Hassan Nasr-Allah seems to think otherwise. He may not be an idiot, after all, but then muslims should scrutinize his motives. He may not act with other muslims' interests in mind.

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
I agree we took it too harshly and did some bad things.

I'm sorry to say, but this wouldn't be a first.  :-\

As I said, this whole thing is a "scandal" because some people with interest in it make it so, and those people are all muslims. Let's not forget, that the drawings were published in November (or September ?? ) and the whole thing didn't come up until late January.

QuoteWhose fault is it when the crazy kid at school hits you for making fun of him? Is it his fault or yours for intentionally making fun of a crazy kid ?

It's the crazy kid's fault. Hitting is illegal, and making fun isn't - and that's obviously the best way around. Because "making fun" can't be defined, which you seem to just ignore. Why not give it some serious thought?

Kids are immature. Adults have to teach them stuff (like - "don't hit, even when someone's making fun of you - it will only make you appear crazy").

Now, no matter whether you come from a muslim or a western country, I think its in everybody's interest that you learn "hitting is crazy" before you become old enough to get involved in politics, because "hitting" is a pretty serious things in the nuclear age of politics.

This guy and his "we will defend our prophet's honor with our blood", on a political level, is as close to crazy as they get. He is not taking the future of mankind seriously, nor the well-being of his followers. Or do you think so? Give me one reason why the proposed world war would be a good idea? I think he's trying to sound scary, because he himself is seriously scared that his reign is about to be over - and some amount of selfishness tells him that the rest of the world will have to go as well. That's the old "I'll break the pencil rather than share it with you"-reasoning from this guy's school-yard.

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24
Oh come on , thats bs.  We are making fun of you to show you're one of us?

It's a part of our culture. We make fun of everything. If you're moving to Denmark, or any country like it, don't assume you're spared just because you're muslim. A religion is a part of a society like anything else, and people will comment on it.

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24muslims believe in a society that has some censorship to protect its members , it believes in respecting others.

Some cencorship? I doubt it. Let's take Iran, for example: They've banned all western music and movies from their country. If you're a homosexual, they'll make up some fake charges to get a reason to hang you. This happend to two young men a short while back. I wouldn't call that respect. And saying that people need to be "protected" from cartoons is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. People should be able to face reality, and deal with it in a mature manner. "Ban everything that we don't approve of" is not the solution.

Quote from: Karimi on Mon 20/02/2006 17:48:24Freedom of speech has been confused with anarchy I think, freedom of speech is the right to speak out against a cruel ruler, or to teach others something, its not to incite hatred and anger.

Freedom of Speech = You can say whatever you want, even if most people don't agree with it.

"Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

Quote from: fred on Mon 20/02/2006 19:05:57

It's the crazy kid's fault. Hitting is illegal, and making fun isn't - and that's obviously the best way around. Because "making fun" can't be defined, which you seem to just ignore. Why not give it some serious thought?

You know, when I was at school the physical forms of bullying was preferable to the verbal forms. Also, it's a sad state of affairs, that when all methods of non-violent actions didn't work for me, I had to resort to physically fighting back. This resulted in a third of the kids bullying me and my friends to stop. (Leaving just the mega tough bastards)

It really is a shame that I have came to the conclusion that violence seemed to be the only solution. Although to this day I will leave it as a final desperate attempt with anyone opposing me.

(Sorry that's a bit off topic, right?)

Quote from: ManicMattIt really is a shame that I have came to the conclusion that violence seemed to be the only solution. Although to this day I will leave it as a final desperate attempt with anyone opposing me.

That's a tough one, but hey, kids fight. Most of them stop at some age, or agree on some kind of sportsmanship. Tennis was supposedly invented because a generation of young men were duelling each other to death, usually to settle disputes over insults. Tennis was seen as a more civilized way of settling the disputes. Maybe that's what we need. A new kind of Tennis?

Some kids, when they are bullied, decide to become very good at something. The violence that can be directed outwards in a fight, can be directed inwards and used to discipline yourself at some activity. Mastering some activity may get you self-esteem and get you somewhere where you can finally laugh at those petty insults you suffered along the way. A fight works pretty much the same way - if you win it, that is. And nobody wins a world war.

Quote from: fred on Mon 20/02/2006 21:37:29
And nobody wins a world war.

The cockroaches do...

