Muhammad cartoons...

[intradink]

You say the publisher of the cartoons is responsible for the violence.

 

No. That's not what I said. I say the publisher/editor were irresponsible, because the reaction (which I don't condone) could have been predicted.

 

Anyone or anything which claims to be perfect, will naturally end up being a target for satire, you must understand that according to muslims, religions aren't equal. Any religions predating Islam, is viewed as imperfect interpretations of the true religion, only when the prophet Mohammed came, did people learn how to really worship god. Any religion that followed after the introduction of islam, is considered herectic religions.

 

Just as a sidenote, that comment is equally true of Christianity and Judasim. Substitute Mohammed with Christ or Moses as appropriate. No religion is formed on the basis of being imprefect. Furthermore your history lesson is inaccurate and misses out several important points. Anyway we digress (I suggest you look up wikipedia for a more accurate account of history).

 

My main point is that this was a predictable (and misguided) response to an irresponsible action. Who's the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?

[johan]

No. That's not what I said. I say the publisher/editor were irresponsible, because the reaction (which I don't condone) could have been predicted.

Just as a sidenote, that comment is equally true of Christianity and Judasim. Substitute Mohammed with Christ or Moses as appropriate. No religion is formed on the basis of being imprefect. Furthermore your history lesson is inaccurate and misses out several important points. Anyway we digress (I suggest you look up wikipedia for a more accurate account of history).

 

My main point is that this was a predictable (and misguided) response to an irresponsible action. Who's the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?

 

So you say, that we can't be free in the West, because of foolish Muslims in de middle east?

 

Should they determine how we live?

 

For god sake, the cartoon were published in Denmark.

 

Muslims should respect the Danish traditions.

 

In the middle east a lot of newspapers publish cartoon of jews. To me that’s the same thing.

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html

http://skender.be/supportdenmark/more2.html#NL

 

 

[intradink]

Johan,

Please re-read my posts. You are taking a concise statement, and reading things between lines that don't exist.

 

So you say, that we can't be free in the West, because of foolish Muslims in de middle east?

No I don't

Should they determine how we live?

No

For god sake, the cartoon were published in Denmark.

Muslims should respect the Danish traditions.

Correct. Danish tradition is national, religion is global, was their tradition respected?

 

In the middle east a lot of newspapers publish cartoon of jews. To me that’s the same thing.

As I said, if the picture was of an Arab with a fuse it would be the same thing.

 

The difference is that there are over a billion muslims in the world. The middle majority of them are currently trying hard to differentiate themselves from terrorism, due to the actions of a statistically insignificant number of people. The cartoon published makes that association to every one of those 1 billion people. If anyone were to call me a terrorist in a national paper, I'd have them in court for liable or slander and expect a retraction.

 

These are dangerous times. People should act responsibly.

[johan]

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. But I was thinking of the consequences of what you are saying.

 

Danish tradition is national, religion is global, was their tradition respected?

As I said, if the picture was of an Arab with a fuse it would be the same thing.

 

To me that makes no sense. Just because religion is global we should respect it. But not vice versa ? Muslims can say that non believers are pigs and that {censored}’s are criminals and dogs. But the same time a newspaper in Denmark can’t make a cartoon. Well I disagree.

 

 

The difference is that there are over a billion muslims in the world. The middle majority of them are currently trying hard to differentiate themselves from terrorism, due to the actions of a statistically insignificant number of people. The cartoon published makes that association to every one of those 1 billion people. If anyone were to call me a terrorist in a national paper, I'd have them in court for liable or slander and expect a retraction.

 

These are dangerous times. People should act responsibly.

 

I agree, the west should fight for their rights and not give in to extremist Muslims. And also should the middle majority of Muslims who are currently trying hard to differentiate themselves from terrorism. They should also fight against the extremist Muslims.

[intradink]

I agree, the west should fight for their rights and not give in to extremist Muslims. And also should the middle majority of Muslims who are currently trying hard to differentiate themselves from terrorism. They should also fight against the extremist Muslims.

If anything there is a 'fight' against extremism (whatever the flavour). This shouldn't be a west verses islam debate. The argument by the (unheard) middle majority is that they have nothing to prove. They don't go blowing things up, they aren't terrorists. They just go about their business in whatever country they live in. By example, Germans don't need to go round proving they aren't Nazi's.

 

Terrorists are just that, terrorists. By calling them muslim terrorists, you associate them with a larger group of people

[johan]

Terrorists are just that, terrorists. By calling them muslim terrorists, you associate them with a larger group of people

 

Its not me calling them Muslims. But its the terrorist themselves who call themselves Muslims.

