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: 30
0
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That's what I thought! I'm in the right place after all. We're talking about the Mohammed cartoons; which were created by a Dane and originally portrayed in a Danish publication. But you're saying these riotous Muslims are rioting because they are angry with America?


What else are we expected to think when deomstrating Muslims, supposedly protesting Danish cartoons chant "Death to America"?

And it all gets stickier...Ahmenidijad continuing his speaking tour in support of improved Muslim/Israeli relations has resulted in this:

satirist's work stolen

Leunig is probably THE standout "political cartoonist" in Oz. Without a doubt his stuff is always incredibly perceptive and extemely well thought out.




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So now is Jihad to MacDonald and Burger king, I tell you when is comes to wagging wars anything is a good excused to feel offended by.


The whole musling thing is become ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

Originally posted by masterp
Very tue, one more LESS reason for a people with knowledge to be so Uncivilized.




I will ask again, since no one cared to answer my question:

1) why were the cartoons published?


Because they CAN be published, just like cartoons defaming the western and the Jewsih world are published in muslem countries. There is a world outside Islam you know ?


Replying with "because they can" is not an acceptable answer. I want a reason.



And also, because it DID show a good image of what these poepl are about, to blow up others in the name of Mohamed, so therefore Moahmed is the bomb carrier, and thats is simply what the cartoon portrayed.


Exactly! you make the same mistake: by saying that Mohammed is a bomb carrier, you label as terrorists ALL of muslims, whereas it is obvious you are wrong.




2) what exactly is humourus about them?


Its not the humour, but the truth in the cartoon... I don't think it was made to be humorous, but its was made to be realistic.


Then it is not a cartoon.



What is humorous about cartoons pcituring Bush has a voltrue as showing muslems sodomizing Jews with bombs??? nothing... its really not funny at all... but they were published, even tho their only purpose was not to show truth but to justify violence.


Agreed. No one is entitled to offend another one's symbols.




3) why turmoil is now? the cartoons were published in September.


My honest opinion, is because Iran came out and annouced they are goingfor nuclear weapons, and this made the muslems think they have their backs cover to do as they please



Nope! guess again.


Originally posted by AceOfBase

said by masterp
Well, I've never heard that the numerals we are using today are Hindu...care to share some links?


There are numerous reputable links out there.



scit.wlv.ac.uk

Hindu system is a pure place value system, that is why you need a zero. Only the Hindus within the context of Indo-European civilisations have consistently used a zero.

Our decimal system is descendent from this system.

The earliest number symbols in India
In 3000BC the Hindus culture flourished and large numbers were used (inscriptions).

From the middle of 2000BC Indo-European tribes were making their way from the N.W. towards India. They introduced Sanskrit - earliest knowledge of maths from this time.

In Sanskrit there are number words for 1-9, 10, 100 and further powers of 10 - up to 10 - definitely a decimal system.




Aha! even the link you posted shows some contribution from the Arabs...which proves my point: all the civilizations have offered something that makes up our world. So the claim that Arabs never did anything is obviously wrong.



Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by masterp
I know the analogy is false, but I can not give you an example of Jesus with a bomb in his hand, because you will simply ignore it. I have to give you something that offends you in order to make you understand the problem better.


You don't get it. You cannot make me angry with offensive statements. You are impotent in this regard.


You are lying. There is no man on this Earth that does not get angry with something. Just because I do not know you, you say that.

Even the most hardened zen masters can be made angry with something.

Tell me your beliefs, and I can easily make you angry.




Originally by Freedom_for_sum
In any case; go ahead and show jesus having sex with his mother. I can simply change the channel!!! No need to burn down buildings and kill people over it.



Originally posted by masterp
Ok, you do not care about that. How about the american flag with a nazi symbol in it?


