Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (3 Viewers)

[davin]

what about the papers that printed it weeks after all the shitfest happened? They knew. Whatever i feel about the first newspapers that did it, i think it was stupid for the newspapers to continue to print it after they well knew the violence it had already caused (yes the people who are doing the violence/death threats are nutcases/terrorists). I actually think the issue should be more about the later newspapers that published the cartoons than the initial papers, who probably didnt know what it would cause.

You would also oppose any media that, say, published the pictures from Abu Gharib of what a few American guards were doing to prisoners, right?

 

[ihavenothing]

I'm sick of the do-gooders in the community who are wanting dialogue, when it is already apparent that the two ideologies are incompatable in the Western World. I have read into Islam and have an outline of what its requirements are and it seems that it can never be innovated without some sort of backlash which always culminates in...you guessed it -- violence. Why should me be made to respect Islam when it is obvious that in countries like Saudi Arabia it has an oppressive and dangerous use of the ideology comparable to Communist Russia and Nazi Germany but in the current day and age.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's the same thing that we see in the media over and over again... a desire to show every side of the story and give them equal air-time and ignoring any sort of objective analysis of the issue.

 

[HotShot]

Where does it end, phoenix? If millions of Muslims are 'hurt' by poor political cartoons, then what about the many necons in the US, the Israelis, the Catholics, the Royalists, the socialists, the social democrats, the factional leaders, etc. who are in all likelihood just as hurt by the cartoons routinely published within other papers? Why should Islam stand above other ideologies?

are you stupid, with violence in ISrael/palestine, in iraq, afghanistan, the recent cronulla riots, riots in melbourne, tamil tigers and sri lanka, are you saying that noone could have predicted that violence would occur after the cartoon was published? it just shows how stupid and gullibe you are. OF course violence would occur if insult a religion in such a critical period.

these arent political cartoons, they are targeted at muslims, its an insult to islam and shouldnt be tolerated. i dont see any insulting cartoons against jews, chrisitans etc, show em to me!.

I doubt it, as it was a LOCAL paper that was unintended for people overseas and it may have been created for people to see how stupid and pointless religion is. If i had made pictures mocking pink flying elephants would it prompt such a violent backlash for people who claim they believe in that. It can also be outlined to understand such ridiculous reasons why people would resort to violence by criticising (supposedly) fictional characters.

i wonder how then i am hearing it in the radio, watching it on tv etc. DIckhead just cos its local paper, doesnt mean it will be tolerated. U dont see pictures mocking "pinky flying elephants" in the newspapers in the first place do u?

When something is insulting, people dont and shouldnt sit around and accept it. It ends right here, i doubt u will see another insulting cartoon.

The later newspapers were doing it in response to the protests against the danish newspaper and apparent attacks on free speech.

tats bullshit, thats an excuse or putting on the papers. Free speech is idiotic, as i have mentioned in another thread - ask davin.

Because Islam uses bully tactics to frighten people into a sort of false respect.

Thats the biggest irony of all time. Hmm.. you must be blind, Damn these americans just invading afghanistan, iraq to steal their valuable ioil...ruining africa....poms dont get me started on them.

 

[ogmzergrush]

these arent political cartoons, they are targeted at muslims, its an insult to islam and shouldnt be tolerated. i dont see any insulting cartoons against jews, chrisitans etc, show em to me!.

Jewish cartoons

Christian cartoons

Of course, using those search terms some aren't specifically anti christian/jewish, but keep looking and you'll see them, it's not exactly uncommon.

Here are some favourites of mine:

http://www.i-mockery.com/church/bookmarks/church.php
http://www.i-mockery.com/church/bookmarks/donate.php
http://www.i-mockery.com/church/bookmarks/jesus.php
http://www.i-mockery.com/church/bookmarks/mary.php
http://www.i-mockery.com/church/bookmarks/mouths.php
http://www.i-mockery.com/church/bookmarks/religion.php

Oh dear, I do hope there isn't a worldwide incident because I've posted these!

On a related note, I don't think that you of all people are qualified to question or mock Generator's intelligence.

