It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 31
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by skippytjc
are they smiling because they have an excuse to destroy and kill?

Yes. It's that simple. Yes.

They have used up any sympathy they may have had.
Even the radical lefties are seeing
them for what they are.... a plague upon mankind.

There is no reason for any of this. None.
There are no excused for any of this. None.
They just want to kill and destroy.
They are either idiots or they are evil.
That's the bottom line.

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:45 AM
I almost fell off my chair:

Cartoon furor spreads to Iran bakeries
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery, they now have to ask for "roses of the prophet Muhammad."

Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners union ordered the name change in retaliation for caricatures of Islam's prophet first published in a Danish newspaper.

"This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam," said Ahmad Mahmoudi, a cake shop owner in northern Tehran.

roses of the prophet Muhammad, a sweet name for sweet pastries.


posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:03 AM

Kinda like "Freedom Fries" but only a bit more mouthful (whee, a pun

Good find

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:52 PM
The BNP is already using these protest to their advantage by including images of the offending banners in party leaflets.

All of these protests and riots are going to backfire on the muslim participants because they are resulting in an increase of support for right-wing parties who want to crack down on extremists.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:12 PM
A large percentage of Muslims will violently protest the Muhammed cartoons and remain quiet about the ongoing terrorism because like most people Christians and Jews included are very selfish. Muslims want blood for the cartoons printed about Muhammed and a cleric put a $1 million dollar bounty on the artists head, this is where Islam seems to dramatically differ from Judeo-Christian majorities. Islam is becoming from a generational standpoint very extreme, angry, and hostile towards "so-called" infidels. Luckily the 1 billion Muslims simply do not have the power to inflict any great harm on the US or other western countries, so they have riots in the street and fly planes into buildings like pathetic children.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:27 AM
In his OP/ED, published in the Wahsington Post, Flemming Rose - editor of the 12 cartoons published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten wrote:

Why I Published Those Cartoons

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant.

and furthermore, he says that in Denmark and Europe, constructive debate about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs started - in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV.

We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized.

They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them. (source)

“I believe it has become obvious that the imams [ed. Riwka: Laban and Akkari, who went with the booklet incl. the FAKED cartoons through Middle East] are not the people we should be listening to if we want integration in Denmark to work,” Rikke Hvilshøj, the Danish Integration Minister, is quoted to have said. Until now, the Imams had been recognized by the authorities as the official representatives of the Muslim community in Denmark, CFP reported.

About 2,500 Danes have expressed their will to support the network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer (Democratic Muslims) - led by Naser Khader, a member of the Danish Parliament - since the publication of the cartoons and the discussion that followed.

Moderates such as Kamran Tahmasebi say they have had enough of fanatic Islamism and its intimidation of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark.

“It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago" (source)

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Riwka]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:34 AM
Moderator Edit: We don't condone hateful remarks about religious groups or foul language for that matter.

Comments removed to prevent the entire membership from being appalled and/or offended.

[edit on 2-19-2006 by Djarums]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:58 AM
Question to ATS'niks from UK

Can one of you please provide a source to an ICM poll mentioned here?

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

(The Telegraph also provides an related article:
'The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state'

I really would like to read the ICM poll - the questions/answers, how many persons have been asked etc.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by skippytjc
Priorities I guess.

Imagine: Radical Muslim suicide bombers ravage London last year and less than 50 Muslims demonstrated against the attack in the March Against Terror last year. But today non Muslim newspapers run a cartoon depicting Muhammad and London Muslims protest by the hundreds in the streets.

I wonder when they are planning the demonstrations against Osama or Omar Bakri? Maybe they didn’t get the memo that stated mass terror and murder is more offensive than cartoons?

I mean if cartoons get moderate Muslims riled up enough to protest in the streets throughout the world, wouldnt the savage murder of thousands of civilians by demented extremists do the same? After all, plenty of Muslims died in the Twin Towers on 9/11 as well.