As a freedom loving combatant in the "war on terror" (I'm in the military) I can tell you that the state (condition) of freedom is much more important than the symbol of freedom; for with out freedom, and all its tenets (including freedom of expression), the symbol means nothing. Therefore; go ahead and befoul the flag; I would die fighting for your right to do so. Even though I may disagree with it.


Words are easy to say...but If I came to your house and did that just outside your door, you wouldn't be very happy (if you care about that).




Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Go ahead!! I don't care!! Depicting Jesus in those roles is no threat to me. It doesn't shake my beliefs. Again; I can simply change the url, the channel, or turn off the tv/computer!! It's MY CHOICE and I'm in control of those things that are important in my life. NOBODY else dictates to me what's important or how I'm going to feel. Muslims need to learn this!!



Originally posted by masterp
You simply do not care enough about religion, that's why.


It's not about whether I care about this, that, or the other. It's about whether you can make me angry with offensive statements. (You can't).


You are in apathy then! which means you have no genuine interest for anything.




Originally posted by masterp
Many people before me and after me have made the same point: it is not religion that causes the bombings, it is people.


So you're saying that if the 911 hijackers were Christian that they still would have attacked? Are you saying that if those angry riotous Muslims were Budhists they still be angry and riot and burn buildings and call for death to those publishing offensive cartoons?


Anybody could attack. History is littered with attacks FROM CHRISTIANS. Just because they do not do it any more, it does not mean that it is not people (and not ideas) that do the harm.




Originally posted by masterp
The mistake you do, and many others do, is to think about a religion as the problem instead of thinking bout the people as the problem.


So if I understand you correctly: (and only as an example) It's not the ideology of skinheads and white separatists that blacks should not mix with whites and all Jews should be killed; but rather, it's the skinheads and white separatists themselves? It's not the ideology of Islam but rather, the Muslims themselves? I have extreme difficulty separating the people commiting the acts of "terror" from their ideology.


Indeed. One can be racist and say "I do not want to live with blacks or jews" but without wanting to kill them...but another one may want to kill all blacks and jews and proceed to do so. There is a difference.



We don't come out of the womb with ideology. Racism, hatred, and intolerance are learned behaviors and usually taught through ideology. You get rid of the ideology, you get rid of those things that are taught by the ideology.


Not all racists are killers; not all muslims are terrorists; not all chistians are good; not all buddhists are calm; not all americans are good, not all americans are bad; not all heavy metal music is bad, not all rap music is good etc etc.

There goes your argument....




Originally posted by masterp
And before you say "I do not do such a thing", let me remind you something George Bush said: "if you are not with us, you are with them". By using this line of thought, if you do not care about Muslims being offended by the "cartoons", then you are ok with it.


I am having difficulty folowing your logic here. Are you asking whether I care that Muslims are offended? If so; the answer is no. I could even care less. What I do care about is the violence they are commiting.


Yes. By not caring about Muslims (or anyone else) being offended, you are actually against them.

Caring only about your own interests only is hypocrisy (at least), since we live on a planet that your actions affect mine and vice versa.




Originally posted by masterp
But it is illogical to say "arab muslim children are abused, therefore when they grow up they become terrorists". Do you have a study to support your claims? do you have an example?


Watch the two clips of the boys and tell me this isn't abuse: (scroll down to the bottom)

times.discovery.com...#

Please explain where the one young boy learned his intolerant ideas about women and going to hell?


How come "two clips of the boys" constitutes a study of the problem? show me a study that says "out of 100 homes, 90 homes have child abuse" and I will believe you.




Originally posted by masterp
And children in America and Europe are forced to learn about "Adam & Eve", the seven days of creation, etc. Maybe they are not forced so strongly, but the trend is to be a reborn Christian these days, isn't it?


I wasn't forced. And I am agnostic; not Christian. I don't force my children to go to church and learn Christianity.


You were not forced nowadays. Some years ago, you would be forced.



And there is no requirement in Christianity to memorize the bible.


Really? you have not been in the army, haven't you?