They dont win it, they just survive it.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Mon 20/02/2006 20:06:59

Quote from: fred on Mon 20/02/2006 19:05:57
You know, when I was at school the physical forms of bullying was preferable to the verbal forms. Also, it's a sad state of affairs, that when all methods of non-violent actions didn't work for me, I had to resort to physically fighting back. This resulted in a third of the kids bullying me and my friends to stop. (Leaving just the mega tough bastards)

I too were one hell of a fighter in primary school(and stone tosser). I once beat up two kids, and tossed a stone about 40 feet, hitting the mouth of a third kid. His braces loosened.(all of these kids were 2 years older than me, and were bullying my best friend)


:=

Words DO hurt though.They are the way we communicate from one mind to another mind. They are a most precious gift, and when someone verbally attacks you. it is painfull. I  do agree that some members of the muslim community are overreacting. One my of firm beliefs is that "People have the right to be wrong" that is, the right to hold a belief that the majority consider erroneous. The cartoonist has the right to draw tasteless cartoons. The muslim community has the right to protest PEACEFULLY.We may not all agree, but as they say, we should agree to disagree.If you find something you don't like, protest it in a law-abiding manner.
that is your right. but burning embassies aids NO ONE. When this is over, I hope we will all have learned something from this tragedy.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 21/02/2006 22:55:56
Words DO hurt though.

I agree. I said this, see?

You know, when I was at school the physical forms of bullying was preferable to the verbal forms.

Maybe physical bullying is preferred to verbal bullying in school, but to scale the example and say war is better than debate is just out of proportion, and perhaps that's where the thing goes a bit off topic, since I'm certain that that's not the point you're trying to make.

Isn't bullying a symptom of problems that we should try to solve rather than just keep pushing each other around? And how are we going to solve anything if we aren't allowed to speak our minds on the matter?

Couldn't your own bullying experience have been solved if someone (a parent or teacher) had interferred? It may have meant crying, showing weakness, having your perspective judged by someone else, reaching a compromise - the whole mess that is so painful to a kid's honor, but necessary in my opinion if we want a world that isn't ruled by ignorant (perhaps innocent) and brutal kids.

Chosing the fight may leave your honor intact, whether you lose or win, because you chose the hard way - but actually it takes a lot more guts to speak your mind, because in doing so you overcome your fear of (usually physical) retaliation, and show an amount of trust in your opponent . From my experience, most opponents come to appreciate such respect.

Quote
Couldn't your own bullying experience have been solved if someone (a parent or teacher) had interferred? It may have meant crying, showing weakness, having your perspective judged by someone else, reaching a compromise - the whole mess that is so painful to a kid's honor, but necessary in my opinion if we want a world that isn't ruled by ignorant (perhaps innocent) and brutal kids.

Yeah, so like maybe you should appologize to the bully to make him stop, eh?

Quote from: fred on Wed 22/02/2006 11:25:13

Couldn't your own bullying experience have been solved if someone (a parent or teacher) had interferred? It may have meant crying, showing weakness, having your perspective judged by someone else, reaching a compromise - the whole mess that is so painful to a kid's honor, but necessary in my opinion if we want a world that isn't ruled by ignorant (perhaps innocent) and brutal kids.

That's just it, all those methods failed. My mum counted my bruises from when I was at junior school, and they were 24 bruises over my body. I remember this figure because at the time I lived at number 42, the opposite number. (You know what I mean)

Teachers intervene? Very funny.

I got bullied from junior school right through to half way through the last year of senior school. It wasn't until that last year I went fisticuffs on people. I was an innocent boy, a harmless child, unable to take care of himself. Until that fateful day when I'd got beaten up all day and was getting angry for the first time... and then this guy came over and started punching my friend and I attacked the guy, and defended my friend.

Quote from: RickJYeah, so like maybe you should appologize to the bully to make him stop, eh?

No way, but bullies have problems, and talking it over with someone adult may have identified and eventually solved them. Maybe this bully was getting beat up at home or someting.

Quote from: ManicMattTeachers intervene? Very funny.

