100's of Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons in London…But how many protest terror?

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes, both was stupid, I think. Excpet for a couple things. There is very good reason to imagine an Arab with a bomb in his headdress, as anyone who has been on this planet the last few years can understand. there is no reason at all to create such a disgusting cartoon as the one with Hitler in bed with anne Frank. It adds nothing, and illustrates nothing.

Exactly the thinking of a typical Westerner.

Arabs = Terrorism

Muslims = Suicide Bombers

I am sure that Nobody would have a Problem (or mabye they MIGHT) with a Muslim with a Bomb, since they are the ones who blow themselves up. But an Entire Different thing is, to Portray Muslim Prophet in that Insutive way, saying that the ENTIRE RELIGION is associated with Terrorism. Well I know that SOME people do not have a problem with that - but I do.

Terrorism is not about Religions - it is about EXTREMISTS.

And that is the Basis for this Issue.

This Cartoons made FUN out of the Entire Religion, not few Individuals, like Hitler and Ann Frank. You can't Compare Hitler to Mohammed - well I am sure that some people can, but they are clearly wrong.


So, therefore I present you the Follwing Picture, which resulted in several law suits against the Band, who made this for their CD cover of an album, which had to do with the Problematics of Abortion here in Slovenia.

The Band is called Strelnikoff, and they had a visit two days after the release of this CD called BitchCraft, by the Police, they were threatened several times and they had several law suits against them.

Freedom of Speech?

Not Likely.

So, here is a TEST, to see if an Image of a Holy Figure of Christianity can Pass the "Freedom of Speech" Limits.



AND the Original:



[edit on 6/2/06 by Souljah]




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
no-one holding those signs were arrested during the protests.
However 2 men handing out leaflets with the cartoons on WERE!


How very interesting! Do you have any links so we can
read about it?

So ... it's okay for Muslims to stand on street corners in mass numbers
of angry mobs and to call for a 9/11 or another 7/7 to be brought upon
the heads of infidels .... but it's NOT okay for someone to print a
political cartoon equating Islam with violence???


Once again .. the crowds are backing up what the political cartoonist
said. If they had remained calm and just printed their own political
cartoons (not the Hitler/Frank kind .. but some with merit), they'd
actually have some ground to stand on. As it is ...
They are
quickly proving the cartoonist right.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Thanks TC.

Snoopdopey

That is my point also why is the British authorities turning their head the other way, obviously this is a plain show of promising more violence.

Flyers,

The reason people laugh at Pat when he makes his silly comments is because US is not on in a War on Terror against chrisitans, but the middle east that happen to be muslin following the Islamic law.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Oh, my I hope I am not offending anybody with my avatar,


Off topic ... but what the heck ....

Marg ... I LOVE your avatars and have always
wondered ... do you make them or are you
importing them from another site.

They are great!!



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Sorry guys, Link:

www.newsoftheworld.co.uk...

News of the World lol, not the best paper, but it was the first on google.

It was in a few other papers too, needless to say it was the talk of the lunchroom!



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Souljah, why is it that typical Western Thinking?
Oh, yes, because there is not another group blowing up people, civilians as well as soldiers, while screaming "God is Great" while doing it.
Why do you think we all know what "Allah Akbar!" means? Think about that, buddy. I am a South Alabamaian; there is no other reason for me to be familiar with that.

I know of nobody who has lost a fmaily member or friend to a southern Baptist homicide bomber.

The continuous actions are what causes us tothink like this.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It adds nothing, and illustrates nothing.


Oh TC .. you said perfectly what I was trying to say.

If the upset muslims had remained calm and had 'returned fire'
with their own political cartoons (cartoons with some merit )
they would have done themselves and their religion some good.
As it is, their actions are just confirming what the cartoonist
was expressing.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Who knows perhaps all these violence and all these instigations are brought thanks to Iran.

Perhaps a retaliation and a show of what they can be capable of doing to any European country that goes against them.

I believe if was Flyers the one that mention that it could be the results of the UN reviewing Iran.

I may be mistaken.

I wonder if that is all connected.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well, it was as Childish and Immature as the Danish Cartoon - IMHO none of them are really Expressing the Freedom of Speech, they are just walking the Thin Line between that Granted freedom and Ignorance.

The Results are in front of you...


Put the responsibility where it lies

A - The results we are seeing are NOT because of some cartoons. Any more than a handgun death is a result of the gun manufacturer or a car accident is the result of alcohol company. The results we are seeing are because some people took it upon themselves to ACT out in anger. Period!

B - Ignorance is NOT against the law. It is practiced commonly around the world and is NO reason to start burning buildings!


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Excpet for a couple things. There is very good reason to imagine an Arab with a bomb in his headdress, as anyone who has been on this planet the last few years can understand. there is no reason at all to create such a disgusting cartoon as the one with Hitler in bed with anne Frank.


Bzzzzzzttt! Wrong answer. YOU are (somewhat) offended by one and not the other. That's the only difference. They're both potentially offensive cartoons. It all depends on who is looking at them as to who will get offended and who will laugh.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Exactly the thinking of a typical Westerner.