 

[davin]

right, no link with afghanistan and oil, but america stole oil from iraq, which is why american gas prices have gone up quite a bit.

these arent political cartoons, they are targeted at muslims, its an insult to islam and shouldnt be tolerated. i dont see any insulting cartoons against jews, chrisitans etc, show em to me!.

go back a bit, there's plenty of links to cartoons against jews and catholics from the arab world....the New York Times ran an article about this and refused to run the cartoons to not offend muslims, so instead ran some depiction of the Virgin Mary that was offensive. well that makes sense.

also realise though the the cartoons are now a NEWS STORY. if there hadn't been large scale protests and riots, no one would've seen them outside denmark.

When something is insulting, people dont and shouldnt sit around and accept it. It ends right here, i doubt u will see another insulting cartoon.

no one says it has to be accepted, just that the freedom of speech has to be allowed

 

[Not-That-Bright]

are you stupid, with violence in ISrael/palestine, in iraq, afghanistan, the recent cronulla riots, riots in melbourne, tamil tigers and sri lanka, are you saying that noone could have predicted that violence would occur after the cartoon was published? it just shows how stupid and gullibe you are. OF course violence would occur if insult a religion in such a critical period.

these arent political cartoons, they are targeted at muslims, its an insult to islam and shouldnt be tolerated. i dont see any insulting cartoons against jews, chrisitans etc, show em to me!.

Did you see my article? The fact is that there was NO reaction to these cartoons untill a bunch of propaganda was spread out that lied about the contents of the cartoons and made a big fuss.

tats bullshit, thats an excuse or putting on the papers. Free speech is idiotic, as i have mentioned in another thread - ask davin

It's a 'reason' not an excuse, unless you can show how I'm wrong instead of just saying 'thats bullshit ya'll'. As for your whole 'free speech is BS' thing, I've already showed you numerous times that just swearing and insulting something with no justifiable purpose in mind is irresponsible. There is however a situation happening in islam where terrorism is gaining a strong foothold in the religion - it is justifiable commentary.

Thats the biggest irony of all time. Hmm.. you must be blind, Damn these americans just invading afghanistan, iraq to steal their valuable ioil...ruining africa....poms dont get me started on them.

This is another discussion completely - however I'm sure you would agree these 'invasions' were not due to a disagreement over free speech and had at least some justification to them.

the New York Times ran an article about this and refused to run the cartoons to not offend muslims, so instead ran some depiction of the Virgin Mary that was offensive. well that makes sense.

You should of seen the response of the new york times over that 'virgin mary crap' or whatever it was called came out... they were unequivicolly behind it.

 

[HotShot]

Here are some cartoons that arent insulting:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=islam+cartoons&btnG=Search

yes aljazeera has some two, but notice they arent insulting!

 

[tempco]

are you stupid, with violence in ISrael/palestine, in iraq, afghanistan, the recent cronulla riots, riots in melbourne, tamil tigers and sri lanka, are you saying that noone could have predicted that violence would occur after the cartoon was published? it just shows how stupid and gullibe you are. OF course violence would occur if insult a religion in such a critical period.

Don't try and shift the blame. The violent reaction by some Muslims are totally uncalled for.

 

[davin]

On a totally different issue, and this is just a question which i have wondered: Why is physically hurting someone seen so differently to psychologically hurting someone, the latter of which is so easy to do through freedom of speech?

because there's no clear line. if i said i was a fundamentalist christian and muslims offended me and that islam should be outlawed, would you agree because i'm psychologically hurt?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why is physically hurting someone seen so differently to psychologically hurting someone, the latter of which is so easy to do through freedom of speech?

Well how exactly are they going to prove what damage has been done psychologically? I'm sure if they can it's basically the same... :/

Oh If you're referring to what davin thinks you are, then one difference is that the psychological damage from not being able to express your point of view/criticism is probably greater than the damage caused by your criticism.

 

[tempco]

because there's no clear line. if i said i was a fundamentalist christian and muslims offended me and that islam should be outlawed, would you agree because i'm psychologically hurt?

There's a difference between fundamentalism and extremism. The Muslim preacher that was an arrested in the UK was an extremist, not a fundamentalist, because what he was preaching was not Islam. Those leaders and people who support the violent protests aren't fundamentalists... they're extremists because almost all prominent scholars (those who've actually written intepretations of the Qur'an and who've composed well-known pieces of literature - politicians don't count) have condemned the attacks (just as how they've condemned terrorism).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Those leaders and people who support the violent protests aren't fundamentalists... they're extremists because almost all prominent scholars (those who've actually written intepretations of the Qur'an and who've composed well-known pieces of literature - politicians don't count) have condemned the attacks (just as how they've condemned terrorism).