No, seriously. I got a kid suspended from school once, and after that perhaps he started thinking about his own situation before bullying me any more. At least he stopped. I'm not trying to say you did the wrong thing, I stood up for myself and for my friends like you did a couple of times, but it's a kids' and action heroes' way of dealing with problems. My point is that with so many nukes lying around, politicians should have greater concerns than the average kid on when to start violent conflicts.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 21/02/2006 22:55:56
Words DO hurt though.They are the way we communicate from one mind to another mind. They are a most precious gift, and when someone verbally attacks you. it is painfull. I  do agree that some members of the muslim community are overreacting. One my of firm beliefs is that "People have the right to be wrong" that is, the right to hold a belief that the majority consider erroneous. The cartoonist has the right to draw tasteless cartoons. The muslim community has the right to protest PEACEFULLY.We may not all agree, but as they say, we should agree to disagree.If you find something you don't like, protest it in a law-abiding manner.
that is your right. but burning embassies aids NO ONE. When this is over, I hope we will all have learned something from this tragedy.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like this as well, the current world situation does not bode well... the Muslim Community is painting a VERY bad face, and it will continue to do so.  I am not being racist, I am simply stating facts.

Many people says religion is bad. I say no, religion is a tool, you can use propperly, or not (killing anti-abortive doctors, or burning embassies...)

But it is clear that the amount of zeatolism in Islam is a problem. No complains whereas chiis are killed by hundreds, but the civil war starts when a mosque dome is destroyed. Crazy...

Everyone who says the "west" can take it while arabs can't is full of it.  They are ignorant of the facts.  Newpapers and TV media continually censor stories and images they think would be offensive.  Each year an agency in the US publishes a list of the top censored stories, and they are always meaningful and intelligent, unlike these childish cartoons.

In the particular case of these anti-mohammed cartoons, the exact same newspaper refuses to print cartoons that would make fun of Christ for risk of "causing an outcry".

I'll repeat that.  3 years ago, the exact same Danish paper blocked satirical images of Christ.  Now they're big on "free speech" which isn't free and costs money.

Why?  Because they're hippocrates.  Excuse my terrible spelling.

The quote about "causing an outcry" is from one of the few factual articles that have come out since this debackle started.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=9771

News media censor all the time.  It's unavoidable.  Any crackpot with a stupid idea or offensive cartoon can't get in because there is limited space.  A handful of pages, or 48 minutes of air-time or what-have-you.

In fact, the only case in which this would be a "free speech" issue would be if we had free speech to begin with.  We don't.  We have speech for the rich, powerful and popular with a few scraps for the not-so-much.  Now if they were online cartoons that anyone could post and Muslims protested the internet, THAT would be stupid, not for muslims, but for the individuals doing the protesting.  Even the internet isn't a "free" domain--many sites are continually censored from search engines (like pro-Tibet sites on the chinese Google site, or Gay rights sites through various web-blockers), but at least there isn't a strict limit on publishing space.

Here is my opinion on the matter, flat-out:

There is no free speech.  If you want to fight for free speech, don't start by bashing muslims, that will get you nowhere.   I emphasize, the comics WERE published.

Start by fighting to get something published that actually WASN'T such as many stories about the US/Canada in Haiti, or maybe East Timor, or even Mumia Abu Jamal's writings.  They actually ARE censored, and unlike this Danish dude, they actually have some impact (other than the reaction by the muslim communities) and aren't just about some ignorant dude's desires to make fun of someone's religious/cultural views.

But I say don't even start there.  You're also not going to get far.  IF you actually care about free speech and not just about seeming self-righteous, do something significant.  Fight for "free" speech.  Instead of corporately owned media with the right to censor anything that doesn't fit their agenda, fight for media owned in public trust, not in corporate or state hands, but by an independent non-partisan non-profit body democratically owned, publically funded with a mandate to report the news of the majority.

It was Aristotle I believe who said that in any society, the rich are few and the poor many.  This means that democracy is rule by the poor (according to the Greeks from whom we get the word).  So fight for a media of the poor.  If you're not doing that, then I'm sorry to say, all your arguments for free speech will a) miss the bigger issue, and b) fail, because newspaper companies and governments will print whatever they want and only that, no matter how much you complain.

Some people may be intimidated out of publishing a cartoon, but that doesn't change the overall field.  It's still as centralized as it was.

Now if you excuse me, I have some offensive images of christ fallating Tony Blair I have to send to my local newspaper :P.

Not meant to personally target or offend anyone in this forum.  That was all general rambling.  Please at least read the hotlinked article.