 

Its not like I am making that up.

 

How should we call them when we are talking about terrorist who blow up people and buildings. How can we discuss about them, without hurting the Muslims majority who means well?( I hope that’s it’s a majority, I haven’t seen one Muslims speaking out support for the Danes.)

 

 

Who are these people?.. they are not Muslims terrorist you know. We now just call them terrorist. they have nothing to do with the Islam. really! its wrong to think that they are Muslims.

 

 

 

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html

http://skender.be/supportdenmark/more2.html#NL

 

 

[intradink]

Call terrorists, terrorists. Don't give them a 'cause'.

 

Muslims won't speak out against the cartoon, because the cartoon offends all muslims. I'll say again, if the cartoon was a picture of some arab, no one would have cared. By making it of the prophet, it offends everyone, by associating the prophet with terrorists, it offends even those who couldn't give 2 hoots about the terrorist 'causes'.

 

Anyway I think I've said all I can on this subject... be responsible.

[Hagar]

Terrorists are just that, terrorists. By calling them muslim terrorists, you associate them with a larger group of people

 

This is a major problem in communication:

 

The terrorists themselves claim to be acting in the name of Allah. Every time they do so, many voices in the islamic world are raised to denounce this, and a few in praise. They themselves wish to be seen as the representatives of the repressed muslims in the world. They make great efforts to associate themselves with islam, regardless of what the muslim in the street thinks of this.

 

I keep finding this schism, that on the one hand violence is being committed with a religious justification, and on the other hand representatives of that religion disown it..

 

I think what many of us in europe fail to grasp, is that Islam is one thing, and arab/muslim culture is another..

 

for example:

 

The supression of women:

 

We see this as a bad thing in the west, and those who defend it do so by claiming it is a religious duty, but when we come to debate this, suddenly its "men and women are equal in islam"

 

Every time I try to pin down what exactly is the issue, & what it is that causes people to kill on religious grounds, it ends up as either politics or cultural habits hiding behind the mask of religion.

 

example:

 

Honor killing is a tradition in some muslim countries, but is, afaik not sanctioned by the koran.

 

What is the real issue here? International politics.

Its not about the depiction of muhammed, that has been done 1000000 times already & is done today, by muslims, in muslim countries.

 

Its not even about the imagery being insulting. everyone brings forth the bomb/turban picture, but there are others I find much more telling.

Remember that the pictures came about in the first place because danes, living in their own country, felt intimidated by muslim groups. at least 2 of the cartoons refer to this.

 

Interests that want to see a showdown between islam & the west are whipping up fanaticism in order to bring the situation to a head.

so what we are really seing here are international political forces, born of oppression & fuelled by misguided religious fervour, attempting to impose its will on a world that is dominated by (western) forces beyond their control.

 

No-one likes to feel powerless, when they do, people seek to gather in groups for strength, guided by the most powerful ideology they can find, and turn to desperate measures. That way 9/11 lies... (& WW2 for that matter) I feel the west has missed its opportunity for dialog, and must turn around & do some work to get a more constructive relationship with islam, or we will end up in war, all of us.

 

The cartoons are just an excuse for these groups to focus their anger. The answer is not censorship or any limitation on western freedoms, but to try to adress the issues which genuinely lie beneath the resentment felt towards the west.

[johan]

The cartoons are just an excuse for these groups to focus their anger. The answer is not censorship or any limitation on western freedoms, but to try to adress the issues which genuinely lie beneath the resentment felt towards the west.

 

 

I agree with you. A good assessment of the situation. This is not about cartoons.

 

 

By the way. To me a terrorist is(spoken in current context) a person who is against democrat governments/laws. A person who uses or threatens to use force to achieve his goals. By so imposing his ways on others.

 

So to me, any person who is undermining the law in Denmark by treating the use violence is a terrorist.

 

In the west we have laws, establish by elected governments. I you feel that someone is discriminating or offending you by making cartoons. The only right way is to go to the police or to go to court.

 

So to me , the responsible thing to do is, to enforce the law. And to not give in to the terrorist.

 

At the same time get the dialogue going on and try to address the issues which genuinely lie beneath.

 

 

 

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html

http://skender.be/supportdenmark/more2.html#NL

 

 

[Ouch]

...(I suggest you look up wikipedia for a more accurate account of history)....

 

Where you being ironic!?

[DarkCarnival]

Furthermore your history lesson is inaccurate and misses out several important points. Anyway we digress (I suggest you look up wikipedia for a more accurate account of history).