Originally posted by masterp
You attribute economic facts on biology/race and not on history/sociology.


Not on race; on an ideology (Islam); at least the way it's applied in Islamic nations.


But you should study an ideology in the context of a people's condition, not out of the blue.




Originally posted by masterp
Let me give you an example to show you how wrong you are:

In the year 500 BC, most of Europe was in primitive state, with little or no written records. At the same time, Greece and Italy had developed a culture 'millenia ahead' of those people in England, Germany and the northen states.

Did that mean that Anglosaxons/Germans/Nordics etc were inferior? 2500 years later and the situation is reversed: European south is poor and does not produce any of the consumer goods you mention, whereas European North is rich and has a production of cars, airplanes, and anything you can imagine.


So, by this analogy, are you saying islam is in the dark ages? We might be in agreement there.


No, I gave an example that race/ideology does not alone justify what each country has accomplished. Accomplishments are a matter of a long list of parameters.




Originally posted by masterp
Turkey is actually 4 countries:

1) Istanbul: a huge city with 20 million people, most of them poor.
2) the western shore up to Ankara: situation similar to rest of western Europe.
3) the east part: primitive state; villages do not have electricity, computers are something they have never seen, and young daughets that had affairs are publically slaughtered by their fathers with the concesus of the local authorities.
4) the Kurdish part: same as (3), but with different culture.


...and you're calling me ignorant?



Nope, when I said "4 countries", I said it metaphorically. The state of Turkey encompasses all those "countries".

But you wouldn't miss a chance to be ironic, eh?




Originally posted by masterp
a) what is humorous in the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.


It's satire--not necesariily humorous. I find Muslims reaction to the cartoons somewhat humorous; as well as pathetic.


Satire means "humor". Greek word "satira" for meaningful humor.




Originally posted by masterp
c) why all these months there was no problem (the "cartoons" were published in September), and the problem is now.


That's a question for the Muslims.


Not really. Who notified them? have you researched that?


Originally posted by BaastetNoir


Originally posted by masterp
I know the analogy is false, but I can not give you an example of Jesus with a bomb in his hand, because you will simply ignore it. I have to give you something that offends you in order to make you understand the problem better.


That would be a totally bogus and fake cartoon... s fake as if it had Buddah in it... neither Jesus or Buddah ever called for the death of anyone... but Mohamed and Allah DO... they call for the death of Jews, Christians and all other "dorty Infidels"... its not anyones fault but their own...its their belief and religion, not anyone elses... you have to deal with what you believ in... can;'t whinne about it ervytime things don't go your way...


but out of 2 billion muslims, it is only 0.0000001% that causes problems.

I think there is a lot of brainwashing these days.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
I want a reason.


Have you looked anywhere besides here for a reason? How are we supposed to know why they did it?

The Wikipedia article on it is very thorough, though. You may find some answers there. I did.



Then it is not a cartoon.


It's called a satirical cartoon. It's a very common thing. A picture drawn to make a point. Not necessarily funny.





No one is entitled to offend another one's symbols.


Says who? I most certainly am entitled! Where is it written that I'm not entitled to offend other's "symbols"? What does that mean?


Originally posted by masterp
Ok, you do not care about that. How about the american flag with a nazi symbol in it?


No problem. I love my country and I am very patriotic. If YOU want to disgrace the flag, go ahead, It's no reflection on the country or on me. It only reflects on you. Next?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
You know what makes me suspicious of this whole rage of cartoon issue?

The smiles I see on the faces of these protestors in many pictures:






Go back and look at all the pictures posted on this thread. Nearly every picture has people smiling in it, what kind of outrage is that? Or are they smiling because they have an excuse to destroy and kill?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
You know what makes me suspicious of this whole rage of cartoon issue?

The smiles I see on the faces of these protestors in many pictures:

[...]

Go back and look at all the pictures posted on this thread. Nearly every picture has people smiling in it, what kind of outrage is that? Or are they smiling because they have an excuse to destroy and kill?


