isreali- paleistine (1 Viewer)

[poWerdrY]

What I want you to say is "SHIT, THAT WAS WRONG", in publishing that image which would inevitaby have evoked an unfavourable response and disgust amongst muslims. But you wont, you wont because you think it was okay, you think it's okay to offend people, unless ofcourse it's your people, or people you are sympathetic too (which obviously excludes the sub-human muslims).

i just want to point out that "publishing that image which would inevitaby have evoked an unfavourable response and disgust amongst muslims" or any minority group isn't wrong, no matter how offensive it is to that group, so long as it abides by the law. everyone has a right to express their opinions, whether that be deliberate or veiled insults, blasphemy etc., just as muslims have the right to express their disgust at the cartoon of the prophet mohammed.

 

[sam04u]

About the Israei/Lebanon prisoner "swap"

For those that do not know. This is the guy that Israel gave them for a smack in the face in return. As soon as they saw the coffins they should of shot this guy dead.

2/2063
Statistics show a much less personal feeling of the sad realities. But if you're like me, you saw the bodies being dragged out of the bombed building in Qana, little children covered in dust and debris.

The Lebanon-Israel 2006 war caused nothing but death and destruction. As all wars do, infact if you're one of the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who have not yet resettled into your homes, the war is still a very true and painful reality.

 

[bigboyjames]

In order for me to condemn the reaction of a few, you have to condemn the original sin.

according to ari89's school of thought, this is certainly not allowed.

 

[ari89]

What I want you to say is "SHIT, THAT WAS WRONG", in publishing that image which would inevitaby have evoked an unfavourable response and disgust amongst muslims. But you wont, you wont because you think it was okay, you think it's okay to offend people, unless ofcourse it's your people, or people you are sympathetic too (which obviously excludes the sub-human muslims).

But it wasn't wrong. It is within peoples rights to offend everyone equally. Just as bigboyjames lives off trying to discredit my posts by simply posting offensive insults.

So please stop with the bullshit you always try and push with me. The whole "ADMIT IT YOU HATE MUSLIMS" and then we get stuck at the point where your claims don't hold up to shit considering that I have many Muslim friends. Same argument with you.

Atleast some condemnation of what if you read the text, is extremely easy to see why it would be offensive. The art work infact had no other purpose other than to offend. Somewhat similar to the first pieces of propoganda used to villify and portray Jews prior to the Holocaust.

As I said.
Piss Christ = 0 deaths.
Da Vinci Code = 0 deaths.
Cartoons of Muhammad = death + other acts of violence
Satanic Verses = more violence

What right exactly? The right to offend people unfairly, immorally?

The right to not be subordinate to a particular ideology with no rational basis.

In order for me to condemn the reaction of a few, you have to condemn the original sin. The obvious offences of publishing an image of the 'last prophet of Islam' in itself an offence, and moreso portraying the 'last prophet' as a terrorist.

So I was right.
You refuse to condemn deliberate acts of violence.

Acts of Violence > Pictures.

 

[sam04u]

i just want to point out that "publishing that image which would inevitaby have evoked an unfavourable response and disgust amongst muslims" or any minority group isn't wrong, no matter how offensive it is to that group, so long as it abides by the law. everyone has a right to express their opinions, whether that be deliberate or veiled insults, blasphemy etc., just as muslims have the right to express their disgust at the cartoon of the prophet mohammed.

Define 'wrong'? If a woman marries a man so she can later divorce him and get half of his money, is that 'wrong'? It's legal by law, but it's still wrong.

Law does not define what's right or wrong. Neither does religion. You should know for yourself what is right and wrong, and intentionally offending 1,400,000,000 people in my opinion is wrong.

 

[ari89]

according to ari89's school of thought, this is certainly not allowed.

Obviously as I don't consider pictures of Muhammad to be a sin.

 

[sam04u]

But it wasn't wrong.

Yes it was.

It is within peoples rights to offend everyone equally. Just as bigboyjames lives off trying to discredit my posts by simply posting offensive insults.

