Mohammed cartoons

[SSH]

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.

[voh]

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!

[Squinky]

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?

[Nacho]

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.

[SSH]

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.

[El Drey]

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

[Nacho]

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



A very small minority!

[SSH]

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.

[Nacho]

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?

[SSH]

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

[Nacho]

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, 

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.

[tc]

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.

[InCreator]

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.

[SSH]

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!

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": set up an faulty analogy and attack THAT instead of attacking what I am arguing about.

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.

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"...

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.

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

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.

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, 

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

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

[Squinky]

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....

[passer-by]

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.

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?)

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."

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...

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??

[Nacho]

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.

This 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.

[SSH]

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.

[veryweirdguy]

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

[Peder 🚀]

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..