Mohammed cartoons

passer-by · Mon 06/02/2006 17:02:15

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?

Or is this about strikes??

SSH · Mon 06/02/2006 17:17:51

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.

Nacho · Mon 06/02/2006 17:24:41

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?

SSH · Mon 06/02/2006 20:31:14

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".

Nacho · Mon 06/02/2006 20:46:21

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.

SSH · Mon 06/02/2006 20:59:07

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.

Nikolas · Mon 06/02/2006 21:02:02

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

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...

Nacho · Mon 06/02/2006 21:04:01

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

SSH · Mon 06/02/2006 21:10:42

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.

Gord10 · Mon 06/02/2006 21:11:54

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.

Nacho · Mon 06/02/2006 21:13:28

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.

Nikolas · Mon 06/02/2006 21:15:50

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.

Nacho · Mon 06/02/2006 21:24:13

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

Understanding is not equal to approve.

Anyway, don't take this in a so personaly way (If someone is doing so).Ã,Â

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,Â violence is bad and..."Ã,Â

Nikolas · Mon 06/02/2006 21:29:03

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...

fred · Mon 06/02/2006 21:45:01

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

ManicMatt · Mon 06/02/2006 22:38:36

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.

Squinky · Mon 06/02/2006 22:47:58

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.

JimmyShelter · Tue 07/02/2006 07:11:54

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.

fred · Tue 07/02/2006 08:26:06

Well, I'm from Denmark

, 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.

Haddas · Tue 07/02/2006 09:10:34

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.