<p>
While everyone does have the right to free speech, one cannot express an opinion that endangers the beliefs of a large group of people, which the Danish cartoons clearly did in this case. Besides, we learn from childhood that all actions have consequences and the Western world is seeing the reprecussions of reprinting cartoons that defamed the Islamic prophet. You have no one to blame but yourself if you say something stupid that leads to a negative outcome for you.</p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator:
"everkingly, you don't criticize a religion by strapping a bomb to the head of its most revered prophet and displaying the idol to the mainstream media."</p>
<p>The Muhammed cartoons were meant to be controversial. And guess what? The Danish newspaper that commissioned those cartoons got its point across and at the end of the day that is what matters. Criticism is meant to stir up controversy that is what criticism is all about. The media correctly published cartoons and made spoofs of Catholic pedophile priests in order to make a point. And guess what, it worked! The Catholic Church has now taken numerous steps to correct these problems.</p>
<p>"You are basically asking to get assassinated by doing something that stupid when you could have instead critizized whatever reservations you have about Islam in a peaceful and non-confrontational manner."</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? I can't believe that you are actually condoning violence. Do you actually believe that a person should be "ASSassinated" for drawing a CARTOON? Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons, had every right to publish those cartoons and is free to criticize any other religion or philosophy. The media is meant to stir up controversy and Muslims are free to protest peacefully. However, no one has the right to burn embassies and to protest violently.</p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator:
"While everyone does have the right to free speech, one cannot express an opinion that endangers the beliefs of a large group of people, which the Danish cartoons clearly did in this case."</p>
<p>Are you actually serious? Since when can a cartoon "endanger" the religious beliefs of individuals? If certain Muslims can't accept criticism that is their problem. There is no reason why the media should back down and abide by the religious laws of ONE religion.</p>
<p>"Besides, we learn from childhood that all actions have consequences and the Western world is seeing the reprecussions of reprinting cartoons that defamed the Islamic prophet."</p>
<p>We also learn from childhood not to be violent. What about those important lessons? </p>
<p>"You have no one to blame but yourself if you say something stupid that leads to a negative outcome for you."</p>
<p>NO, NO AND NO! The victims of violent actions should never be responsible for those attrocities. The violent Muslim protesters are the only ones to blame for the violence and not a newspaper.</p>
<p>JamesN,</p>
<p>
[quote]
If thats the case, then why is there so much b1tching over Muslim nations preventing freedom of speech? After all, Europeans are the hypocrites here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not every European nation has silly Holocaust laws, so don't just lump them together. That's like saying that "All Asians eat rice, use Chinese characters, and are Buddhists." It's plain silly.</p>
<p>You still didn't get the point though. It's a completely different issue when Germans tell Germans they can't deny the Holocaust than when Saudis tell Germans they can't draw the Prophet Mohammed.</p>
<p>everkingly,</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't really see how your reference to the Vatican and Dan Brown fit in this discussion. The Vatican and any national government should be free to say whatever they want however they absolutely have to refrain from preventing anyone from voicing his or her opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, the Vatican can say whatever they want as long as they don't call for violence. I just think it's silly. </p>
<p>EAD,</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have no one to blame but yourself if you say something stupid that leads to a negative outcome for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So if I say to a Muslim that I believe that Islam is unjust toward its men because it saddles too much responsibility on them, and then he tries to kill me for criticizing his religion, I should be considered responsible?</p>
<p>Strange world you live in, son.</p>
<p>i thought we agreed to ignore JamesN</p>
<p>=D.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While everyone does have the right to free speech, one cannot express an opinion that endangers the beliefs of a large group of people, which the Danish cartoons clearly did in this case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, yes you can. Even though the many programs in the Arab Nations that show Jews as bloodsucking vampires are disgusting and completely based on lies, it is not within my right to call for violence to stop them. I've read only about a bajillion things online from groups saying that Jews eat babies for Passover. By your account, I should be allowed to incite violence.</p>
<p>I don't plan to.</p>
<p>everkingly...</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Muhammed cartoons were meant to be controversial. And guess what? The Danish newspaper that commissioned those cartoons got its point across and at the end of the day that is what matters. Criticism is meant to stir up controversy that is what criticism is all about. The media correctly published cartoons and made spoofs of Catholic pedophile priests in order to make a point. And guess what, it worked! The Catholic Church has now taken numerous steps to correct these problems.
