1
   

Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 08:08 am
Well at least that charming man Hamza is guilty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 08:10 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
And the people who riot and kill those who don't agree with them? Okay with you?


This looks as being a severe violation of the TOS: changing original writing to give it a different sense.


Nah, I just think that Brandon is as bad as me when it comes to working out how to use this computer thingy. I now use the "preview" button when I can, otherwise my posts would be utter nonsense, and you would soon pick up on this, as I always express good, common sense. (this is the part where I would place a smiley avater, if I knew how to work the bloody thing).

No harm done, as far as I am concerned.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 08:12 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Well at least that charming man Hamza is guilty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm


Wait for the so called "demonstrations", Steve.
0 Replies
 
Cliff Hanger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 08:50 am
Moishe3rd wrote:
Comparing stupid cartoons to "a deeply anti-Semitic book" is nuts.
Wacky.
Just plain stupid.
The conversation here swirls around the idea that it was perhaps "unwise" to publish cartoons! Cartoons dammit! Of Mohammed, because Muslims feel "beleaguered."
Tough.
Let them join the world where people argue about morality - what is wrong or right, as opposed to their world of formality - do they feel insulted or not.
I could give a rat's ass whether Muslims feel insulted. And the same goes for any group - Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists... Who the hell cares?
I do care whether any of these people want to kill me. Whether they will try and burn down my house. Whether they will murder my neighbor's children. That's morality.
And those that decide they can commit acts of violence because they feel bad are called psychopathic criminals. And those kinds of people need to be put away or killed.
Criminals. Insane, violent criminals.
Worrying about whether their honor has been offended because someone published a cartoon....
That is a world of insanity.


I don't agree, the argument isn't about the unwiseness of publishing the cartoons, the argument is: These are the fringes.

I also think your comments perpetuate the violence-- It's too reactionary, too afraid, too bitter. Sure there is a threat, no doubt, but at some point the world is going to have to learn how to usher Islam into the modern world.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:11 am
Cliff Hanger wrote :-

"Regardless of their less than favorable reaction to the cartoons, I wholeheartedly see their point-- There is not only a double standard here, but also a flagrant sense of superiority among those nations that chose to rally in support of free speech."

"A flagrant sense of superiority"....WTF?

There is nothing superior or inferior regarding this matter.
Fact: We have free speech.
Fact: The cartoons broke no EU laws, where they were published.
Fact: The so called "protestors", were protesting against free speech and expression. They apparently require the EU to impose restrictions on what can and can't be published.
Fact: EU countries have voiced their support for the continuation of free speech.

Where the hell do you get "superior" from?...as it seems a pretty natural thing to support, the way I see it.
Is it maybe the case that you are acknowledging that a country with free speech is a better one to reside in than one governed by Sharia law?

....and as far as the double standard thing is concerned, this has not been proven yet, as the "banned" Jesus photos have not been scrutinised.

As a consequence of all this pathetic nonsense, London had to put up with a nice peaceful demonstration, when we DIDN'T EVEN PUBLISH THE F*CKING CARTOONS.

If you answer that they were merely showing their displeasure outside the Danish Embassy, and that it wasn't aimed at the UK, answer me this.

Why was there a fake suicide bomber, all dressed up in his fake bomb belt there, strutting and taunting the people of London in such a vile and wicked way?

....and why were they chanting....

"UK, YOU MUST PRAY, 7/7 IS ON ITS WAY"

It is a mark of our country, that they weren't routed by baton wielding riot police, which is how they would have probably dealt with this in New York.

What did you want us to do, in order to avoid showing our "flagrant sense of superiority"? Invite the nice man in for a cup of tea, hang up his fake bomb belt for him and give him a slice of cake?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:15 am
Quote:
I also think your comments perpetuate the violence-- It's too reactionary, too afraid, too bitter. Sure there is a threat, no doubt, but at some point the world is going to have to learn how to usher Islam into the modern world.


The world, who ever that is, cannot usher Islam into the modern world. Only the Islamics themselves can do that. Since there is no center of that religion and each Imam can go of in any direction he sees fit. I see little chance of such an enlightenment.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:22 am
The similarities between Islamism and American Protestantism are remarkable.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:22 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
....and as far as the double standard thing is concerned, this has not been proven yet, as the "banned" Jesus photos have not been scrutinised.


