* Final word on anti-musim cartoons and embassy violence *

[rpgamerd00d]

1) Anti-(group) cartoons are in poor taste. Advocating violence is illegal, but advocating hate, while repulsive, is legal.

2) Those that committed acts of violence against the embassies do not speak for all Muslims. They are simply extremists and criminals. There is no reason to react to the "muslim world" when the "muslim world" didn't do anything. A few extremists did, regardless of their religion. They need to be caught, prosecuted and punished. Period. This has nothing to do with the "Muslim World" and everything to do with catching some criminals.

[DS1]

1. I'm glad you think your opinion is final

:eyes:

[genie_weenie]

2. Last Word

What of the calls by the Arab League and Muslim nations for the infidels to apologize?

[rpgamerd00d]

3. Asking for an apology isnt violent

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. Valid point except...

... the governments of these Muslim nations DID do something - they encouraged the response that we have seen. Unfortunately, this can't simply be dismissed as the reaction by a few radicals or extremists.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. You know what? Those governments have to govern their people

I seriously doubt they said "Go burn embassies".

[genie_weenie]

9. what does this mean????

Egyptian cleric Youssef Al-Qaradawi, told worshippers in Qatar: “The whole nation must be angry and rise up to show their anger... Anger is a must, we are not a nation of donkeys. We are a nation of lions.”

Rise up and send in angry postcards?

[Kire]

29. Egyptian cleric?

Is that like a cabinet post?

[JI7]

31. in some of these Islamic nations these clerics have the real power

over their so called governments.

this is especially true in Iran . in Saudi Arabia where the house of Saud funds the fanatics in order to remain in power for fear of the clerics, mullahs or whatever else you want to call them.

Saddam Hussein was probably the only one not beholden to these extremists. but he is no longer there. Bush helped his extremist Islamic buddies by getting rid of him.

[Kire]

33. what about Egypt

are you sure this is THE guy with the keys to the government?

[genie_weenie]

5. See post #4

and read this link, doesn't sound like he is talking about a few extremists but for the Ummah (Muslim community) and what does he mean when he states "A Spirit of Defiance"?


&category=Kingdom

[Joanne98]

7. On the contrary.........

Cartoons don't kill, people do. I think the whole problem is God's fault. Let's burn all the bibles and put all the religious CONSERVATIVES on Devil's Island where they can have their holy war in peace. I don't care about anybody's religious issues and I'm getting sick of having to "respect" somebody's elses "faith". If there were only "libruls" on the planet there wouldn't be any problem. Just my humble opinion.

[Matariki]

27. "where they can have their holy war in peace"

LOL - that's great.

[Lefty48197]

8. Here's a link to the "offensive" cartoons:

I apologize for posting a link to Michelle Malkin's webpage, but it's the only source I found for the cartoons. Here's a photo of her in her natural state to make up for it:



http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

[oneighty]

10. Agreed. Advocating violence is illegal

Pat Robertson

Ann Coulter

George W Bush

[pschoeb]

11. Oh the irony

"1) Anti-(anything) cartoons are in poor taste"

So your anti Bush cartoon in your sig line is in poor taste?

"but advocating hate, while repulsive, is legal."

So your advocating of hatred of Bush is repulsive?

[genie_weenie]

12. nice,

hoist the man on his own petard!

[rpgamerd00d]

13. Anti-Anything meaning Any group. Not any single thing.

Sorry for vagueness.

[pschoeb]

23. So anti-GOP cartoons are in poor taste?

Or anti-KKK cartoons? these are all groups. no? Mohammed is a single thing, not a group, one could say he represents a group, but then one could say the same about Bush.

[neoblues]

14. Anti-[Bad]==[Good]

Usually.

As for 2), extremists, particularly religious are usually more guilty of than others.

[Benbow]

15. Vatican's common sense - I suggest that this be the last word

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4681294.stm

* The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs.

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was portrayed as a terrorist and as a pig (an unclean animal to both Muslims and Jews), people - if that is not a deliberate insult to one of the three "religions of the book", I don't know what is - if you portrayed Jesus Christ as Osama Bin Laden, American Xian fundies would be burning embassies too.

[jeannicot]

16. Oh yeah?

Which one?

[Benbow]

22. Which one what? n/t

[cigsandcoffee]

18. I'd like to ask the Vatican..

...why religious beliefs are to be protected while political ones are not. Should I not offend conservatives because they'll rise up in anger and shoot me? Should they not offend liberal beleifs because we'll react by burning their houses down?