 

It may be entirely possible that I've missed out a few important points, I didn't try to cover all the ground as the subjects briefly covered could easily turn into a book if one were to thoroughly examine them. However as to the inaccuracy I'm quite unsure as to how you reach that conclusion.

I haven't mentioned much about history, but it's true that Islam has had an incredibly rapid expansion up untill the crusades. The expansion started in the seventh century when muslim forces slowly conquered one land after another; by the time of Mohammed's death in 632, the islamic empire started to spread even further:

635: Syria

636: "The holy land"

637: Iraq (the area that make up modern Iraq that is)

641: Iran

642: Egypt and Persia

 

In the 8th century, the islamic empire absorbed Indonesia, India, Spain and Portugal, and they would've gone into France, had it not been for their defeat in the battle of Tours in 735AD.

They offered the conquered people a chance to skip paying taxes if they converted to Islam (but in most other respects, they actually maintained religious freedom).

 

From here on the tables started to turn slowly. In 1095, the first crusade started, which were ordered by pope Urban II after having recieved a request for help from the struggling byzantine empire (which later fell to the turks 1453). In 1099, with the recapturing of Jerusalem, the crusade was quite succesful, for the first time in centuries, christians were back in the offensive role and winning most of the battles. In the 13th century, mongol hordes attacked and destroyed most of the Persian provinces and burned Baghdad to the ground. Although they later succeed in regaining the lost ground and turning the later crusades into defensive wars. The islamic empire starts to break up and in the 14th and 15th centuries, 3 islamic empires were existant (among those was the ottoman empire). This shattered the dream of a unified islamic empire and by the 16th century, the islamic empires had to give way for european expansions and colonies. After a devastating defeat in Vienna in 1529 and again in 1683, islam slowly withdrew it's influence range out of europe and the development of islam that had taken place since the death of the prophet Mohammed, was put to a halt.

 

 

Now you're very much welcome to have a look at a map and tell me if that isn't a rapid expansion up to the 8th century. You're also very welcome to read further ahead in time and see how the muslims slowly loose ground to christian countries and therefore going from an offensive strategy (much like Alexander the great or even the blitzkrieg-tactics of Hitler's army, since ancient cavalry versus infantry can be compared to tanks versus modern infantry) to playing a defensive role, trying to keep as much of their empire as they could.

[johan]

picture of bofors

 

This has nothing to do with this discussions about cartoons, I think.

 

To me this discussion is about freedom of speech.

 

Its not about putting an entire religion down. its not about offending people on purpose.

 

Why are you posting this picture bofors?

 

Its in bad taste..

[Hagar]

If you have a point to make, please make it (politely). Just posting propaganda imagery is not helpful.. (regardless of which argument you support).

[bofors]

To me this discussion is about freedom of speech.

That's right and I am exercising mine.

 

Islam is simply not compatible with free speech.

 

Its not about putting an entire religion down.

I view Islam as a serious threat to Western society.

 

I think the powers of mass media should focus on corrupting it, by showing Muslims how ridiculously backwards they are.

 

its not about offending people on purpose.

I find the fundamental values of Islam personally offensive, these were deliberately designed and are used to suppress freedom.

 

Moreover, I live in a Muslim community that treats me as some kind of a second-class citizen, an "infidel".

 

Now with respect to this cartoon/embassy-burning nonsense, if these people can not act civilized, they going to be treated like animals.

[bofors]

If you have a point to make, please make it (politely). Just posting propaganda imagery is not helpful.. (regardless of which argument you support).

 

Fine, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Iran is about to acquire them.

 

I think that it is extremely dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of people who drop to the floor and worship a 15 meter cubic rock five times a day.

 

These people are insane:

 

[Swad]

Hagar was right to close this thread, but I think that a lot of good points have been made and as long as we keep it civil, we can all learn something from this. Bofors, don't post pictures like you did earlier in this thread - they'll just be deleted as they're just thoughtless ideological banter that we frankly have entirely too much of (commentary in general, not against you).

 

I think that it is extremely dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of people who drop to the floor and worship a 15 meter cubic rock five times a day.

 

These people are insane:

 

Would you rather have nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who believed that morality was relative and that every person should act as they see fit? In my opinion, weapons held by someone like that is an infinitely more dangerous situation than if they're held by someone who believes in absolute right and wrong and (eternal) consequnces. I'm pretty sure that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea anyway, but if somebody has to have them, at least let them be God-fearing.

