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.

 

USA's Reponse to the Muslims cartoons.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Wow, that's strange then that extremist Muslims are upset with Christians too, after all Christians aren't Pagan are they? Christians & Jews aren't considered infidels either? Weird!!??


Did you not read the other passage of the Q'uran that states that they should fight even the people of the good book? (the bible)



Originally posted by Jamuhn
You and many others continue to deny the socio-politico-economic factors that go into these conflicts, simply because it's easier just to say, "it's religion." I truly hope and am sincere that one day, people can at least try to research the major factors of such conflicts.


No Jamuh, there is a religious problem in here, I agree that Christianity was the same before the New Testament and before Jesus was born, but Jesus did not go around telling people to kill others who do not believe in their religion. That is the problem, Muhammad did go around killing people and saying to his followers to do the same.




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
no unfortunately those in the trade centers are victims just as the the rest who have been dying from these wars are. they are nothing more then collateral damage to the government...a cause to make more money off of wars, hell they may have even been behind it. i dont believe osama was.

anyway, media and government are two things that people just cant trust, mostly because big business runs the both of them.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
lol yes but dogma wasnt offensive,


By whose judgment? I know plenty of Christians who would have been highly offended at that movie!

And if Dogma wasn't offensive, then neither is a little ink on paper!



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
would you accept the idea that the act itself IS EVIL....
that to try to remove any and all those who do not share your beliefs is not acceptable in God's eyes.....(conversion is a type of removal) ??

if so, the it would be appropriate for all those who are living their lives in service to their God, regardless of religion, to denounce such acts!!!

the Islamic community took far too long to denounce these acts, and well, as a result these acts have degraded their prophet....the cartoons are only an insignificant result of the acts that they have remained silent about.....or have gone along with??? who knows.

So, those who beleive in the religion, in the prophet, they shouldn't be so angry with the cartoonists, or the media that has published the cartoons, as they should be with themselves....
they have allowed their prophet to be portrayed to the world as someone who has commanded the beheading of innocents, kidnappings, and suicide bombings......MURDER!!

if they had gone after the terrorists with the same fervor as they did the danish embassy, there would be no more terrorists!



[edit on 6-2-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
the people who would have looked for every excuse to be offended by that movie would be. but for the majority i know whats offensive about it? when did they make jesus or god look like evil murderers or evil beings? yea they portrayed some angels that way but umm hello, lucifer? chris rocks part was nothing more then the funny fact that everyone just so happened to be portrayed as white in the religion.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
You can go to Christianity also if you want and see the numerous instances where people were subjected to slavery or killed everyone who refused God.
Example, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13. Of course because of this Jews and Christians aren't inherently evil, no more than Muslims for saying the same about people who refused Allah (God).


Please explain why there aren't Christians today going around blowing themselves up and decapitating their kidnapped vicitims? Ancient history is just that--history. Proclaiming what happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago is irrelevent to what's happening today; unless your attempting to argue that Muslims are justified in their actions because of what happened in history.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
unfortunately for these people, no one else is on their side but these suicidal terrorists. im sure palestinians arent going to protest terrorists, those are the only people they have to fight against all opposition looking to take there land.

we are a fully corrupt society, and our number one goal is to spread that around the world. they dont want it...they dont have any body to fight them off though...but terrorists. you call them that, they call them freedom fighters.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the people who would have looked for every excuse to be offended by that movie would be. but for the majority i know whats offensive about it?


Hmmm, lets see... people were boycotting Disney, petitions were being signed/sent to Disney. Some people to this day do not watch Disney movies since they were the parent company behind the movie "Dogma".

Yes, people were indeed offended. No, there wasn't any rioting or murders.

Oh, and what about that other movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ"... wasn't that the name? Something about Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalen??? Lots of upset Christians, but no burnt down buildings, rioting, deaths... etc.

Btw... a quick disclaimer: I'm not religious, I'm just pointing out that other religions get upset also, but they don't go to such extremes as the Muslims do. You don't have to burn, kill, and riot in order for your voice to be heard.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Did you not read the other passage of the Q'uran that states that they should fight even the people of the good book? (the bible)


I don't think I have read it, can you point out the passage to me?


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Please explain why there aren't Christians today going around blowing themselves up and decapitating their kidnapped vicitims? Ancient history is just that--history. Proclaiming what happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago is irrelevent to what's happening today; unless your attempting to argue that Muslims are justified in their actions because of what happened in history.