What gives religious beliefs a special, offense-free pass?

[Benbow]

21. That's a big subject - why not do the study yourself? n/t

[cigsandcoffee]

25. I'm not following you.

What study?

[_TJ_]

19. Well FUCK the vatican then

"The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs."

No right to offend religious beliefs? That's EXACTLY what freedom of expression means: Freedom
to offend the hell out of anyone, anytime, anywhere. You don't want to be offended - don't let
yourself get upset over a few goddamn words!

[Benbow]

20. Concidentally, I have been hearing today for the first time about

the extraordinary prejudice there is in the US against Roman Catholics.

Beams and motes comes to mind, they really do.

[genie_weenie]

26. Question

the false prophet muhammad picture with him as a pig WAS NOT among the 12 created for Jyllands-Posten but added by Islamic Funamendalist groups seeking to captialize on this crap.

Piss Christ and the Last Temptation of Christ come to mind when Christian Crazies did not burn down a Syrian Embassy.

BTW, do you agree with the Muslims who have burned the Danish Flag, and therby a CROSS? A desecration in Chrisitan Eyes? Or is that UNDERSTANDABLE in your mind as a response to this terrible blashpheme...

[tocqueville]

32. the Vatican has the right to express themselves

but in that case they are part and not judge. And they are WRONG. Religion is no EXCEPTION from other bodies in society. Why should it be OK to offend Bush or Clinton for their views and not the Pope ? Those guys never learn. I thought they did 200 years ago...

Your statement about the cartoons is false, two of the 12 originals can be really considered as offensive. The others (if they exist) are fabrications from racists or from Muslim extremists.

Cartoon far more provocative about Jesus are widely available on the Internet. Just google "Jesus cartoons" under images...

[JI7]

34. the Vatican is wrong

in the United States we do have a constitutional right to offend religious beliefs. and we have a right to speak out against those also. but we don't have a right to commit violent acts over them.

[Benbow]

35. And look where it's got you - more than 2,500 US troops dead for nothing

in Iraq, and God alone knows how many repatriated as multiple amputees, burned, unable to have children or ever know peace and happiness again in their lives.

[cali]

17. A suggestion:

Never, ever tout yourself as the 'last word' on a discussion forum. It lack humility. Second of all, this is more complex than you make it out to be. Just because one can say something doesn't mean one should. But just because something makes you angry, doesn't mean you should resort to threats and violence. The results of publishing the cartoon were pretty obvious. Was it worth it? Not to me it wasn't, and I do believe the best response to bad speech is more speech, but responsible people and media have a greater burden than say, South Park or Pat Robertson.

[Matariki]

24. I believe there are laws against 'hate speech' in some European countries

for instance the swedish pastor who was convicted of hate speech against gays in one of his sermons. he got a month in jail.

so i guess you don't have the correct info to get the final word :evilgrin:

[tocqueville]

28. there are some flaws in this statement...

1) the cartoons are not "anti-group" : they were an attempt to discuss ethnic/religious matters in a provocative way in a SECULAR society. They wanted to break the taboo "you can make jokes about Christians, but making jokes about Muslims and Jews is automatically considered as racism". Poor attempt maybe, but everybody agrres thet the original cartoon makers are far from being racists or had a racist intention even if it was perceived as such.

2) advocating hate is illegal in Europe, to the difference from the US

3) the cartoons have been around 4 months without making a real big deal before all this exploded. There obviously is a political agenda behind. The fact that the explosion happens in Syria is not a coincidence. Syria is a secular, Saddam-like country ruled by Saddam's brother party. If Hassad permits the explosion, there are only two explanations : either he has lost the grip of power to the Hamas or there has been a deal to express the anger into "controlled" forms, to redeem the offense and defuse riots in other places. I choose the second option.

4) the angered masses are authentic and it's not a few "criminals". But their anger is manipulated into violence by political and/or religious forces for internal and international agendas. In France there is outrage too in parts of the "muslim" population (at least the non-secular one), but the anger has been efficiently defused by local religious leaders and politicians.

[donco6]

30. Totally agree - particularly this:

"3) the cartoons have been around 4 months without making a real big deal before all this exploded. There obviously is a political agenda behind. The fact that the explosion happens in Syria is not a coincidence. Syria is a secular, Saddam-like country ruled by Saddam's brother party. If Hassad permits the explosion, there are only two explanations : either he has lost the grip of power to the Hamas or there has been a deal to express the anger into "controlled" forms, to redeem the offense and defuse riots in other places. I choose the second option."

Yes and Yes.