:)

Fred: Glad you had some decent teachers then. I should explain further then. Time and time again the teachers were aware and didn't do enough to stop it. For YEARS. No one else would help me so in the end I had to help myself.

The cartoons were published because in the previous number of the magazine, a humorist said that he feels he could orine in the bible if needed in a scene, but wouldn't do it on the quran for fear.

So, I agree, there is no freedom of speech.

But the discussion is: What will happen if you post that images of chist blowjobbing Tony Blair? Probably nothing, whereas your head will probably be rewarded with 1 million dollars iff you do the same with Mohammed.

That's the problem.

Doesn't the comic that features the police line-up poke fun at other major religions also (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism...)?

I'm a bit curious why we haven't heard an outcry from any members of these other religions? Perhaps those worshippers don't read Danish newspapers...or international news...or live around Muslims.

As far as the cartoons go, they're not as far out there as they could be (like some of the bestiality parallels suggested earlier)... I mean, a lot of them pose valid questions. The cartoon of the artist who's scared to draw the picture or the censor bar/niqaab switch. These are a form of social commentary. Even the Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. I would hope a mature person (Muslim or not) could look past the shock value of it and ask themselves, "Why would this cartoonist view Mohammed in such a way? Maybe it has something to do with the way certain followers of Islam have acted..." If a Muslim looks at it then grabs some Molotov cocktails and goes batshit insane, he's inadvertantly proving the cartoonist's point.

Some of them are self-referencing, talking about the newspaper staffs as trying to stir up a reaction, the "publicity stunt" one, or the "it's just a drawing" one.Ã, 

Personally, I think extremists have latched onto this as an excuse to wreak havoc. I'm sure many Muslims are embarrassed to share the same faith these hooligans profess.

Interesting quotes from this Reuters article http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060223/2006-02-23T175457Z_01_L2369100_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RELIGION-VATICAN-MUSLIMS-DC.html

QuoteSaudi Arabia bans all public expression of any non-Muslim religion and sometimes arrests Christians even for worshipping privately. Pakistan allows churches to operate but its Islamic laws effectively deprive Christians of many rights.

Quote"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he [Monsignor Velasio De Paolis] said.

*sighs* I just saw the strips, and lets just say they arn't funny, I am sorry to admit I did kind of like the one about how they are out of virgins, but I can see how they would get someones goat, Ã, that and the one with the prophet with horns, the one with the bomb on his head, the lineup, and ESPECIALLY the ones with the kid and the chalkboard. THAT one is uber stupid and the most offensive, even to me.
sometimes people are like a can of gas (petrol), it only only takes one spark, to ignite the heat. Democracy is not perfect, it is very fragile, a thing of spun glass. but we must preserve it but we must not destroy it, to preseve it. Let us work together to resolve this issue, but lets not destroy what little free speech we have in the process.

I'm sick of people who claim that the cartoons aren't funny, or that they're badly drawn, as if that purely subjective judgment makes one whit of difference.

Secondly, a lot of those people have clearly not understood the cartoons at all. Several of them are not actually meant to be funny, they're just illustrations of the Prophet. Others are local Danish jokes that don't mean much to outsiders. One consists mostly of a rhyme that has been awkwardly translated into English.

Of the ones that should be generally accessible, I think the cartoon with the censor bar and veiled women is the best one. It's a clever and original idea, it's well drawn, and it makes a thought-provoking point.

The most controversial cartoon, with a bomb in the turban, isn't as creative, but it's a pretty typical political cartoon. The most interesting thing about it is that it's quite ambiguous, which means that given all the attention it's been getting, it should offer an opportunity to think about the relationship between Islam and violent Islamicism.

As for the ones you object to, lo_res_man, I think you've misunderstood several of them. The picture of Mohammed with "horns"... I'm pretty sure that's a halo in the form of a moon sickle. As for the one with the kid, I don't see how that's objectionable at all. Instead of showing the Prophet Mohammed, it shows a Danish kid of Arabic background called Mohammed. He's written his objection to the newspaper on the blackboard in Arabic, and he's wearing a soccer shirt. Thus showing the integration of Muslims in Denmark, and the multicultural nature of the society.