In addition, I would submit that even if the actions point to a double standard, it is still within the rights of the media to publish or not publish something for whatever reason they choose. It makes no real difference if it appears to be a double standard. The editor, for whatever reason, chose not to publish a Jesus cartoon (or whatever it was).
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:27 am
Cliff Hanger wrote:
Moishe3rd wrote:
Comparing stupid cartoons to "a deeply anti-Semitic book" is nuts.
Wacky.
Just plain stupid.
The conversation here swirls around the idea that it was perhaps "unwise" to publish cartoons! Cartoons dammit! Of Mohammed, because Muslims feel "beleaguered."
Tough.
Let them join the world where people argue about morality - what is wrong or right, as opposed to their world of formality - do they feel insulted or not.
I could give a rat's ass whether Muslims feel insulted. And the same goes for any group - Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists... Who the hell cares?
I do care whether any of these people want to kill me. Whether they will try and burn down my house. Whether they will murder my neighbor's children. That's morality.
And those that decide they can commit acts of violence because they feel bad are called psychopathic criminals. And those kinds of people need to be put away or killed.
Criminals. Insane, violent criminals.
Worrying about whether their honor has been offended because someone published a cartoon....
That is a world of insanity.


I don't agree, the argument isn't about the unwiseness of publishing the cartoons, the argument is: These are the fringes.

I also think your comments perpetuate the violence-- It's too reactionary, too afraid, too bitter. Sure there is a threat, no doubt, but at some point the world is going to have to learn how to usher Islam into the modern world.


Thank you.
You have inspired me.
A more complete polemic:

The newspaper industry in the United States of America is afraid to publish Mohammad Cartoons.
The United States practically invented of the idea of Freedom of the Press.
And, they are afraid of offending Muslims.
These papers, that reside in the most diverse and most powerful country in the world, are afraid to offend Muslims.
Cartoons!
We are not talking about hideously anti-Islam representations such as those grotesque lies that are published regarding Jews or Israel every single day of the year in Muslim countries.
No pictures of Mohammad biting babies' heads off; drenching the world in blood; murdering children to drink their bloodÂ… No.
Pictures of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban.
What the hell is wrong with the supposedly Free Press in America?
This is a rhetorical question. They have surrendered to the domination of the World by Islam. They have proclaimed, by their acquiescence, that the most important Freedom they have is the Freedom not to offend Muslim sensibilities.
They have decided it is "unwise" to publish Cartoons!
These are simple, stupid, cartoons.
And the most powerful press in the world, that of the United States of America, refuses to show these images because they are afraid that Muslims might be insulted. Were they afraid that Muslims might be insulted when they published photos of Abu Ghraib over and over again? When they daily publish screaming crowds of Muslims burning, looting and destroying embassies and churches?
No.
The supposedly Free Press of the United States of America is deeply afraid. They are deeply afraid of offending Muslim sensibilities - because they are deeply afraid for their lives. These journalists; these editors; these owners of American newspapers are afraid that if they publish stupid Muslim Cartoons that their livelihood; their buildings; their physical lives, will be endangered.
This may be a rational fear. Perhaps.
But normally, those that decide they can commit acts of violence because they feel bad are called psychopathic criminals.
And, normally, the Free Press of the United States of America does not cater to the whims and sensibilities of psychopathic criminals.
Normally, the Free Press tries to get these kinds of people put behind bars, or even executed.
Normally, the Free Press does not worry about whether the honor of those who proclaim violence and destruction will be offended by publishing cartoons.
It is a deep, deep lie by the "Free Press" to claim "religious sensitivity" regarding Islam in not publishing stupid Cartoons of Mohammad.
Don't publish.
But tell the truth.
You are afraid of offending the insane.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:34 am
dyslexia wrote:
The similarities between Islamism and American Protestantism are remarkable.


This is so bloody true, along with the Southern Baptists. I've read several articles where Southern ministers are preaching the same hate, bigotry, and rascism that Hamza preaches. I've had it with ALL these bloody religions. I am a spiritual person, and how spirituality translates to what's going on escapes me!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:35 am
Moishe3rd,

Perhaps they felt it unwise to publish the cartoons in the US because they felt it might just add fuel to the fire that is raging?

Perhaps they felt it unwise because if those cartoons have already caused this much trouble it could be an indication of what may happen and the safety of the citizens is a bit more important than some newspaper publishing something that is obviously been proven to be, at the very least, provocative.

Perhapse they felt it unwise because it is the right thing to do?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:36 am
Anon,

Do you have any links to those articles? I would like to read them if you do. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:36 am
Moishe3rd wrote:
The United States practically invented of the idea of Freedom of the Press.


That's not true, neither practically nor theoretically.
Just one example: in England had been a freedom of the press until a royal proclamation in 1534 required prepublication licensing.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:38 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Anon,

Do you have any links to those articles? I would like to read them if you do. Thank you.


I will try. I have to do a new search. I was in the hospital at the time, and was working off a laptop. I need to see if I bookmarked them.

Anon
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:38 am
I totally disagree with your post MA, whenever freedom of expression is limited, society suffers. An example might be when the KKK planned a march in Chicago some years ago the ACLU defended the KKK on just such grounds. Good taste does not equal "the right thing to do."
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:41 am
dys,

I agree with you. I don't mean the right thing to do as in not exercising freedom of speech. I mean the right thing to do considering the problems this has already caused.

