It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 19
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's an easy question to answer! We draw the line at ACTION. You can say, sing, draw whatever you like, but when you burn others' property or shoot someone or physically push someone, you've crossed the line between 'speech' and 'action'.



I guess that means when someone incites a group or individual into 'acting' untoward, that person is free from all blame then, huh?




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
HUmmmm. . . . Where are the Muslin Americans outrage to the situation?

I have only seen anybody else from any other country but not body yet from the US prominent muslin communities take a stance here in the US.

What is no freedom of speech in the US anymore?


Or. . . . they are scare of what the christian population in the US may do or say.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I guess that means when someone incites a group or individual into 'acting' untoward, that person is free from all blame then, huh?


You're kidding right?

"Incite"? First up, it’s the not the fault of the "inciter" if the "incitee's" are weak minded enough to be incited. Understand? Your comment is a typical "victim statement", look it up.

You are removing all the responsibility from the people who are allowing themselves to be incited.

Let’s say I am driving down the road and a guy flips me the finger. I speed up and ram him sending his car off the road. I pull over, get out of my car and kill the man. Was that justified? After all, he incited me.

See the error in your logic?

Speech is just that, speech. If you allow that to drive you to violence or criminal behavior, its meaningless what that speech was, you are supposed to be responsible enough to control yourself and NOT be incited.

I truly hope you understand what I am telling you here, because your reply terrifies me. When people can’t understand that they are responsible for their own actions, regardless of they reasons they may have, society should be very worried…



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
HUmmmm. . . . Where are the Muslin Americans outrage to the situation?

I have only seen anybody else from any other country but not body yet from the US prominent muslin communities take a stance here in the US.

What is no freedom of speech in the US anymore?


Or. . . . they are scare of what the christian population in the US may do or say.


Or its maybe because they are Americanized, which means they are Muslim Americans that are not like those Muslims overseas who go crazy and make death threats and go blow themselves up, burning flags, etc.
Most Muslim Americans I hope.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Okay, call me a bleeding heart liberal but this is -really- getting on my nerves and this needs to be said.

Is it really necessary to rub anti-islamic cartoons in the face of protesters already ticked off? Wether you like it or not, they are still offensive. What you call freedom of speech is not only offensive to the protesting Muslims, but the ones that may be protesting peacefully.

Lets change this around a bit. What if hypothetically the KKK got the newspaper to publish anti-African american cartoons. Then African americans protest. Regardless of how they protest, violently or not, would you think it was okay to publish the racist cartoons in newspapers everywere to show "Freedom of speech"? I certainly woulden't.

Regardless, we know how these Muslims act. We can't stop them from acting. Which is better, apologizing so they stop acting violent or publishing the cartoons everywere, perhaps making them more violent? What if they start actually hurting people? Is it really worth it in the end? I don't think so.

Not all Muslims are acting violently, but Im sure even those peaceful ones find the cartoons offensive. We really don't need to rub it in there faces!

I've said what I wanted to say...I can see the flames coming. -_-;



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Or. . . . they are scare of what the christian population in the US may do or say.



So you're saying the Muslim community is scared? Maybe a little bit of Western influence has given them logic and reasoning. Maybe the fact that the Bush administration's clear stand against the cartoons has created a balance between being offended and being violent, but we wouldnt even dare to think of these as reasons now would we......



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Thank you Kacen,

I've been trying to say the exact same thing but all I keep getting are the same freedom of speech rhetoric.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Maybe the fact that the Bush administration's clear stand against the cartoons has created a balance between being offended and being violent, but we wouldnt even dare to think of these as reasons now would we......


Well if that makes you happy nice and dandy for you to believe.

Perhaps the reason they are quiet is not because they are Brainwashed American way but that they may be scare that their place of living and businesses become targets if they protest or become vocal.

Funny we can spin it any way we want.




[edit on 7-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
Lets change this around a bit. What if hypothetically the KKK got the newspaper to publish anti-African american cartoons. Then African americans protest. Regardless of how they protest, violently or not, would you think it was okay to publish the racist cartoons in newspapers everywere to show "Freedom of speech"? I certainly woulden't.


You are mixing two totally different situations. The cartoons in question are poking fun at an organized religion, not a race of people. You can't help what race you're born into, but religion is a choice. HUGE difference.

What's up with all the liberals feeling sorry for the religious people all the sudden? I thought they didn't want anyone pushing their religion on them. You know, we want to be able to abort babies, have affairs, and drink like a senator from Mass. If you thought the Christians were tough, just let the Muslims run things for a while. You'll be wishing you were back to living in "Jesus land".