Well considering the Danish authorities did nothing to prevent it, or force the publishers to rescind it and apologise, I'm assuming that under Danish law it was legal. You don't have to interrogate me on civil liberties and human rights, as a muslim in a world where muslims are under siege in the media, in literature, etc. It's not impossible to imagine I am very much opposed to suppression of information or speech. But there should be a boundary, a clear boundary where intentionally offending a whole community, a whole religion, over a billion people for the sake of offending them, is prohibited.

So I was right.
You refuse to condemn deliberate acts of violence.

I have no problem with condemning the deliberate acts of violence. And as I have said in the past, those were caused by a small almost insignificant minority of muslims, and can in no way be considered the "reaction of the muslim world", but the point I was trying to make was publishing something so deliberately offensive, which for some reason you will not concede is so deliberately offensive, could have been foreseen to result in protests and civil disobedience by a reasonable person.

 

[poWerdrY]

Define 'wrong'? If a woman marries a man so she can later divorce him and get half of his money, is that 'wrong'? It's legal by law, but it's still wrong.

Law does not define what's right or wrong. Neither does religion. You should know for yourself what is right and wrong, and intentionally offending 1,400,000,000 people in my opinion is wrong.

Your opinions are also extremely offensive to many. And, you are also purposefully offending many. Yet, this is my point, it is your opinion and you have a right to express it. Did the cartoonist kill anybody by expressing his opinion? Not that i know of. However, ask yourself this, did anyone die as a result of the muslim reaction? This is the distinction between the two.

Right and wrong is extremely subjective. The wrong i was referring to is the, admittedly, in regards to the law, the most objective point of view.

 

[sam04u]

I have cousins in southern Lebanon who lost their homes and everything they own because of Hasan Nasrallah, a family friend of ours lost his life in the conflict, his family has never been the same ever since. Who is to blame? Hezbelloh and Nasrallah, they're selfish beings who don't think about the ratifications of their actions.

Oh please. Please don't sully this debate with your vile accusations. Hezbollah is not to blame for July War in 2006. If you don't see that, if you can't see that Israel through redirecting the water supply of it's neighbouring countries, assassinating political figures or the families of political figures, blockading international aid, collective punishment, occupation of foreign lands, disregard of international law and world court orders, self-armament and coercing neighbouring countries into disarmament, proposing international sanctions, etc, etc - resulted in the response from Hezbollah, then you're blind.

 

[bigboyjames]

i just want to point out that "publishing that image which would inevitaby have evoked an unfavourable response and disgust amongst muslims" or any minority group isn't wrong, no matter how offensive it is to that group, so long as it abides by the law. everyone has a right to express their opinions, whether that be deliberate or veiled insults, blasphemy etc., just as muslims have the right to express their disgust at the cartoon of the prophet mohammed.

thank you for saying what ari89 couldn't say. but your a fucking joke just like the rest of the fucktards on this forum.

first off this shouldn't even be looked at a "Islams last prophet" view. that's shouldn't even be the point of this fucking discussion. Its not a matter of freedom of speech and human rights - its a matter of respecting other people.
the western world on countless of times have talked out of their asses about freedom, democracy, respect.....where was the respect when these pictures were published?

what im really fucking fed up is the hypocricy. can you read this world. HYPOCRISY. i am not talking from a muslim stand point, i am talking from a moral point of view. i am sick of you people talking out of your ass. you are so self righterious and it sickens me.

When hate speech and derogatory remarks are made against Muslims, in a high profile manner, these same fucking people instantly defend it, and fall over themselves in a rush to reprint the offending content. alll in the name of "freedom of speech" fuck this freedom of speech. im sick of hearing this term. i spit on your "freedom of speech".

When the Iranian president made derogatory remarks about the Holocaust, he was viciously condemned by the SAME EUROPE. They even tried to get Iran excluded from the soccer World Cup. WTF. but if the same fucking remarks had been made by a German, he would be IN PRISON.

why the fuck wasn't the guy who drew the cartoons and the publishers put in prison. WHY?

For all of the faults that Muslims have, no doubt that they are many, the double standards and the hypocrisy still fucking obvious. Talk of "the law" to justify your stance is just sick.

The idiots in Europe don't have a fucking clue. stupid, thick, and as usual, hypocrites.