[/quote]
Who/what exactly was the Danish newspaper trying to criticize...extremist Islam right??? Too bad that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and deeply religious people who don't take too kindly to unwarranted criticism just as any other race or ethnicity wouldn't. I think we can all see that the Danish newspaper clearly missed its target audience by defaming Islam's most revered prophet. Making spoofs of Catholic pedophile priests is completley different because the whole American nation was disgusted by the disturbing revelations in the Catholic Church at that time. Also, those spoofs didn't target something specific within Christianity such as the Bible or Jesus; it merely targeted Catholic priests who quite honestly no one would give a **** about defending. I don't know what message Jyllands-Posten was trying to send with its offesnsive Mohammed caricatures but what I got out of it was that the western world doesn't respect Islam, it deems that all Muslims are violent fundamentalists/terrorists, and that it only cares about Jews. I personally have never seen such a violent/offensive depiction of Moses or Jesus so I guess we can't test your assumption that Christians or Jews wouldn't react in the same way yet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you kidding me? I can't believe that you are actually condoning violence. Do you actually believe that a person should be "ASSassinated" for drawing a CARTOON? Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons, had every right to publish those cartoons and is free to criticize any other religion or philosophy. The media is meant to stir up controversy and Muslims are free to protest peacefully. However, no one has the right to burn embassies and to protest violently.
[/quote]
Umm sorry everkingly, but the Arab world doesn't play by your ideal set of rules. Most Arab nations are not democracies and thus the numerous ranks of Islamic society are tied together by their faith. So when their faith comes under attack, the Islamic world will respond in whatever means they find necessay...including violence. I don't condone violence personally but we can't escape the reality of the situation here. A number of prominent Islamic clerics AND leaders do condone violence and have actually encouraged these protests. Clearly Arabs view the concept of free speech much differently than the western world does; therefore, it is clearly not within the rights not the best interest of the Danish newspaper to print cartoons that attack the beliefs of a group of people that don't carry these same democratic ideals. For instance, if the New York Times reprinted these cartoons, you would only see peaceful protests among Muslims here in the U.S. and Europe most likely, but you can be sure that Muslims in the Middle East will respond in a much more violent manner. We can clearly see from the indurgent attacks in Iraq that the majority of Arabs view Westerners and Europeans as crusaders so even though what you are saying may be fundamentally correct regarding the right of the media to exercise free speech, the Danish newspaper and other Americans liek you are ignorant of the fact that the whole world does not necessarily respect free speech.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you actually serious? Since when can a cartoon "endanger" the religious beliefs of individuals? If certain Muslims can't accept criticism that is their problem. There is no reason why the media should back down and abide by the religious laws of ONE religion.
[/quote]
The media doesn't have to abide by the laws of any religion theoretically but crossing the line of free speech in the manner that the Danish newspaper did will not be looked upon kindly by its intended target and it cannot expect that the democratic ideals that exist in the western world will be applicable everywhere. A cartoon can "endanger" the religious beliefs of individuals when it depicts a prominent and highly respected figure with a bomb strapped to his head like I mentioned earlier, which would imply that all Muslims in this case are terrorists and that the western world doesn't respect their faith, thereby challenging their credibility.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We also learn from childhood not to be violent. What about those important lessons?
[/quote]
We also learn from childhood that Santa Claus brings presents to every good child from the North Pole and that the moon is made from cheese...guess not eh???</p>
<p>
[quote]
NO, NO AND NO! The victims of violent actions should never be responsible for those attrocities. The violent Muslim protesters are the only ones to blame for the violence and not a newspaper.
[/quote]
very mature...:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if I say to a Muslim that I believe that Islam is unjust toward its men because it saddles too much responsibility on them, and then he tries to kill me for criticizing his religion, I should be considered responsible?</p>
<p>Strange world you live in, son.
[/quote]
No, but you should be considered responsible if your means of expressing that message involved drawing a cartoon that displays Islam's most revered prophet Mohammed with a bomb strapped to his head.</p>
<p>Yes, I live in a strange world where football players get away with murdering their wives and the Vice President suffers no legal reprecussions from shooting his hunting partner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, yes you can. Even though the many programs in the Arab Nations that show Jews as bloodsucking vampires are disgusting and completely based on lies, it is not within my right to call for violence to stop them. I've read only about a bajillion things online from groups saying that Jews eat babies for Passover. By your account, I should be allowed to incite violence.</p>
<p>I don't plan to.