It saddens me to hear that and I know it's truth - yet these voices aren't loud (at least here in the west). There are no masses of people we can see listening to a muslim leader preach peace on our tv - that doesn't mean they're not there, but I simply can't find much evidence of it.

 

[the.chosen.one]

obviously i haven't read all 59 pages...but this is my opinion on it


yes, the violence that followed wasn't a justified reaction,


but neither was the cause that provoked the reaction justified.



it's plain dumb to say there was no intention of provoking the islamic community. anyone could have foreseen that playing that game would offend someone or the other, and there was bound to be a retaliation.

whenever u play in religion or races, that's the case. someone or other is going to take offence, and they're not going to like it. you can expect a retaliation.


okay so the islamic community may now be retaliating in an unfit manner. but if the cartoons were never published, it never would have happened. it's just like 9/11. if there were no plane crashes, muslims wouldn't have had brick thrown at their heads for the next 6mnths by all the americans who deludedly believed every muslim was the cause of the attacks.

its cause and effect. without the cause THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT.


its got nothing to do with freedom of speech. everyone can justify their actions with some lame excuse....there was no need to publish it in the newspaper, making it a national, and then international issue.

 

[ogmzergrush]

obviously i haven't read all 59 pages...but this is my opinion on it


yes, the violence that followed wasn't a justified reaction,


but neither was the cause that provoked the reaction justified.



it's plain dumb to say there was no intention of provoking the islamic community. anyone could have foreseen that playing that game would offend someone or the other, and there was bound to be a retaliation.

whenever u play in religion or races, that's the case. someone or other is going to take offence, and they're not going to like it. you can expect a retaliation.


okay so the islamic community may now be retaliating in an unfit manner. but if the cartoons were never published, it never would have happened. it's just like 9/11. if there were no plane crashes, muslims wouldn't have had brick thrown at their heads for the next 6mnths by all the americans who deludedly believed every muslim was the cause of the attacks.

its cause and effect. without the cause THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT.


its got nothing to do with freedom of speech. everyone can justify their actions with some lame excuse....there was no need to publish it in the newspaper, making it a national, and then international issue.

Flashing lights can cause seizures in people with epilepsy, violent music, games and movies (apparently ) can prompt violent actions, a lit stove can cause a house fire, owning valuable items can cause significant loss through burglary. Yes, I too see the case for removing "causes" of problems in society, rather than dealing with the effect.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

yes, the violence that followed wasn't a justified reaction,


but neither was the cause that provoked the reaction justified.

The cartoon alone was not the thing that provoked the reaction,
Please read this article and click this link for the picture.

Credit to Las Vegas Sun for the first link, and MSNBCMEDIA for the second.

it's plain dumb to say there was no intention of provoking the islamic community. anyone could have foreseen that playing that game would offend someone or the other, and there was bound to be a retaliation.

Well it was meant to be a form of criticism and somewhat evoke a response - I doubt this is the response that was hoped for.

whenever u play in religion or races, that's the case. someone or other is going to take offence, and they're not going to like it. you can expect a retaliation.

Criticism of a religion is justified, a religion is a set of ideas... an ideology, a belief. A race is merely this category of humans which has no common ideas, beliefs etc for you to attack.

okay so the islamic community may now be retaliating in an unfit manner. but if the cartoons were never published, it never would have happened.

See the articles, above.

its cause and effect. without the cause THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT.

"If that girl wasn't walking past me, I wouldn't have chosen her to be my rape victim"

I'm afraid it's not that simple, you cannot blame the cause for every effect... it could easily be argued that the cause of the newspaper to print this article (along with the apparently offensive cartoons) was due to islamic extremists.

its got nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Actually it has quite a lot to do with it, what do you think you were just arguing about?

everyone can justify their actions with some lame excuse...

True, but if the 'excuse' is so lame it should have holes in it.

There was no need to publish it in the newspaper, making it a national, and then international issue.

Articles above.

