Have you looked anywhere besides here for a reason? How are we supposed to know why they did it?
How come you can talk about it then, without knowing?
The
Wikipedia article on it is very thorough, though. You may find some
answers there. I did.
The wikipedia article does not say anything about the reason the cartoons were published. Nor does it say anything about Rose's past, and his
connections to Russia.
Despite being amazing that no one noticed that, I will ask again: does anybody has even the slightest idea why these cartoons were published?
It's called a satirical cartoon. It's a very common thing. A picture drawn tomake a point. Not necessarily funny.
Satire is always there to raise a smile, as well as point out something. But you can disguise a whole political agenta behind a cartoon!
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?
Then if you want to freely insult others, then you must freely accept the consequences. I certainly do not want to accept the consequences, so I do
not allow myself to freely insult others.
By the way, what happened to "political correctness" in this case? or just because these are inferior muslims, there is no problem?
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?
I certainly will not burn the flag, my flag or any other flag. It was just an example in 2nd person.
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.
1) But what if I do something from those things that can make you angry? wouldn't that make you angry?
2) isn't it a little bit arrogant to say "I don't place enough value in your opinions" ? no respect for the others e?
3) isn't it a little bit 'fascistic' to want everyone on this Earth not to get angry with cartoons, just because you do?
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.
But I would not be IN your house, but OUTSIDE of your house. How is that "infringement of your rights"???
If I were [apathetic] I certainly wouldn't spend so much time here
And I certainly wouldn't be in the military!!
Being in the military does not mean you are not apathetic. I know plenty of guys in the military who don't give a flyin' f*ck about what goes on,
except for what's on the dinner table.
Again with the ancient history; as if that somehow justifies, or even explains, what is happening today.
Yes, it does. History repeats itself. Actually what is happening now with USA and Russia is exactly the same as what happened right before the
Peloponisian war, 431 BC in ancient Greece.
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.
None (maybe), but why you place this limit of 5 or 10 years? why not look at 100s of historical cases where Christians slaughtered people by the
thousands? Different cultures are in different states of advancement, and religion in the west is pretty much dead anyway.
...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.
No, there are not different ideologies. They are the same: "blacks are inferior". The reaction is different.
Clearly the angry riotous muslims who are burning and killing get their ideology from somewhere. Care to speculate where that might be?
A mixture of religious, historical, political facts and myths, blended with the right dose of conspiracy theories, as well as brainwashing from
'leaders', either religious or political.
But it is only 0.00000001% of Muslims that want to kill the others. Most of Muslims do not do so. See how the same ideology can lead to different
results?
Really? What do you perceive my argument is? Because I've never claimed any of the above. I think you're hoplessly lost.
Thanks for the kind words. You are trully incredible when it comes to debates. So let's repeat:
Your argument is that "Islam is terrorist", whereas my argument is "Muslims are terrorists". You blame the religion, and thus all Muslims, I blame
all the extremists only.
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!!!
He he, that is what I hoped you say. It is George W. Bush that said "if you are not with us, then you are with them". So, by following the
president's logic, you call me "Bizarre"!!! go blame him, not me.
Where, exactly, is the hypocracy?
The hypocricy is in using double standards: to ban public religious talks as inflamatory by law in Britain, for example, while at the same time
allowing offending muslims on the other. What 'freedom of expression' are you talking about?
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.
First of all, you confuse Islam the religion with '"Islamists the terrorists". Islam, as a religion, does not say what fundamentalist Mujahadeen
say. In many cases, many Quran paragraphs have been altered to reflect recent situations (a famous example of this is the reference to 'black gold',
i.e. oil; which actually proves my point that all religions are human fantasies - but that's another discussion).
Secondly, we can not make safe conclusions about Islam, as a religion, from one or two examples. From what we know so far, there are 2 billion muslims
on this Earth, and problems are caused by a few 100s fundamentalists.
Now this is ignorance!! And off-topic
It is not offtopic that a few decades ago people were forced to be Christians, no matter what. It is exactly right on topic. Before the west
"advanced" to the point that it is now (it's not really advanced, but at least its rich enough to cover that), Christians behaved similarly to
fundamentalist Muslims.
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.
) 
And if you don't know, look it up! And if you think I have to have the full history
before speaking about it, you are incorrect. I (and everyone here) have every right to speak about it. 