Somehow this has to stop. Either the Muslims are going to have to just realize what they are doing is wrong or the rest of us are going to have to show that indifference Phoenix has been talking about.

I don't think it's a matter of who is right and wrong anymore about how it started. It's gotten out of hand and someone is going to have to take the high road to stop this. I don't have the answers. I sure wish I did. So many people are so upset by this whole mess.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:44 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Cliff Hanger wrote :-

"Regardless of their less than favorable reaction to the cartoons, I wholeheartedly see their point-- There is not only a double standard here, but also a flagrant sense of superiority among those nations that chose to rally in support of free speech."

"A flagrant sense of superiority"....WTF?

There is nothing superior or inferior regarding this matter.
Fact: We have free speech.
Fact: The cartoons broke no EU laws, where they were published.
Fact: The so called "protestors", were protesting against free speech and expression. They apparently require the EU to impose restrictions on what can and can't be published.
Fact: EU countries have voiced their support for the continuation of free speech.

Where the hell do you get "superior" from?...as it seems a pretty natural thing to support, the way I see it.
Is it maybe the case that you are acknowledging that a country with free speech is a better one to reside in than one governed by Sharia law?

....and as far as the double standard thing is concerned, this has not been proven yet, as the "banned" Jesus photos have not been scrutinised.

As a consequence of all this pathetic nonsense, London had to put up with a nice peaceful demonstration, when we DIDN'T EVEN PUBLISH THE F*CKING CARTOONS.

If you answer that they were merely showing their displeasure outside the Danish Embassy, and that it wasn't aimed at the UK, answer me this.

Why was there a fake suicide bomber, all dressed up in his fake bomb belt there, strutting and taunting the people of London in such a vile and wicked way?

....and why were they chanting....

"UK, YOU MUST PRAY, 7/7 IS ON ITS WAY"

It is a mark of our country, that they weren't routed by baton wielding riot police, which is how they would have probably dealt with this in New York.

What did you want us to do, in order to avoid showing our "flagrant sense of superiority"? Invite the nice man in for a cup of tea, hang up his fake bomb belt for him and give him a slice of cake?


LE, I think the Brits get included because of their part in the Iraq war. I agree with what you say, and I personally think all this noise and reaction is organized and fueled by Islamic extremists that are using the publishing as a rallying point to create hate and discontent!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:44 am
Anon-Voter wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
The similarities between Islamism and American Protestantism are remarkable.


This is so bloody true, along with the Southern Baptists. I've read several articles where Southern ministers are preaching the same hate, bigotry, and rascism that Hamza preaches.

Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist. I respectfully submit that this discussion suffers from overgeneralization.
0 Replies
 
Cliff Hanger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:47 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Cliff Hanger wrote :-

"Regardless of their less than favorable reaction to the cartoons, I wholeheartedly see their point-- There is not only a double standard here, but also a flagrant sense of superiority among those nations that chose to rally in support of free speech."

"A flagrant sense of superiority"....WTF?

There is nothing superior or inferior regarding this matter.
Fact: We have free speech.
Fact: The cartoons broke no EU laws, where they were published.
Fact: The so called "protestors", were protesting against free speech and expression. They apparently require the EU to impose restrictions on what can and can't be published.
Fact: EU countries have voiced their support for the continuation of free speech.

Where the hell do you get "superior" from?...as it seems a pretty natural thing to support, the way I see it.
Is it maybe the case that you are acknowledging that a country with free speech is a better one to reside in than one governed by Sharia law?

....and as far as the double standard thing is concerned, this has not been proven yet, as the "banned" Jesus photos have not been scrutinised.

As a consequence of all this pathetic nonsense, London had to put up with a nice peaceful demonstration, when we DIDN'T EVEN PUBLISH THE F*CKING CARTOONS.

If you answer that they were merely showing their displeasure outside the Danish Embassy, and that it wasn't aimed at the UK, answer me this.

Why was there a fake suicide bomber, all dressed up in his fake bomb belt there, strutting and taunting the people of London in such a vile and wicked way?

....and why were they chanting....

"UK, YOU MUST PRAY, 7/7 IS ON ITS WAY"

It is a mark of our country, that they weren't routed by baton wielding riot police, which is how they would have probably dealt with this in New York.

What did you want us to do, in order to avoid showing our "flagrant sense of superiority"? Invite the nice man in for a cup of tea, hang up his fake bomb belt for him and give him a slice of cake?


Look, it is an issue of freedom of speech, but as a matter of taste and kindness, even taking the higher road-- it shows more restraint to not publish them. Wwhen France decided to join in support of Denmark after they banned any kind of dress that indicates religious affiliation, then yes, that is superiority, they crossed the line.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Feb, 2006 09:47 am
Thomas,

I didn't say all the Baptists did this, but defined it more to be a Southern practice. I will try to find the articles I am speaking of.

Anon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 01:20:53