I don't remember the Christians protesting, rioting and burning after this popular cartoon came out.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   


Which is better, apologizing so they stop acting violent or publishing the cartoons everywere, perhaps making them more violent? What if they start actually hurting people? Is it really worth it in the end? I don't think so.


Good points were made
But why apologize? They, the muslim governments and people NEED to understand that THEY have thier ways and WE have ours. Should/do middle eastern nations apologize every time a bible is burned in the middle east? Just because they do not accept freedom of speech, that does not mean that don't either....they need to understand that, for their sake.

Ya know that saying "wars have been started over much less" really fits the situation.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
Freedom for some...here you go..

www.freemuslims.org...


This is good! Unfortunately, only about 50 people showed up!!


Originally posted by kojac
and

www.murdoconline.net...


Yes, the Eqyptians are protesting terror because THEY were attacked. Not because of global Islamic terrorism. Where were they BEFORE they were attacked? I’ll tell ya’: They were busy terrorizing and oppressing the Coptic Christians in their own country.


Originally posted by kojac
and

www.perfect.co.uk...


This is not a Muslim Organization


Originally posted by kojac
and

www.npr.org...


Ahhh; the infamous “Fatwa” against terrorism. First; some problems with the language. They used terms such as “innocent civilians” and “Unjust killings”. A Translatable term for “innocent civilians” doesn’t exist in Islam. There is only Dar al-Islam or Dar al Harb (House of Submission; House of War). They don’t define what “terrorism” is under Islamic definitions nor do they define what a “just” killing would be. For example, Palestinians believe that there are no “innocent” or “civilian” Jews because all Jews, men AND women, are required to serve in the military. Therefore, the killing of all Jews is “just”. While this “Fatwa” might make westerners feel good, these and other language nuances make this fatwa meaningless in the Arab world.

Also, the Fiqh Council of North America has a checkered past with several members having current or previous ties with various terrorist groups.


Originally posted by kojac
and

www.organiser.org...


Where is the denouncement of global terrorism in this link.


Originally posted by kojac
and my favourite...


gatewaypundit.blogspot.com...


I will say that although these protests only come in the wake of attacks in their own country, their clerics are at least using language that is specific and understood by their own culture. I believe this is a good link supporting your position, Kojac, and one can only hope that this type of thing will eventually spread to Arab Islamic states; though; I’m not holding my breath.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Good points were made
But why apologize? They, the muslim governments and people NEED to understand that THEY have thier ways and WE have ours.


I agree is not need for apologies the world doesn't belong to them alone, one thing is been a victim and another victimizing others.

Perhaps the muslin communities should get a wake up call and start to realized that the ones that used their religion for violence are just making a mockery of all of them.

But then again perhaps this is the intended result more violence to show dominance.

Even when they are just minorities in the countries that they are doing the violence.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by kojac
and

www.npr.org...


Ahhh; the infamous “Fatwa” against terrorism. First; some problems with the language. They used terms such as “innocent civilians” and “Unjust killings”. A Translatable term for “innocent civilians” doesn’t exist in Islam. There is only Dar al-Islam or Dar al Harb (House of Submission; House of War). They don’t define what “terrorism” is under Islamic definitions nor do they define what a “just” killing would be. For example, Palestinians believe that there are no “innocent” or “civilian” Jews because all Jews, men AND women, are required to serve in the military. Therefore, the killing of all Jews is “just”. While this “Fatwa” might make westerners feel good, these and other language nuances make this fatwa meaningless in the Arab world.

Also, the Fiqh Council of North America has a checkered past with several members having current or previous ties with various terrorist groups.


That's not fair, FFS. Here we have a fatwa. A fatwa! That's as good as a decree from the Prophet himself. How others interpret (or misinterpret it) is a different matter altogether, but a decree condemning the killings of innocent civilians has already been made.

Sometimes I feel like nothing we do is ever enough...



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I can see where a few kids might be scared, but not the entire population of Muslims in America. They have the right to protest and they have the right not to protest. I think it's a good thing that (so far) they're not protesting and making a scene. I guess it shows that they understand the value a freedom of speech.

Yeah you may have a few rednecks that go beat up on some kid cause he's "arabic" or whatever word they use. But there is really not many violent acts and threats in America that are directed toward Muslims.

And anyways, surely an American Muslim that enjoys his rights and freedoms would see that there is really nothing wrong with printing the cartoons. The only crime committed is bad taste and tackiness, not worth starting a war over and killing your own people.



[edit on 7/2/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I find it amazing how (un)intelligent people in the Muslin world can be "getting upset over a cartoon". Do I want to go out and kill or destroy every time I see or read something I do not like? No...