[/quote]
However, most importantly, nothing online shows Moses eating babies or strapping a bomb to hsi head so you can't make this an analogy to the Danish Cartoons, which were reprinted about ten times to get their "point" across by the way.</p>
<p>I respect your decision not to incite violence and you should respect the right of Muslims to protest in whatever way they find appropriate because there is no universal constitution, only interpretations of what is fundamentally right and what is fundamentally wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if I say to a Muslim that I believe that Islam is unjust toward its men because it saddles too much responsibility on them, and then he tries to kill me for criticizing his religion, I should be considered responsible?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think there is nothing wrong with critisizing a religion, but attacking a very revered (prolly the most) prophet was uncalled for. If you use freedom of speech to provoke violence, then you're responsible for the consequences.</p>
<p>How much time do u all have to keep this thread alive to prove ur points??? Keep ur own opinions with u and dont propagate to those who dont want it. :) Peace</p>
<p>EAD,</p>
<p>By your logic, it would be acceptable for Muslims to commit genocide if they felt that group X was irksome or otherwise troubling. I find your laissez-faire attitude toward violence really unrealistic.</p>
<p>That also doesn't explain how Muslims can be willing to allow these acts to occur when Islam expressly forbids violence in cases like this. This is incredibly counter to what Islam supposedly teaches. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I live in a strange world where football players get away with murdering their wives and the Vice President suffers no legal reprecussions from shooting his hunting partner.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notice how at least there is some outcry toward the fact that OJ got off. And the Vice President didn't necessarily commit a crime. He accidentally hurt the guy, but that's not necessarily a criminal act since there was no violent intent. There's also the fact that Whittington decided not to press charges, since he was in part responsible (he entered tall grass and didn't signal to anyone that he was possibly in someone's line of fire.) So no, your parallel sucks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, most importantly, nothing online shows Moses eating babies or strapping a bomb to hsi head
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bull f'ing doody. I've seen videos released in Muslim countries where they portray Jews and historical Jewish figures as being nothing but philandering murderers. Just</a> want some of what gets shown on MEMRI.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How much time do u all have to keep this thread alive to prove ur points??? Keep ur own opinions with u and dont propagate to those who dont want it. Peace
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or better yet, you can quit the thread.</p>
<p>Come on Ronty, it's just fun debate yaar. Besides, I like hearing the opinion of otra personas with controversial issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think there is nothing wrong with critisizing a religion, but attacking a very revered (prolly the most) prophet was uncalled for. If you use freedom of speech to provoke violence, then you're responsible for the consequences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, this is just silly. This is carte blanche to basically go ahead and kill people over offenses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Umm sorry everkingly, but the Arab world doesn't play by your ideal set of rules. Most Arab nations are not democracies and thus the numerous ranks of Islamic society are tied together by their faith.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the way, I love this sort of thinking.</p>
<p>If a Western nation does anything remotely "out of line," everyone jumps down their throat and says "oh you savage Westerners. You don't respect our beliefs!" But Muslims talk about Jews being nothing but pigs and swindlers, and people pat them on the heads and say, "Well, you're just like this. But that's okay!"</p>
<p>I find it insulting to Muslims. It's like saying that they're incapable of being civilized, so why try?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Come on Ronty, it's just fun debate ** yaar **. Besides, I like hearing the opinion of otra personas with controversial issues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator, r u an Indian? :p</p>
<p>
<p>By your logic, it would be acceptable for Muslims to commit genocide if they felt that group X was irksome or otherwise troubling. I find your laissez-faire attitude toward violence really unrealistic.</p>
<p>That also doesn't explain how Muslims can be willing to allow these acts to occur when Islam expressly forbids violence in cases like this. This is incredibly counter to what Islam supposedly teaches.
Considering you're not Muslim, I doubt you know what Islam "teaches". THe meaning of all religious texts are not set in stone and therefore are open to interpretation. Also, I hardly think that burning embassies is comparable to committing genocide. As you have hopefully noticed, a majority of the protests have been quite peaceful while unfortunately only the violent ones get media attention. The Danish newspaper's printing of these cartoon, whether purposefully or not, were designed to rile the masses and that's exactly what you see happening in some of the poorer or more rural parts of these Arab nations, where law and order is often difficult to enforce. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Notice how at least there is some outcry toward the fact that OJ got off. And the Vice President didn't necessarily commit a crime. He accidentally hurt the guy, but that's not necessarily a criminal act since there was no violent intent. There's also the fact that Whittington decided not to press charges, since he was in part responsible (he entered tall grass and didn't signal to anyone that he was possibly in someone's line of fire.) So no, your parallel sucks.