Bingo! You got it. They're taking advantage of the situation to go on a violent rampage... you know, to vent their frustrations at the deplorable conditions in their country. Destroying things does have a therapeutic effect.

Anyway...

I believe there in your country and in the UK there's a company that provides you with that sort of service -- you pay money to thrash things or something. I'm not sure where exactly, but I remember reading it in FHM.

[edit -- yup you were right skippy, just found a report on deaths in Pakistan]

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
  • Todays death toll in violent demonstrations in Pakistan is tree

  • This has been a bus station of the South Korean company Daewoo, which were set on fire by angry mobs:

    external image

  • An other Norwegian Telcom office

    external image




    3 die in new Pakistan protests

    According to authorities in Peshawar, protesters, many of them students, set fire to a KFC restaurant, a cinema and several other buildings, including a Daewoo bus terminal that contained 16 buses, as they rampaged through the city. A number of cars and motorcycles were also burned.



  • posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:50 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    According to authorities in Peshawar, protesters, many of them students, set fire to a KFC restaurant, a cinema and several other buildings, including a Daewoo bus terminal that contained 16 buses, as they rampaged through the city. A number of cars and motorcycles were also burned.



    Now that's just stupid. I sort of understand why they torched the KFC (though I by no means approve it) but what does a South Korean company from East Asia have anything to do with the West?

    Things are spiraling out of control in Pakistan and Musharaff is too afraid to do anything to quell the unrest.



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:11 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
    You don't get it. You cannot make me angry with offensive statements. You are impotent in this regard.



    Originally posted by masterp
    You are lying. There is no man on this Earth that does not get angry with something. Just because I do not know you, you say that.

    Even the most hardened zen masters can be made angry with something.

    Tell me your beliefs, and I can easily make you angry.


    I never said I don't get angry. I said you can't make me angry I don't place enough value in your opinions for them to be meaningful enough to get angry. Likewise; no stranger, on this Earth, can make me angry by simply expressing himself, especially with cartoon.


    Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
    As a freedom loving combatant in the "war on terror" (I'm in the military) I can tell you that the state (condition) of freedom is much more important than the symbol of freedom; for with out freedom, and all its tenets (including freedom of expression), the symbol means nothing. Therefore; go ahead and befoul the flag; I would die fighting for your right to do so. Even though I may disagree with it.



    Originally posted by masterp
    Words are easy to say...but If I came to your house and did that just outside your door, you wouldn't be very happy (if you care about that).


    Well now your actions are not only beginning to infringe on my personal rights, but now you've become a physical threat. And you'd be dealt with accordingly. It wouldn't be out of anger; it would be out of self defense. There's a HUGE difference between simply expressing yourself; and doing it at the expense of another's rights, freedoms, and safety.


    Originally posted by masterp
    You are in apathy then! which means you have no genuine interest for anything.


    If I were [apathetic] I certainly wouldn't spend so much time here
    And I certainly wouldn't be in the military!!


    Originally posted by masterp
    Anybody could attack. History is littered with attacks FROM CHRISTIANS. Just because they do not do it any more, it does not mean that it is not people (and not ideas) that do the harm.


    Again with the ancient history; as if that somehow justifies, or even explains, what is happening today. So here's a challenge for you. Please post here, ANY reference within the last 5 or 10 years where a Christian has committed mass murder in the name of his religion of his God.


    Originally posted by masterp
    Indeed. One can be racist and say "I do not want to live with blacks or jews" but without wanting to kill them...but another one may want to kill all blacks and jews and proceed to do so. There is a difference.


    ...and those are two differnet ideologies: One is to kill blacks; the other simply not to mix with them. Both show intolerance but one is clearly more dangerous than the other.

    Clearly the angry riotous muslims who are burning and killing get their ideology from somewhere. Care to speculate where that might be?