 

Secondly, calling worshipers insane is a huge statement, essentially meaning that you've searched the vast depths of the universe and have come to the conclusion that God truly doesn't exist (meaning that you'd have to be a god to figure that out, but anyway...). It's one thing to say you don't subscribe to a certain religious belief, but it's another to say that someone isn't having - or can't have - a religious experience. That's a huge claim.

 

On a lighter note, I'm loving this new Real Life forum, aren't you? Open for a week and we've already hit politics and religion, the two things my mom told me to never talk about over dinner.

[Hagar]

So.. reopened, well in that case:

 

Lets not forget that the most lethal war machine in history is currently in the hands of a christian fundamentalist who cant spell & has trouble tying his shoelaces unaided. This man has a penchant for invading muslim countries on a supposed agenda of making the world a safer place. That is the single greatest threat to peace today.

 

Frankly, a moral relativist would be vastly preferable in this role. At least such a person would be able to empathise with the potential victims rather than brush them off as "other" "infidel" "terrorist"

 

Let us not forget where the terms "terror" & "terrorist" originated: Guernica, the first aerial bombardment of civilians. By this definition, the biggest terrorist is the U.S. air force, with an unknown number of thousands of dead civilians.. I am not sure whether Israels attacks "out kill" 9/11 for second place, but hypocritical religious justifications notwithstanding, terror is fairly equally distributed.

 

The bahavoiur of the muslim world in this case, however, is despicable. Anyone who responds to a printed word or picture with violence is an idiot who deserves to drown in their own vomit. Why do these people care what is printed in a distant land? Non-believers have insulted a religious figure SO WHAT? In the eyes of muslims these people are damned anyway. Now people in afghanistan are dying because they cant accept that east is east & west is west.

 

I could go on.. but I wont

 

P.S. I wont be attempting to moderate this thread any more, let others decide what is acceptable.

[DrJägermeister]

No matter what kind of God(s) you have, there no more hope we will all burn in hell:

http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?opti...&id=44&Itemid=2

[johan]

I pleasely asked for stoping the topic at the beginning ...

 

but your stupidious little nutty brain couldnt help for any EMPATHY ....

 

 

Where is your respect and empathy?

 

To me it’s a two way street about everybody excepting differences.

 

You want to stop freedom of speech, and that’s dangerous.

 

Stopping freedom of speech is the beginning of stopping freedom of religion.

[johnniecarcinogen]

So.. reopened, well in that case:

 

Lets not forget that the most lethal war machine in history is currently in the hands of a christian fundamentalist who cant spell & has trouble tying his shoelaces unaided. This man has a penchant for invading muslim countries on a supposed agenda of making the world a safer place. That is the single greatest threat to peace today.

 

Frankly, a moral relativist would be vastly preferable in this role. At least such a person would be able to empathise with the potential victims rather than brush them off as "other" "infidel" "terrorist"

 

Let us not forget where the terms "terror" & "terrorist" originated: Guernica, the first aerial bombardment of civilians. By this definition, the biggest terrorist is the U.S. air force, with an unknown number of thousands of dead civilians.. I am not sure whether Israels attacks "out kill" 9/11 for second place, but hypocritical religious justifications notwithstanding, terror is fairly equally distributed.

 

The bahavoiur of the muslim world in this case, however, is despicable. Anyone who responds to a printed word or picture with violence is an idiot who deserves to drown in their own vomit. Why do these people care what is printed in a distant land? Non-believers have insulted a religious figure SO WHAT? In the eyes of muslims these people are damned anyway. Now people in afghanistan are dying because they cant accept that east is east & west is west.

 

I could go on.. but I wont

 

P.S. I wont be attempting to moderate this thread any more, let others decide what is acceptable.

 

You can't have it both ways. The goal of Al-qaeda, wahhabi-ists, and incrementally the rest of the muslim world because of popular anti-americanism is the spread and domination of islam and its ideals. This is evident in the 'cartoon violence'. Because they did not like some illustrations that were published by newspapers that had no governmental affiliation, they find validication in destruction of embasies and murder.

 

Left unchecked things like OSx86 would not have the enviornment in which to thrive.

[Ouch]

I think there is still a lot of people grouping terrorists, extremists, liberals, together. While they would all choose to call themselves muslim they would not regard any other faction as legitimate muslims. Therefore it's neccessary to recognise each as a disparate faction - not all of which would consider the pictures offensive enough to warrant the retaliatory actions of one or two other factions. However which headline sells more papers: "Muslims voice anger over muhammad cartoons" or "Muslims burn embassy in retaliation" ?

 

[i'm keeping an eye on this thread...there is no need for any more pictures of anything, they don't contribute to the discussion nor do insulting adjectives.]