 

[the.chosen.one]

LOL

gawwn, ur good. u've rebutted everything i said....and i thought i'd posted a fairly uncontroversial response.

hahaha okay, i'll go read ur articles now

 

[Captain Gh3y]

are you stupid, with violence in ISrael/palestine, in iraq, afghanistan, the recent cronulla riots, riots in melbourne, tamil tigers and sri lanka, are you saying that noone could have predicted that violence would occur wherever there's Muslims? it just shows how stupid and gullibe Muslims are. OF course violence would occur if insult a religion that still believes this is the Medieval period.

Edited for truth.

these arent political cartoons, they are targeted at muslims, its an insult to islam and shouldnt be tolerated because i don't really understand what they were saying. i dont see any insulting cartoons against jews, chrisitans etc, even though they're all over the internet and papers but you just don't know about them because christians don't burn stuff down.

Edited for truth.

i wonder how then i am hearing it in the radio, watching it on tv etc. DIckhead just cos its local paper, doesnt mean it will be tolerated. U dont see pictures mocking "pinky flying elephants" in the newspapers in the first place do u?

This part can't be edited for truth because it doesn't make sense.

When something is insulting, people discuss it like adults, make legitimate complaints by legal means, or burn things if they're Muslim.. It ends right here, i doubt u won't see thousands of insulting cartoons on the internet. Muslims like fire.

Edited for truth.

Islam is idiotic

Edited for supreme truth because you oppose free speech in a country where you're lucky to be able to practise your religion compared to some kinda Jew in Saudia Arabia or something.

Thats the biggest irony of all time. Hmm.. you must be blind, Damn these americans just getting rid of the Taliban, iraq to liberate their peoplel...giving africa more aid than other countries....poms dont get me started on how much better life for muslims is in their country than the middle east

Edited for truth and gratitude to the West.

 

[the.chosen.one]

i read the article and all, but i don't think that internationally...this is as big an issue as the cartoons are. yes it shows that the cartoons aren't the sole reason for the rioting and all, but only some part of the anger would be against this. on all the other news pages i've read, the 12 cartoons seem to be the main thing being publicised and so the main cause of anger on an international scale.

Well it was meant to be a form of criticism and somewhat evoke a response

yes, and though the response that was evoked may not have been the one pictured, i think it was pretty obviouis that part of whatever response would have been evoked would have been made up of offended people...whether or not just how far they'd take their "response" was clear or not,...and why set out to offend?

Criticism of a religion is justified, a religion is a set of ideas... an ideology, a belief. A race is merely this category of humans which has no common ideas, beliefs etc for you to attack.

yeah thats true, but again, i'd say that you have to use your common sense in discussing and critising religion. when you publish in a newspaper, you're taking on a very wide audience many of whom can and will take offence to your criticism, and aren't open to it. not everyone carries religion with the attitude to being open to criticism - and even so i'd say this was more of a mockery than a justified criticism in some ways.

If that girl wasn't walking past me, I wouldn't have chosen her to be my rape victim"

I'm afraid it's not that simple, you cannot blame the cause for every effect... it could easily be argued that the cause of the newspaper to print this article (along with the apparently offensive cartoons) was due to islamic extremists.

fair enough, but shouldn't u weigh the consequences?

i don't think the rapist would have gotten out of going to court and serving sentence by blaming the girl for walking past him.



i can see what you're sayin bout freedom of speech, but again, you got to weigh it out. freedom to publish a controversial article vs offending thousands of people worldwide....? are you sayin that the press has NO restrictions on what it can or cannot write whatsoever? so why pick a controversial issue to fight for the freedom to criticise openly, when it's not like its the sole restriction holding the press back.


i'd say those holes in the excuse are big enough?

-----

if a controversial article was publicised on the 9/11 events, many ppl and families hurt in the attacks would retaliate.

you couldn't expect any less.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

are you sayin that the press has NO restrictions on what it can or cannot write whatsoever? so why pick a controversial issue to fight for the freedom to criticise openly, when it's not like its the sole restriction holding the press back.

Well one restriction would be the requirement for some sort of justification of what they publish.

if a controversial article was publicised on the 9/11 events, many ppl and families hurt in the attacks would retaliate.

you couldn't expect any less.

If it's justified however (not just... the pigs deserved it, without going into further detail) nothing will happen to the newspaper and I would still support it.