Most if not all Muslin's would not know if Muhammad, Jesus or God was standing in front if them, the first time Muhammad said something they did not like they would want to cut off his head.

Their heart and minds are filled with so much hatred all they can see, hear or follow is Pharaoh.

So let it be said, so let it be written...

[edit on 7-2-2006 by The Speaker]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
And anyways, surely an American Muslim that enjoys his rights and freedoms would see that there is really nothing wrong with printing the cartoons. The only crime committed is bad taste and tackiness, not worth starting a war over and killing your own people.
[edit on 7/2/2006 by SportyMB]


Exactly and that brings another point that what is happening in Europe and some of the European nations is an agenda by radical movements, violence and confrontation.

All these is geared to a desirable ending, things are not always what it seems.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
That's not fair, FFS. Here we have a fatwa. A fatwa! That's as good as a decree from the Prophet himself. How others interpret (or misinterpret it) is a different matter altogether, but a decree condemning the killings of innocent civilians has already been made.


With all due respect Beachcoma; this fatwa rings hollow as it comes from a few western Clerics with a questionable past. Since the majority of global terrorism comes from Arab Muslims, a fatwa from an Arab cleric or Mufti needs to address this issue. Instead, you have people like this guy, Saudi's Grand mufti, who, during the Hajj, proclaimed that the west is at war with Islam and that all muslims must unite against the West.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Maybe the fact that the Bush administration's clear stand against the cartoons has created a balance between being offended and being violent, but we wouldnt even dare to think of these as reasons now would we......


Well if that makes you happy nice and dandy for you to believe.

Perhaps the reason they are quiet is not because they are Brainwashed American way but that they may be scare that their place of living and businesses become targets if they protest or become vocal.

Funny we can spin it any way we want.


[edit on 7-2-2006 by marg6043]


I guess it all depends on how we view things, although the Muslim communities in America have had their say on numerous occasions with subjects that were considered “in poor taste”. You really and truly believe they fear the wrath of Christian America? Well its either that or they’re brainwashed right? Are you telling me that there’s no room in your thought process to give them credit for being logical?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
Is it really necessary to rub anti-islamic cartoons in the face of protesters already ticked off?


No. It's not necessary. It's a choice. Next?



What if hypothetically the KKK got the newspaper to publish anti-African american cartoons. Then African americans protest. Regardless of how they protest, violently or not, would you think it was okay to publish the racist cartoons in newspapers everywere to show "Freedom of speech"? I certainly woulden't.


Yes! It's ok. And I would denounce the people who protest violently! There is a huge difference in protest and violent protest.



Regardless, we know how these Muslims act. We can't stop them from acting. Which is better, apologizing so they stop acting violent or publishing the cartoons everywere, perhaps making them more violent? What if they start actually hurting people? Is it really worth it in the end? I don't think so.


So, let's say we apologize so they stop acting this way.

What about next week, when they decide they don't like the way Muslims are portrayed in a certain book written by an American author. They demand an apology! They have violent protests while we sell the book nationwide. People are killed! We realize how deeply we have offended them and we take the book off the international market and apologize.

What about next month, with their victories behind them, they decide they don't like this British song that mentions a middle eastern country as being a worthless desert? They don't like it and they want them to stop playing that song on the radio and apologize. They have violent protests while the song is played nationwide. The British say, "No Way"! They protest harder. They burn buildings. They kill the performer of the song (after all, this kind of thing worked pretty well to get their way last time) ...

You see where I'm going here?



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Kacen, the Muslims in those countries which protested violantly, for sure never saw the real cartoons - and still today they have not because it is prohibited and their media is state owned- nobody will broadcaste it or print it..

They only have been TOLD about them - and those who told them LIED to them.

As you can read in Helmutts thread ATS: Denmark On Muhammeds Naughty List,



When Danish Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan, leader of The Islamic Society of Denmark, toured in a delegation around the Middle East (i.e. to a meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Mecca) to create awareness of anti-Islamic cartoons, he included FAKED cartoons which the danish media NEVER had published. Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of that delegation tour, claimed he does not know the origin of the three blackand white pictures.....

The imans also falsely claimed that at least one of their FAKE caricatures
were one of the 12 Jyllands-Posten drawings.


.



But thanks to makeitsos posting in Helmutts thread, we now know the orign of that picture:


MSNBC: Duo hogs top prize in pig-squealing contest

Father-son team oinks way to victory in French cult competition, Aug. 15, 2005

"Contender Jacques Barrot performs in the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise's annual festival. Contestants suckle, oink, and even imitate mating."

(Photo: Bob Edme, AP)



[edit on 7-2-2006 by Riwka]




top topics



 
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join