Maybe one day you will realize the importance of history. After all, the present did not just form out of mid-air. Well, for the exceptions of Christians like Eric Rudolph and Pat Robertson, most Christians live in environments where culture and statehood have not and are not being threatened by globalization. That's a simple answer I know, but I can provide some more links and information for you later.

I think a lot of Muslims are justified in their actions; the academic is justified in their academic prestige; the doctor in their skill; the lawyer in their record. Which muslims are you talking about?

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
yes but what im asking is WHY were they offended? or was it just no reason and anything that reguarded their religion other then what they back is bad and offensive? i saw nothing that made any of their leaders or god look bad. what i did see was them talkin about how the writters of the bible left the black man out because of racism (i know its not true about the 13th apostle) but it does say that those people were racist. if they are made because of that then well i find that pitiful because its painfully obvious the writters would be racist, just look at the time it was created...not exactly equallity of the races.

what else was there? i didnt find anything about the angels offensive.

i guess the only thing left is that they challanged the way the bible was written and interpreted. if they are pissed about then, then way to go at being open minded (sarcasim off)

i at no time saw anything negitively pointing at it other then what ive listed.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
like I've stated on other boards.....

ummm.....what would you consider a mob of people who boarded ships and threw the cargo overboard is not terrorists....our country was founded by "terrorists"........but how many of them went around kidnapping people randomly and beheading them?? or blowing themselves up again, very randomly killing whoever was in the line of fire.

we all have to respect the idea that we don't share the same values and beleifs, and that that's okay, they don't have to be the same. and just let people live as they see fit.

by the way pork offends them also, to hear some talk, hey, even the smell of it will make them sick. are you gonna give up your easter ham dinner along with your cartoons.....

people blowing themselves up randomly killing people in the name of God offends me!! and I believe it offends the God that I believe in....I ain't giving an inch untill that has stopped!!!



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the people who would have looked for every excuse to be offended by that movie would be. but for the majority i know whats offensive about it? when did they make jesus or god look like evil murderers or evil beings?


You're not getting that you're using your own personal judgment to say what's offensive and what's not offensive for all people, when offense is a subjective matter. One man's offense is another's funny joke.

Are any of these offensive?











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



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
the first picture id like you to point out whats offensive about it, the other ones id agree are offensive. especially the last one, if that was posted in a paper there would be a big uproar...hell they nearly flipped their lid because the government didnt wanna call it a christmas tree

[edit on 6-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Now this is another case where i disagree with what the government has to say.

Cartoons are no reason to start violent revolts.


I agree with you in this one, neither is a reason to start a campaign on putting restrictions on Freedom of speech.

I feel that when it comes to been offended and be offensive is all in the eye of the beholder or whatever agenda is been pursue by the offended party.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the first picture id like you to point out whats offensive about it, the other ones id agree are offensive. especially the last one, if that was posted in a paper there would be a big uproar...hell they nearly flipped their lid because the goernment didnt wanna call it a christmas tree


NONE of them are offensive to me! Well, maybe the GW Bush one.


ALL those pictures are on the Internet free for the whole world to see.

PS. I own Dogma. My husband got it for me.




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



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
yes but i can point out reasons WHY those would be offensive....except for the first one, which id kindly ask you do do for me.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis

Originally posted by johnsky
Does anyone have a link to the cartoons that started these riots? It would be nice to see what the fuss is over.





Here is one of the "vile" cartoons............


lmao the cartoon is actually pretty funny if u ask me.......but imo this whole inccident been blown outta porportion...i really do think the whole muslim commuity needs to take a serious chill pill (extra strength)



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
edit- double post

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Big_BIRD]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes but i can point out reasons WHY those would be offensive....except for the first one, which id kindly ask you do do for me.


It's making fun of Jesus, our Lord and Savior! He's winking! He's being portrayed as a lighthearted, jolly fellow who isn't serious about salvation! Salvation is a serious and somber thing, not to be made light of! He's laughing! And his name is "Buddy Christ". They've changed the image of Jesus to some fun-loving, young, frivolous, disrespectful statue!

He's a freaking statue! What?!? It's ok to worship false idols, now?

I could go on...



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Sounds like a diplomatic answer from a diplomat that was asked a question. I doubt they could have said "no comment" in this situation. The important point is they didn't call on people to stop publishing them, just called for "responsible" journalism, nor did they endorse the Muslim reaction.

[edit on 2/6/2006 by djohnsto77]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join