 

[ari89]

Yes it was.

Nah.

You don't have to interrogate me on civili liberties and human rights, as a muslim in a world where muslims are under siege in the media, in literature, etc. It's not impossible to imagine I am very much opposed to suppression of information or speech. But there should be a boundary, a clear boundary where intentionally offending a whole community, a whole religion, over a billion people for the sake of offending them, is prohibited.

The Qur'an denies the concept of the trinity which is offensive to over 2 billion Christians. Let us ban Islam because of this as it offends a whole community.

No need to play victim, Sam. Have you seen the anti-Catholic feel on this board the past few weeks? I am sure they would be far more victimised in this reality.

I have no problem with condemning the deliberate acts of violence. And as I have said in the past, those were caused by a small almost insignificant minority of muslims, and can in no way be considered the "reaction of the muslim world", but the point I was trying to make was publishing something so deliberately offensive, which for some reason you will not concede is so deliberately offensive, could have been foreseen to result in protests and civil disobedience by a reasonable person.

The go ahead and condemn them instead of talking about hypothetically condemning them. I never claimed they were the reaction of the Muslim world so no need for the quotation marks. But you can't deny that there was an especially disproportional response in the Middle Eastern Islamic world. Saudi Arabia teaches their kids conspiracy theories about Jews and the West. Should we riot over this, attack Saudi company workers and burn down a Saudi embassy in Syria?

If you find pictures so mortally offensive don't look.

 

[poWerdrY]

thank you for saying what ari89 couldn't say. but your a fucking joke just like the rest of the fucktards on this forum.

first off this shouldn't even be looked at a "Islams last prophet" view. that's shouldn't even be the point of this fucking discussion. Its not a matter of freedom of speech and human rights - its a matter of respecting other people.
the western world on countless of times have talked out of their asses about freedom, democracy, respect.....where was the respect when these pictures were published?

what im really fucking fed up is the hypocricy. can you read this world. HYPOCRISY. i am not talking from a muslim stand point, i am talking from a moral point of view. i am sick of you people talking out of your ass. you are so self righterious and it sickens me.

When hate speech and derogatory remarks are made against Muslims, in a high profile manner, these same fucking people instantly defend it, and fall over themselves in a rush to reprint the offending content. alll in the name of "freedom of speech" fuck this freedom of speech. im sick of hearing this term. i spit on your "freedom of speech".

When the Iranian president made derogatory remarks about the Holocaust, he was viciously condemned by the SAME EUROPE. They even tried to get Iran excluded from the soccer World Cup. WTF. but if the same fucking remarks had been made by a German, he would be IN PRISON.

why the fuck wasn't the guy who drew the cartoons and the publishers put in prison. WHY?

For all of the faults that Muslims have, no doubt that they are many, the double standards and the hypocrisy still fucking obvious. Talk of morality to justify your stance is just sick.

The idiots in Europe don't have a fucking clue. stupid, thick, and as usual, hypocrites.

i do see where your coming from. Your comment about the Iranian president. He was condemned for his, such as was the cartoonist. And that is fair. I'm not saying i agree with what the cartoonist did. Similarly, there are also many blasphemous acts against other religions daily. There is widespread condemnation against these as well. But it does not warrant arrest.

 

[sam04u]

Your opinions are also extremely offensive to many.

Which of my views are offensive to many?

And, you are also purposefully offending many.

No I'm not.

Yet, this is my point, it is your opinion and you have a right to express it.

I hate this idea of implied rights. There are no rights, unless we're willing to defend them. Mordechai Vanunu, a Jewish man, was imprisoned by Israel for almost two decades for expressing his opinion. In the United Kingdom and Britain, we have laws on sedition, you can have your right to express your opinions taken from you with those laws. In the United States of America, they have recently released the "Homegrown Terrorist Act" and have prior released "The Patriot Act", both of which can take your right to express your opinions away.

My point is that with offensive images like this, and exploiting our current ability (which does not exist in many countries) to express any opinion we like can be weakened by offending people with those rights. And also, it is extremely immoral and just plain wrong to intentionally insult and offend people for no good reason.