    Originally posted by masterp
    Not all racists are killers; not all muslims are terrorists; not all chistians are good; not all buddhists are calm; not all americans are good, not all americans are bad; not all heavy metal music is bad, not all rap music is good etc etc.

    There goes your argument....


    Really? What do you perceive my argument is? Because I've never claimed any of the above. I think you're hoplessly lost.


    Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
    I am having difficulty folowing your logic here. Are you asking whether I care that Muslims are offended? If so; the answer is no. I could even care less. What I do care about is the violence they are commiting.



    Originally posted by masterp
    Yes. By not caring about Muslims (or anyone else) being offended, you are actually against them.


    This is absolutely absurd!! So by your logic; I perceive that the treatment of women in many arab countries is deplorable; therefore they should yield to my sentiments. For if they don't then they are clearly against me and I, therefore, have the right to burn down buildings and kill others over this issue. You are completely Bizarre!!!



    Originally posted by masterp
    Caring only about your own interests only is hypocrisy (at least), since we live on a planet that your actions affect mine and vice versa.


    Where, exactly, is the hypocracy?


    Originally posted by masterp
    How come "two clips of the boys" constitutes a study of the problem? show me a study that says "out of 100 homes, 90 homes have child abuse" and I will believe you.


    I didn't say it "constitutes a study". It's an example of an intolerant (and dangerous) ideolgy being thrust upon children. The very ideology that fans the flames of terrorism. I believe the one boy (on the right) is a future fundamentalist Mujahadeen. He is clearly being indoctrinated in this direction. You're an osterich if you see otherwise.

    BTW: I didn't see where you opined that this wasn't abuse.



    Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
    I wasn't forced. And I am agnostic; not Christian. I don't force my children to go to church and learn Christianity.


    Originally posted by masterp
    You were not forced nowadays. Some years ago, you would be forced.


    Now this is ignorance!! And off-topic


    Originally posted by masterp
    Satire means "humor". Greek word "satira" for meaningful humor.


    From www.dictionary.com:

    Satire

    1.
    a.)A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
    b.)The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

    2.
    Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

    Nothing mentioned about humor here--regardless of the Greek root. I'm not saying there is no humor in satire (there is) there just doesn't have to be for it to be satire.



    Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
    That's a question for the Muslims.



    Originally posted by masterp
    Not really. Who notified them? have you researched that?


    Muslims did. Again; that question should be posed to those angry riotous Muslims.



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:42 PM
    link   
    This is *so* funny:

    www.islamcomicbook.com...


    Oh man, I'm laughing so hard...

    [edit on 15-2-2006 by Nakash]



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Nakash
    This is *so* funny:

    www.islamcomicbook.com...


    Oh man, I'm laughing my ass off.


    You may want to edit your post. Language and that link (although funny), may be considered offensive to some. Just a heads up...



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:29 PM
    link   
    There is something going on with muslims which is causing them to want to kill and destroy. They are angry. Why? This is the question. They need to realize that they are their own worst enemy. They think they are fighting the devil, but the devil is in them. They are acting in ways that conflict with their own religion. If it's a war to win over western minds and souls, they will surely loose at this rate.



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:37 PM
    link   
    Will someone who is against the cartoon depicting Mohammad please explain why is it isOK to have these pictures of Mohammad and why is there no outrage from these:

    www.zombietime.com...


    This Iranian site contains a photograph of a mural which appears to depict Mohammed (sixth picture down) on a contemporary building in Iran. The mural shows Buraq (the animal that carried Mohammed on his Night Voyage, described as being white and having the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock, which this creature does) carrying a figure who could therefore only be Mohammed.