I simply don’t understand the logic. Actually, I don’t know if logic is involved at all…


And the controversial cartoons here:

[edit on 3-2-2006 by skippytjc]

I wonder when westerns are going to demonstrate against American genocide and attacks against Arabs and Muslims in Iraq and Afganistan? Also when are we going to see westerns demonstrate against the Israeli occupation of palestenian land from 50 years ago to date, and their slaughtering of Palestenian children and elders everyday by American made f-15, F-16 and Apatchis? While the Danish government and most western governments claim that the publication of the caricatures of prophet Muhammed, falls under freedom of opinion as guaranteed by the Danish and western Constitutions, would it respond with the same claim if a researcher had published a report on the Holocaust challenging the official opinion imposed by Jewish organizations?" Anti-Semitism is unacceptable, and the Danish caricatures would not have been published if they had depicted a Jewish rabbi, for example. Jews have succeeded in criminalizing any critical mention of Jews as anti-Semitism, subjecting anyone who engages in this to harsh punishments. One day Arabs and Muslims will have the power to criminalize any infringements on on Islam...very soon. I simply don’t understand your logic.....skippytjc...actually, I don’t know if logic is involved at all…western attiude shows deep hatred and grudge againss Arabs and Muslims, plus they use double standards when it comes to Israelis and Palestenian conflict. The bottom line is.... WESTERN ARE ARROGANT , IGNORANT AND HYPOCRITES.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:23 AM
I am very thankful as an American that as a whole Islamic nations have basically negligable resources at best. The very best that the Muslim population can do when they become enraged is riot in the street and burn a few The United States is 90% Christian, 1%Muslim, 2 % Jewish, and the remainder is non religious...we have a population of 300 million people. Ive not seen any Muslim street rallies in New York at all, they have every right to do the USA we have "Freedom of Speech and Expression". Where are they??

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:30 AM

Originally posted by beaburt
The United States is 90% Christian, 1%Muslim, 2 % Jewish, and the remainder is non religious...

Those statistics don't really sound accurate to me. 90% christian and only 1% muslim? There are many hindues, buddhists, pagens etc as well.. can you provide a source?

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:38 AM
Total Christian

Other Religious Groups




posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:15 AM

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.



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.

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.

Sarcasm (he he another Greek word - sarkasmos, coming from two words: "sarka" which means "flesh" and suffix "-esmos", which means tearing of the flesh) also means humour: sharp humour, to the degree of making the other angry.

Irony (yet another Greek word - ironia) also contains humoristic tones in it; if it did not, then it would be a bland accusation.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by masterp

The Wikipedia article does not say anything about the reason the cartoons were published.


Did you read your source?

Of course it does!

Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the conservative daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, contacted approximately 40 cartoonists, and asked them to draw the prophet as they saw him.

He eventually received twelve cartoons from different cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad.

Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims. (Wikipedia)

Originally posted by masterp

But you can disguise a whole political agenta behind a cartoon!


Related ATS links:
ATS: Denmark On Muhammeds Naughty List
ATS: Some of the cartoons inserted by radical Danish imams?
ATS: Cartoon protests turn deadly
ATS: Egypt Printed Cartoons Months Ago, Yet No One Cared

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Riwka]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by masterp
How come you can talk about it then, without knowing?

I DO know. I read about it. I gave you the source. You're the one asking about it. READ about it! It started with a children's book.

Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims. osten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy" target="_blank" class="postlink">Wikipedia

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.

And? If you already know about it, why are you asking?
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.

And frankly, I don't care who started it, if that's where you're going with this. A drawing on a piece of paper does NOT warrant death and destruction. Period. They can reply in kind till the cows come home, but the Muslim response to this drawing is irrational and extremely excessive.

Honestly? I wouldn't mind if they threw a fit and burned down their own houses, but they're taking their anger out on others' property and lives. They're the ones who have some serious consequenses to think about.

But you can disguise a whole political agenta behind a cartoon!

Yes, you can. In fact, they usually do have political intent. Political satire. Your point? That this was political? Yes, to an extent, it was. Has anyone denied that? What's your point? That there's something wrong with political satire? Since when?

Then if you want to freely insult others, then you must freely accept the consequences.

I will freely accept comparable consequences. If I insult someone, I will freely accept an insult in return. If I insult someone, and they kill somebody, that is not acceptable. That is their action, for which they are responsible.