Not that i know of. However, ask yourself this, did anyone die as a result of the muslim reaction? This is the distinction between the two.

I dislike that you class the reaction of a few as the "muslim reaction", I'm a muslim and I didn't react in a way which killed anybody. Inevitably protests and acts of civil disobedience can result in death and destruction. You only need to take a look at the protests against the Shah of Persia, or the student protests in Nicoragua, in response to the government not investing 6% of the national budget in education.

Protests can result in violence, can result in deaths.

Right and wrong is extremely subjective.

You'd think so. But it's actually not all that subjective at all.

 

[bigboyjames]

i do see where your coming from. Your comment about the Iranian president. He was condemned for his, such as was the cartoonist. And that is fair. I'm not saying i agree with what the cartoonist did. Similarly, there are also many blasphemous acts against other religions daily. There is widespread condemnation against these as well. But it does not warrant arrest.

how is it not relevant about what the Iranian president said..


if i said this in Denmark: "Holocaust did not happen". i would be sent to jail.


BUT,BUT, if i printed/drew terrorist images of prophet Muhammad....its all ok, in the name of freedom of speech.

fucking joke.

 

[sam04u]

Oh piss off, you know before the War, Hezbelloh was firing missles EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY at Jewish towns and that was ongoing for quite some time.

You're retarded. Hezbollah doesn't even have missiles, they have rockets, rockets which are unguided, yet somehow manage to kill much less in terms of number and civilian to military ratio, than Israel's lazer-guided missiles.

Hezbollah does not fire missiles or rockets in to Jewish towns every single day. That is so false, it's ridiculous.

 

[sam04u]

The go ahead and condemn them instead of talking about hypothetically condemning them.

I condemn it, I condemn it openly. It's wrong to kill people or attack them, because of ideological, religious, or racial differences.

But you have to understand, that was not the muslim response, it was the response of few.

I doubt however, you will condemn the portrayal of the last prophet of Islam as a terrorist. But prove me wrong, show some decency.

 

[poWerdrY]

Which of my views are offensive to many?

fine, i exaggerate, but it is offensive to some. How do you distinguish between many and some?

I hate this idea of implied rights. There are no rights, unless we're willing to defend them. Mordechai Vanunu, a Jewish man, was imprisoned by Israel for almost two decades for expressing his opinion. In the United Kingdom and Britain, we have laws on sedition, you can have your right to express your opinions taken from you with those laws. In the United States of America, they have recently released the "Homegrown Terrorist Act" and have prior released "The Patriot Act", both of which can take your right to express your opinions away.

My point is that with offensive images like this, and exploiting our current ability (which does not exist in many countries) to express any opinion we like can be weakened by offending people with those rights. And also, it is extremely immoral and just plain wrong to intentionally insult and offend people for no good reason.

admittedly, i've never read about those laws. But i assum those laws regarding terrorism and stuff are under the 'security' category. The issue about freedom of expression here has got nothing to do with security. They are opinions.

I dislike that you class the reaction of a few as the "muslim reaction", I'm a muslim and I didn't react in a way which killed anybody. Inevitably protests and acts of civil disobedience can result in death and destruction. You only need to take a look at the protests against the Shah of Persia, or the student protests in Nicoragua, in response to the government not investing 6% of the national budget in education.

Protests can result in violence, can result in deaths.

Fair enough. But i still condemn the, i won't say 'muslim reaction' seeing as you dislike it so, protesters for what they did. I hardly see it as the fault of the cartoonist.

Yawn. A few more posts, and im calling it quits.

 

[Slidey]

Hey guys, what's up in this thread atm?

 

[ari89]

Love your signature, you don't know how many times I've opened an Arabic newspaper only to find offensive images and slures toward Jews. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Exactly. I love the ignorance of the critics here thinking that the picture is only confined to its literal sense as a comment on the cartoon controversy. I always viewed it as a comment on the culture, specifically Middle Eastern Islamic culture and it's antisemitism.

 

[ari89]

Hey guys, what's up in this thread atm?

I love you

*expects to be stoned by Turks who wrestle in oil for making a homosexual reference*