[ozzie123]

That's right and I am exercising mine.

 

Islam is simply not compatible with free speech.

I view Islam as a serious threat to Western society.

 

And which part of that isn't compatible? Free speech is about responsible freedom of getting your voice heard without the expense of others (and in this case, in the expense of Muslims). The picturing of our Prophet Muhammad is forbidden since the birth of the religion its self (to prevent occultism or idolism). Your ignorance made the world a less habitable place to live.

 

I think the powers of mass media should focus on corrupting it, by showing Muslims how ridiculously backwards they are.

I find the fundamental values of Islam personally offensive, these were deliberately designed and are used to suppress freedom.

 

And which one are those? Islamic scientist are way ahead of their time when the western civilization is still on dark ages.

 

Moreover, I live in a Muslim community that treats me as some kind of a second-class citizen, an "infidel".

 

Now with respect to this cartoon/embassy-burning nonsense, if these people can not act civilized, they going to be treated like animals.

 

And you wonder why you are treated like that after your behaviour in this forum? I expect by living in a moslem country you will understand at least a little bit about moslem's value. Of course you are treated as a second-class citizen because of your ignorance.

 

And I also wonder why this post hasn't been closed yet? It invites many people without rationalities to provoke further dismay to the forum overall.

 

 

Fine, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Iran is about to acquire them.

 

I think that it is extremely dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of people who drop to the floor and worship a 15 meter cubic rock five times a day.

 

These people are insane:

 

 

And it's not dangerous to put a nuclear weapons in the hand of a person that doesn't even know where on earth Iraq is on the map? The man that cannot even raise his daughter in correct way (don't argue on this, you know what I'm talking about)? The man that deliberately manufacture fake intelligent to justify an invasion to other country to fulfill his thirst for oil?

 

Yeah I think it's better to put nuclear weapons on Iranian or Pakistani hands.

 

And again, this represents your ignorance. It's a pilgrimage, the same thing as Christian going to Vatican (or Jerussalem where Jesus is crucified).

 

And I wonder why you haven't been banned for inciting such an offensive (and idiotic) arguments (if we can call it arguments at all).

 

 

You can't have it both ways. The goal of Al-qaeda, wahhabi-ists, and incrementally the rest of the muslim world because of popular anti-americanism is the spread and domination of islam and its ideals. This is evident in the 'cartoon violence'. Because they did not like some illustrations that were published by newspapers that had no governmental affiliation, they find validication in destruction of embasies and murder.

 

Left unchecked things like OSx86 would not have the enviornment in which to thrive.

 

Hello Johnnie (can I call you that?),

 

Yes I also detest the destructions of embassies and such, really savage and inappropriate and I won't reply to that.

 

The only reason why moslems don't agree their prophets being pictured on a cartoon is because it's just forbidden. If you wanted to picture other religious leader (such as Jesus, St. Pieter, or Buddha), we moslem couldn't care less.

[suleiman]

Fine, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Iran is about to acquire them.

 

I think that it is extremely dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of people who drop to the floor and worship a 15 meter cubic rock five times a day.

 

These people are insane:

 

 

Bofors, I thought I'd direct your attention to another "rock" which is worshipped by a leading world religion:

 

 

 

Perhaps you're familiar with the Jewish faith? Because the Western Wall (read "rock") just happens to be one of their holiest sites.

 

Mashugly: I have every bit of vested interest in the continuation of intelligent discourse on this matter, but this thread unfortunately left any semblance of that several pages ago.

[DrJägermeister]

The only reason why moslems don't agree their prophets being pictured on a cartoon is because it's just forbidden. If you wanted to picture other religious leader (such as Jesus, St. Pieter, or Buddha), we moslem couldn't care less.

It is not forbidden in Europe and it will never be. We will always be free to draw mohammad (or others) and we will never accept that a religion (aka a sect) is trying to forbid us anything.

Any other sect like the satanists or scientology will probably never try to forbid us anything because they know exactly that they will never get anything from us. Just the muslism are not intelligent enough to understand that.

[bofors]

It's Just a Cartoon

If cartoons of Muhammed can bring you to a murderous rage, then you need to chill out.

 

With the desire of making sure more people see these cartoons I provide them here.

...

 

These cartoons have angered many Muslims. If it offends any of this site's visoitors, then that's just too bad. The fact that you are bothered by these cartoons doesn't mean that I should care. In fact, it means that you should get over it. So, if this bothers you, f*** off.

http://www.quickrob.com/political/muhammed_cartoons.html