Ok, I agree they are not as inflammitory as the have been taken to be, and it is sad. I don't say they are badly drawn, (well one is, but I agree somewhat whith that ones point) the bomb one, very well drawn, but it is a bit to hard to define. and that is part of the problem. One can take it almost anyway one chooses, and theres the rub. political cartoons should be NOT hard to define, they don't have to make there point with a sledge hammer, but they should be clear.Some muslims took it in a bad way.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but these weren't intended to be political cartoons as much as they were portraits of Mohammed (or how they viewed Mohammed) drawn by a number of relatively famous cartoonists.

Well if thats the case they are even more nasty. would you like your religious (if any) founder derided by some cartoonest. I am not saying the reaction was appropriate, but I can see why it sparked such a horrible reaction. but to understand is not to forgive, this reaction was a quite uncalled for.

I'm not religious, nor am I a religious expert - but Jesus's point was for us to be good and true to one another. Pretty simple, pretty easy to ask of most. I honestly can't take any religion that incites hate or hatred in its people seriously. If the prophet Mohammed is a good guy, I'm sure he too wouldn't want Muslims to act violently. And if he does, well - then you have a fucked up religion.

I agree it was probably wrong and stupid to print something like that in newspapers across Europe, but what happened to democracy? Hindunyanah burn the embassies! Hindunyanah die Americans!

There was a Mr Kipling advert in the UK once that depicted a mother giving birth in a nativity play much to the audiences horror, and then it turned out to be a girl, or something. 880 people were offended, wrote to Ofcom and the ad was banned.

THEY DIDN'T BURN DOWN EMBASSIES

I wanted to avoid this topic but it seems to be a hot one. I'm not racist, but those offended by the joke are in my opinion narrow minded, and sad. If you don't want to like it, don't like it, I'm sure Mohammed will favour you in disliking them...but you don't need to go mentol & chant & burn down embassies. That's called "mob" culture.

And it looks like that's transferred from the US to the middle-east. So shutup about hating the USA, you're just as bad - if not worse :P Perhaps they're Muslim-chavs who were just looking for a reason to vandalise & get on Sky News..? With things like the internet where almost everything is available & very little thought goes into what's said - you need to have an open mind these days. It may sound a little...well I don't know what....but I wish half the time the Eastern countries would shape up a little and reap some of the benefits of being a fully developed country. They might enjoy broadband, and might then get the joke. Do those people still beleive everything they see on TV? Though to be fair - a lot of people in the UK still do :P

Quote from: m0ds on Thu 23/02/2006 22:27:33
I'm not religious, nor am I a religious expert - but Jesus's point was for us to be good and true to one another. Pretty simple, pretty easy to ask of most.

I agree, and that, and my deep ponderings, convinced me of christs rightitude. Jesus, said to turn the other cheek, and these muslims (not ALL or even MOST) arn't doing that. Someone once said, people do more harm when they think there religion makes it right. its a sad sad world, lets hope (and if you want,pray) we all muddle through.

Quote from: m0ds on Thu 23/02/2006 22:27:33If the prophet Mohammed is a good guy, I'm sure he too wouldn't want Muslims to act violently. And if he does, well - then you have a fucked up religion.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some 300 warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than 3 times (1000 to 300) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement.

He was a warrior about ten years of his life. So yes, on some occasions, you could say he encouraged violence.

Great.

:-\

(thanks for educating me a little Hillbilly :))

CAN"T WE ALL JUS GET ALONG?! :'(
sorry for shouting, it just makes me so sad
[cups head in in hands and weeps]

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 23/02/2006 23:24:37
CAN"T WE ALL JUS GET ALONG?! :'(

Well, look what happened when Jack Nicholson said that in Mars Attacks...

Hehe - Jack Nicholson, there's a prophet for ya!

The thing is out of hand, but luckily most Muslim governments have decided to try and stop the riots. I guess the riots are hurting their own societies more than ours.