[/quote]
Oops I "accidentally" drowned all of my children in a bathtub and I "accidentally" killed my pregnant wife and buried her body off the coast of a nearby island...sound familiar Ari???</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bull f'ing doody. I've seen videos released in Muslim countries where they portray Jews and historical Jewish figures as being nothing but philandering murderers. [link=<a href="http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2005/11/saudi-arabia-to-tackle-racism.html%5DJust">http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2005/11/saudi-arabia-to-tackle-racism.html]Just</a> want some of what gets shown on MEMRI.[/link]
[/quote]
Blogs maintained by Muslims may portray the Jewish fairh in such a way but the mainstream Arab media does not indulge in such offensive defamation, especially with regard to Jewish or Christian icons.</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder why the Arabs got the idea that Jews were philandering murderers??? It couldn't possibly have to do with the numerous massacres that the Israeli army has committed against Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank!!!:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or better yet, you can quit the thread.
[/quote]
Replace "thread" with "peace deal" and it sounds eerily familiar to how Israel responded to the armistice in the MidEast Crisis proposed by the international community.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Blogs maintained by Muslims may portray the Jewish fairh in such a way but the mainstream Arab media does not indulge in such offensive defamation, especially with regard to Jewish or Christian icons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jesus tittyloving Christ, did you read the blog? He was making fun of a movie shown on MEMRI! MEMRI! </p>
<p>Read the material before you start making an argument, kid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Considering you're not Muslim, I doubt you know what Islam "teaches".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Silly silly argument. My dad's family are all practicing Muslims. I may not be totally part of the community, but one of the most important ideals is PEACE. Besides, I may not be Japanese, but I can say with some authority that I know how Japan works. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Gee, I wonder why the Arabs got the idea that Jews were philandering murderers??? It couldn't possibly have to do with the numerous massacres that the Israeli army has committed against Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait, are you another one of those "the evil Joos!" types? Because if you are, there's no point in discussing this with you.</p>
<p>If not, then you know how dumb this argument is. Not all Jews are Israelis. I bet you knew that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Replace "thread" with "peace deal" and it sounds eerily familiar to how Israel responded to the armistice in the MidEast Crisis proposed by the international community.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Damn those evil Joos! How I hate them so!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oops I "accidentally" drowned all of my children in a bathtub and I "accidentally" killed my pregnant wife and buried her body off the coast of a nearby island...sound familiar Ari???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh man! You ROCK at red herrings! Congratulations, you can use logical fallacies like a politician!</p>
<p>I think UCLari has no common sense and is simply rejecting out arguments the way he rejected God: through stubborness and naivity.</p>
<p>I also think UCLari needs a teaching of Islam: the most important ideal is not peace, but SUBMISSION to God. My bashing Mohammed, you not only attack Islam, but also God's supreme messenger (according to Muslims). The reaction was definitely not surprising. I think you have no authority to dictate what the Muslims did was right or wrong.</p>
<p>UCLAri...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jesus tittyloving Christ, did you read the blog? He was making fun of a movie shown on MEMRI! MEMRI! </p>
<p>Read the material before you start making an argument, kid.
[/quote]
LOL that blog is funny as hell but I can't imagine it inciting anything among Jews except jolly old laughter. Great, you found the opinion of one deranged Saudi man, guess you can generalize all Muslims now Ari.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Silly silly argument. My dad's family are all practicing Muslims. I may not be totally part of the community, but one of the most important ideals is PEACE. Besides, I may not be Japanese, but I can say with some authority that I know how Japan works
[/quote]
The majority of Muslims did respond with PEACEFUL protests after the offensive Mohammed caricatures were reprinted. Extremists and radicals exist in every single religion and faith, including the peaceful religion of Islam.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait, are you another one of those "the evil Joos!" types? Because if you are, there's no point in discussing this with you.</p>
<p>If not, then you know how dumb this argument is. Not all Jews are Israelis. I bet you knew that.
[/quote]
I did know that Ari and no I am not one of those "evil JOOS" types. I commend you for evading a debate which you quite simply cannot win.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Damn those evil Joos! How I hate them so!
[/quote]
It generally isn't advisable to use satire when you explain the punchline first and it is very predictable to the intended target.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh man! You ROCK at red herrings! Congratulations, you can use logical fallacies like a politician!
[/quote]
^^^</p>
<p>
Aisa desh hai mera.;)</p>