Arabs = Terrorism

Muslims = Suicide Bombers



Your back up on that fact? Any links to studies or material to substantiate that claim? Or is that just your personal opinion? Your method stating this information implies fact, you will need to back this up with fact as a result.

That’s a pretty BLIND and STEREOTYPICAL remark, and stereotyping is a form of racism when applied to groups or entire nations of people.

Its funny, I could say your opinions on how a "typical westerner" thinks is pretty typical of non westerners...

But in reality you have no clue how a westerner thinks. You assume. And you want me to clue you in on some real western thinking? When you ASS-U-ME, you make an "ASS out of U and ME"

That’s an old western saying Soul, but you being an expert on how we think, must have already known about that…


[edit on 6-2-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
skippytjc

No to start a war of opinions here but actually most Americans have link Arabs with terrorism and Muslin with suicide bombers.

After all we most thank the war on terror for that, because the last time I checked the war on terror is wag in the middle east and you get my point.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

So, here is a TEST, to see if an Image of a Holy Figure of Christianity can Pass the "Freedom of Speech" Limits.



AND the Original:



[edit on 6/2/06 by Souljah]



Sorry to disappoint, but yes it IS freedom of speach.

I am a Christian and fear the government telling me what is acceptable to think MUCH more than someone mocking my God.

and Marge your avatars have made me feel lots of things but offended hasnt been one of them......LOL

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
skippytjc

No to start a war of opinions here but actually most Americans have link Arabs with terrorism and Muslin with suicide bombers.

After all we most thank the war on terror for that, because the last time I checked the war on terror is wag in the middle east and you get my point.


So why we have troops in Africa, Afghanistan, Phillipines, etc?
Think we just fighting in the ME?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Beachcoma. I saw your post, and read it. The polls do show a promising trend, that much is true. But for the moderates in Islam to prove they are in the majority as you say, more like yourself must speak out, just as more moderates in any religion that plays host to fanatics must (which come to think of it, is just about all of them) speak out loudly and clearly.

You yourself are doing marvelous work, and deserve all credit due you. But the leaders must, must must speak up, and soon. I can't help but think that a threshold is approaching that once crossed we are going to wish we hadn't.

Just in an aside, Beachcoma, your avatar gives me the heeby-jeebies (brrr).
Consider changing it,Pleeeeeeeze.

[edit on 6-2-2006 by seagull]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

So why we have troops in Africa, Afghanistan, Phillipines, etc?
Think we just fighting in the ME?


Hey who knows if that is what you believe be happy with it.

Now taking in consideration that US is condemning the cartoon I wonder what will be the next step in the new guide lines for Freedom of speech.

I imagine that if some new rules will be put in place to keep everybody happy that will include no more funny cartoons on political leaders.


What you think Deltaboy.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now taking in consideration that US is condemning the cartoon I wonder what will be the next step in the new guide lines for Freedom of speech.

I imagine that if some new rules will be put in place to keep everybody happy that will include no more funny cartoons on political leaders.


What you think Deltaboy.


I have no objections to cartoons making fun of the politicians, but to put out cartoons to express of making fun or hatred of color or religion is way different.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I agree but this also Freedom of speech so should government now control as how much of this freedom the people will have?

I see some dangerous grounds now here that can be trample over just to make some people happy.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I think this is a problem. Denial of the holocaust should not be against the law! If you claim free speech, you shouldn't (in my opinion) pick out one subject and make an exception. I think this is a valid reason to be angry, though.

Not advocating burning any buildings, understand.






posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Marg,

I posted this earlier on the other thread, but I'll post it again here. It's an op/ed piece from a Malaysian paper written by a non-muslim that may answer your question partly.


The Star

Someone once gave me an interesting and useful working definition of freedom of speech.

“The freedom of your arm to swing around ends at the point where it touches my nose.”

Individual liberty and the freedom of speech and press are fine principles but they are not absolute, for one person’s freedom may affect that of another person.

The freedom of someone to say or do something insulting may affect the freedom of someone else to be free from being insulted or provoked.

Sensitivity towards others, tolerance for their beliefs and avoidance of speech, words or cartoons that can hurt or insult others tempers the freedom that an individual or a newspaper has.

If this is not put into practice and even into law, then the social contract that exists, formally or informally, breaks down.

This is something understood in multi-ethnic, multi-religious Malaysia.

We are far from being perfect in this regard and certainly are not free from controversies from time to time.

But there is something the Western nations can learn from our country on this complex and emotive issue.


Now before anyone starts yelling "No! We must defend our freedoms!" or any such knee-jerk reaction, think carefully. Think deeply. Which would promote better understanding between cultures? Which would aid in unity?

Give it a go. Malaysia wouldn't survive multi-religiousness and multi-culturalism without it.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I have no objections to cartoons making fun of the politicians, but to put out cartoons to express of making fun or hatred of color or religion is way different.


How? Why are color and religion taboo subjects? How about sex? How about songs that put women down? What about nationality? Where do you draw the line?

Somebody answer me, please! Why is religion a protected subject?





top topics
 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join