The Turkish government has offered to negotiate between Europe and the Arab world, and have already stated that an official apology from the Danish government is required to get anywhere in the negotiations. So I guess their diplomacy is pretty much over before it began, because they will not get this apology - how can the Prime Minister apologize for something he didn't do? he has already expressed his regret on the matter.

bspeers said some important things about freedom of speech, but I think just the fact that he can point to a top 10 of the most important censored stories, proves him wrong in saying that we have no freedom of speech. Of course the western media have their own agendas, in Denmark, where I live, it's pretty easy to link each paper to a certain political party's agenda, although some of them span a few, and I guess it's the same in most other werstern countries (except perhaps Italy, where Berlusconi is in charge of most media). Some papers are liberal, some are conservative, some are more red, and so on. And of course the papers (and other media) compete and apply different standards for what makes the front page and what makes it in the paper at all. The difference is that we HAVE different papers, and people have a choice of what to read. As bspeers said, making papers for the poor is unusual, probably because it's a bad business, but there are plenty of papers for "the little man", the "poor, but no so poor they can't afford the paper", so to speak. Even the homeless have their own paper.

In contrast, some countries apply strict control of ALL national media (at least they try), and they put up noisetransmitters to prevent broadcasts fro other countries to reach their population. Belarus, for instance, is doing that at the moment. And they don't exactly post top 10s of the most important censored stories either, because it kinda defies the purpose. The western tradition of a free press means that even torture scandals within the army are eventually exposed, something that it would be suicide to write about in a dictatorship.

So in my opinion, the freedom is there. You can stand up for your opinions and start a paper with any agenda you like, but you will have to justify anything you lay out as facts, and you must be prepared to face the scorn and caricatures that your opponents make up. And of course that may get very tough, if you have nothing but "faith" in your opinions.

So I think the differences are big enough that I will counter bspeers statement (that anyone who says we have freedom of speech is a hypocrite) with, as usual, a question: Does power sometimes corrupt? How do we make sure, that if the ones we put in power are corrupted by their power, at least we find out about it and have them replaced?

sorry, that was two questions. Btw. I think bspeers is doing a great job at pointing our attention to those censored articles, and I'm glad nothing is holding him back in doing so.

Quote from: fred on Fri 24/02/2006 14:05:04
The thing is out of hand, but luckily most Muslim governments have decided to try and stop the riots. I guess the riots are hurting their own societies more than ours.

I think it's sad when only MOST Muslim governments would merely DECIDE to TRY and stop riots. Whether or not the riots end, I'm still shocked at how little it takes for those people to resort to violence. If they want to act like a cranky infant, the rest of the world should treat them like one.

Quote from: fred on Fri 24/02/2006 14:05:04

The Turkish government has offered to negotiate between Europe and the Arab world, and have already stated that an official apology from the Danish government is required to get anywhere in the negotiations. So I guess their diplomacy is pretty much over before it began, because they will not get this apology - how can the Prime Minister apologize for something he didn't do? he has already expressed his regret on the matter.

Until the Turkish government admits to its acts of Genocide on the Christian Armenian population that it committed both in the last century and in the beginning of this century, I don't know if that's a good idea.

If you ask most Turks, they will flat out deny any genocide happened, but it did, and there are millions of Armenians who have lost family who can attest to that.  Yet rather then saying "It happened, we're sorry, let's move on" they continue to deny any such thing happened.

So until they will admit to their own acts, I don't think they would be a very good intermediary between the Christian and Muslim worlds (Europe + Middle East).

Quote from: Sanguinous Rex on Fri 24/02/2006 20:04:50
...So until they will admit to their own acts, I don't think they would be a very good intermediary between the Christian and Muslim worlds (Europe + Middle East).

Why exaclty?

Genocide has nothing to do with being in the middle of something. And Turks are exaclt in the middle. They want to enter Europe (although not in the continent of Europe, as far as I know...), and would very much like to be more westernized. I do believe that if there is a nation that could be in the middle and try to work things out Turky is that nation.

I do believe that this is one of those things that can't be resolved. It has do be forgoten. There is no understanding from both ways. At some point the riots have to stop, and in the end they will, or anyway there will be war ;D. But they will cool down in the end, won't they?

If there is a war, I am rooting for the good guys.

Quote from: Squinky on Fri 24/02/2006 20:16:19
If there is a war, I am rooting for the good guys.

Would you be a little more specific? ;D

In case there is a war we should take advantage, declare and independent state of AGSland and make CJ supreme-dictator-for-life

Quote from: SSH on Fri 24/02/2006 20:25:07
In case there is a war we should take advantage, declare and independent state of AGSland and make CJ supreme-dictator-for-life

But only my religion could be practiced there, and if you drew pictures of my deity, I would go totally apeshit bonkers.