I certainly do not want to accept the consequences, so I do not allow myself to freely insult others.

You are certainly free to choose self-censorship or not. All of us are.

By the way, what happened to "political correctness" in this case? or just because these are inferior muslims, there is no problem?

Political Correctness (or forced false respect) is incompatible with Free Speech. See my signature.

I certainly will not burn the flag, my flag or any other flag. It was just an example in 2nd person.

But the important thing is that it's your choice.

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?

1) You don't get it. Nobody can force me to get angry without my permission. Nobody can MAKE me angry. If I get angry, it's my feeling, my responsability and my choice how to respond to it. I don't blame others for my feelings. Nobody "made me" angry.

2) You may see it as arrogance, but I see it as accountability. I hold the power to my feelings and I don't give it to others lightly. A picture certainly does not have power over my emotions. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with respect.

Respecting someone does not equate with their ability to anger me. My opinion is more important to me than yours. Would you have it be the other way 'round?

3) Nobody has even SUGGESTED they want people to not get angry. Getting angry can be a very healthy response to a situation. What we're requesting is that people don't act out their anger in VIOLENCE.

You hit people when you get mad? You burn down your house when you get angry? You smack your kids around? I didn't think so. See the difference between ANGER and VIOLENCE?

But I would not be IN your house, but OUTSIDE of your house. How is that "infringement of your rights"???

If you're on my property, you are obligated to follow my rules. If you're in the street and causing a public disturbance, that is also against the law. If you're acting within the law on public property, there's not a thing I can do.

Nobody went and forced these rioting people to look at these pictures. They had to search them out. They're just LOOKING for a reason to throw a fit, burn down buildings and kill people.

[edit on 19-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:25 AM

Hundreds arrested in Pakistan over their apparent "rage" of the cartoons. Still waiting on the masive worldwide Muslim protest against Islamic terrorism...


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan Feb 20, 2006 (AP)— Pakistani security forces arrested hundreds of Islamic hard-liners, virtually sealed off the capital and used gunfire and tear gas Sunday to quell protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Authorities in eastern Pakistan had banned protests after riots killed five people in two cities last week.

Elsewhere in the Muslim world on Sunday, demonstrators with wooden staves and stones tried unsuccessfully to storm the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia, while tens of thousands rallied in the Turkish city of Istanbul and complained about negative Western perceptions of Islam.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:51 AM
Since when, in cases of political and sectarian tension, is it a good idea to meet protests with counterprotests?

And why should Muslims protest against other Muslims anyway? If anyone expected me to go out and protest something bad because "Christians" were doing it, I'd be protesting all day every day, for people who have nothing in common with me aside from a title. Even people doing things in the name of that title.

People arguing otherwise, aside from being unrealistic, are only making the situation worse by increasing the feeling that you can't just be a quiet law abiding Muslim, you have to choose sides to prove your worth.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:29 AM
Really? You'd be out there prortesting against organized Christians doing what, exactly? When is the last time we have done such things in the name of Christianity?

Who better to stand up and declare that these "militants" are hijacking the Islamic religion of peace than the Muslims who allegedly represent the real religion?
I cannot stand up and tell them that thet hijack the religion as that religion is not mine. It will have to be the members of that belief.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:50 AM
Islamic leader call for....MORE PROTESTS.


Radical Islamic leaders on Monday called for more rallies against the Prophet Muhammad cartoons in Pakistan as lawmakers disrupted a session of Parliament, protesting sweeping arrests before a banned demonstration over the weekend.

The rowdy opposition legislators forced the lower house of parliament, or National Assembly, to adjourn indefinitely after they stood up and chanted anti-government slogans. They also demanded a debate about the roundup of hundreds of Islamic hard-liners before Sunday's protest in the capital, Islamabad.

Im starting towonder where all the "modertae" Muslims are...I bet they are petrified to say anything...As they would be killed just like the West are...

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:51 AM
I say instead of bombing these Arab countries, the U.S should just drop pictures of funny/offensive pictures Islamic religious leaders and just wait for them to riot themselves to death.

new topics

<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in