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ferretman2
    Will someone who is against the cartoon depicting Mohammad please explain why is it isOK to have these pictures of Mohammad and why is there no outrage from these:



    Great point Ferret, even positive images of the prophet are forbiddon. But logic clearly isnt part of this current rage. So who knows.



    posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:24 PM
    link   
    Seem's Muhammed had his own private pegasus to boot. Must be cool to be a profit:

    en.wikipedia.org...



    posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 07:14 AM
    link   
    Indian sailor beaten to death in the Cartoon War

    ptinews



    Dubai, Feb 15 (PTI) An Indian sailor was allegedly beaten to death by his colleagues on board a Norwegian oil tanker in the international waters off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE following an argument over the cartoon row.
    A fight ensued among the seamen after an argument over the cartoon issue, causing the death of one sailor, a media report said.

    Official sources confirmed the death of 31-year-old Sudheer Nonia Jagannathan, hailing from Mumbai, but refused to comment on the issue.

    "We have been informed about the death. Our officials visited the Fujairah Hospital and collected the details. The investigation is going on and once it is over, the consulate will render all the help to repatriate the body," an Indian official told the 'Khaleej Times'.



    I don’t know that there is anything that an artist can put on a piece of paper that could drive me to the point of murder…



    posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:18 AM
    link   
    BAN Islam in the WEST (or at least ban anything Islamic publicly), then any trouble that sparks up bam deported or jailed no mercy.

    I think we should shut boarders off too and not let any more Muslims in any where in the west there too many as it is.

    FRANCE riots prooves that.
    need new laws for any muslim causeing problems to be deported no mercy no marchs no riots no burning flags or even chanting, THERES FREEDOM OF SPEECH and theres INCITE TO RIOT and KILL??

    what if someone went round shouting kill kill im going to kill you thats ok with freedom of speech isit, NO its notand we know why, the same should count for muslim riots and chanting.


    JUST WAIT TILL WE DONT NEED OIL muhahahahahahaahahahahahaha middle east be all by itself then wont it....... 30 years or so and buhahahahawahahahaha i say to middle east then any trouble they cause it bam boom boom as we dont need to worry about oil then .

    [edit on 16-2-2006 by blobby]



    posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:21 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by intrepid
    I looked at this picture and thought, "Is this Photoshopped?"




    I asked my son too and he pointed out the same thing I saw, the guy on the right(not politically
    ), it just doesn't look right. He also thought that Ronald was as well but I didn't see that.


    Yep.... I'm abit of a Photoshop dude and this pic has been heavily edited.....and not very well either I might add.

    4 guys on the left have been put in and the guy on the right and Ronald as well plus more.

    I think the only thing they are achieving is making the world dislike them more and they will end up lossing out big time. There will be muslem cartoons comming out of the wood work everywhere from now on.

    And what for, over some cartoons of some fairy tail thats been feed to them....If people want to beleive in gods and stuff well good on them but they should not have to hassel people who don't give to hoots about their beliefs.



    posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:15 AM
    link   
    I don’t know if anybody has used this resource for this yet, but Wikipedia has a wonderful write up on the Cartoon War.

    Note the timeline of events, the delay from first postings to the outrage is suspect. Not the data, just the actual delay. I think this is part of a propaganda campaign of some sorts, which side I cant tell yet…



    posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:39 AM
    link   
    Muslim Cleric offers reward for killing Prophet cartoonist

    I wonder how much money he has offered for the heads of the London and New York Muslim terrorists? I mean, if cartoons offend him enough to offer nearly $40,000 US dollars for some doodles, He must be offering millions for the heads of the terrorists right? Would make sense...



    A Pakistani cleric offered a 1.5 million rupee (€28,000) reward and a car for anyone who kills the cartoonist who drew Prophet Mohammed.

    Another Islamist leader was put under house detention, amid fears of more deadly demonstrations today, officials said.

    The cleric did not name the cartoonist, and several cartoonists submitted images to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which first published them.



    Mmmm....Must be a typo or something, read the whole thing and no mention of any bounty's he has placed on the Muslim terrorists, just the ones on the cartoonists. Odd...




    top topics



     
    0
    << 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

    log in

    join