Though I am Ã, greatly grieved by the Armenian genocide (to me, genocide is the worlds uber WORST crime) I believe Ã, that we shouldn't, at this time, press this issue.Diplomacy Ã, is about getting done what needs done, and focusing on the issue at hand.Right now what the west (not christian, church and state are separate) and the muslim governments need to do is smooth some feathers and create a peaceful resolution to this crisis. Then, and only then, can the west press on any other issues it might have. Pressing a sovereign nation when they think the other side is in the the wrong, will just make things worse.

Squinky: Okay! I obey yOU lORD!

Damn straight, now make me a sandwich.

Quote from: Squinky on Fri 24/02/2006 20:27:37But only my religion could be practiced there, and if you drew pictures of my deity, I would go totally apeshit bonkers.

If it were a real religion, you'd just get everyone else to go apeshit while you ate your sandwich.

If it were my religion everyone would have to bring me sandwiches before  going apeshit. (http://www.gaia-spa.com/project/BombVales.png)

If it were my religion everyone would have to eat as much sandwiches as they could before Chuck Norris goes apeshit.

If it were my religion all sandwhiches would be destroyed by Chuck Norris.

In my religion anyone who mentions Chuck Norris gets decapitated.

In my religion, buloght is God and anyone who criticises his games as unplayable is a blasphemer  ;)

This Lost treasure game is unplayable! Oh, wait. My mouse isn't plugged in.

Quote from: SSH on Sun 26/02/2006 23:16:30
In my religion, buloght is God and anyone who criticises his games as unplayable is a blasphemer  ;)

You are really LJUBI?

If it were my sandwich, I'd be too busy eating it to go apeshit.

If it were my religion, I would make ALL (married, for the shake of rharpe) pregnant. Just so that me, SSH, Squnky and Vince wouldn't feel so lonely... ;D

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 27/02/2006 08:28:24
If it were my religion, I would make ALL (married, for the shake of rharpe) pregnant. Just so that me, SSH, Squnky and Vince wouldn't feel so lonely... ;D

We'd just have an abortion orgy. Hanger sales would shoot through the roof.

EDIT: Wait, who's gonna make them pregnant?

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 27/02/2006 08:28:24
If it were my religion, I would make ALL (married, for the shake of rharpe) pregnant. Just so that me, SSH, Squnky and Vince wouldn't feel so lonely... ;D

Really? Guys, I had no idea you were all pregnant! Congratulations, when are the babies due?

I love the way this thread has gone pretty much off topic :P

Erm, my two cents is that Religeon is an aging way of controlling people.  "The Opium of the Masses".  I'm not saying it should be out ruled, but religeous people need to think about what they're fighting and dying for.  Atheists also must be tolerant of religeous groups.  Our lives as humans are too short to throw away following the crowd or hating someone.

I agree it is an "aging way of controlling people" but I think that religion, when separate but with powers of its own, provides a good balance to government power. It should control its areas but be powerless in others and visa-versa. I good example of this is the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Now when we think of Catholicism during the middle ages we think, witch hunts inquisition, crusades, And yes these were not good things, but I think that the church provided an important power balance. That's my opinion anyway.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 28/02/2006 20:18:25It should control its areas but be powerless in others and visa-versa.

What's "its areas"? I hope you're not suggesting that [yourreligionofchoicehere] should be given any legal or political power.

 NOT legal powers exactly, but when you have society with basically one religion, which we don't, but in the middle ages they did, a strong church (with strong MORAL authority) can counter-balance tyrants. In our modern society, maybe two independent government divisions, each with legal and political power in areas that the other doesn't, each providing a sober second thought and a balance of power. Now they may be at each other's throat all the time, but the end result can be good. We all used to think the world was going to end in an A-bomb, but it didn't why? (Well lots of reasons but...) One reason was that the USSSR and the USA had a balance of power. As far as I can see, balance of power is a very important to the societies continued stability.

Yeah, the Roman empire advanced pretty well because it has the balance of the... eeeeer... the culture.... eeeeeer...  ::) And the industrial revolution was done in a period where the situation between civilizations was quite stable by the overwhelming superiority of the brits, if I am wright.

My point is that during "pax romana" periods, where one culture is overwhelmingly powerful towards the others, also experiment advances.

Seriously, I don't see the sense of post. Can you explain it better? It sounds interesting, maybe I can finally agree if I understand it.

Thanks.  :)