|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:35 PM by jsobecky
|
Originally posted by grover
You get your news from Faux??? 
Yes, sometimes. So what?
There are indeed images of Muhammad but their faces are always veiled and the image itself is indicated by being dressed in white and
surrounded by a halo of fire...a dipicition of the actual physical features of the prophet are never shown.
I don't think that's true.
AND unless we forget religious fanatics are everywhere...lately funnymentalists here forced a show off TV (the book of daniel) because they did
not like its dipiction of Christians or Jesus.
That was an advertiser's choice. And I don't remember any embassies burning because of it, do you?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:37 PM by Odium
|
Equality?
The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of
Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.
Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle
East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to
readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.
So, is it honestly about "Freedom of Speech" or is it about something else? Do we really have the equality that people seem to be claiming? Why is
it O.K. to offend one group of readers, but not another? Why does the editor suddenly change his story?
Very odd this...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:42 PM by yadboy
|
Don't know about this site, but thought this was interesting...
From www.jihadwatch.org...
In a February 3, 2006 Friday sermon, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the
International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), and the spiritual guide of many other Islamist organizations across the world (including the
Muslim Brotherhood), exhorted worshippers to show rage to the world over the Danish paper Jylland Posten's publication of cartoons depicting the
Prophet Muhammad. The sermon was aired on Qatar TV on February 3, 2006. The following are excerpts from the sermon:
[...]
"The nation must rage in anger. It is told that Imam Al-Shafi' said: 'Whoever was angered and did not rage is a jackass.' We are not a nation of
jackasses. We are not jackasses for riding, but lions that roar. We are lions that zealously protect their dens, and avenge affronts to their
sanctities. We are not a nation of jackasses. We are a nation that should rage for the sake of Allah, His Prophet, and His book. We are the nation of
Muhammad, and we must never accept the degradation of our religion.
[...]
"The governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets - to the
prophets of the Lord and His messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places. This is so that nobody can cause them harm. They enacted
such laws in order to protect the Jews and Judaism. Like some Danes have said: 'We can mock Jesus and his mother.' They were asked: 'Can you mock
the Jews?' Here they stopped. The Jews are protected by laws - the laws that protect Semitism, and nobody can say even one word about the number [of
victims] in the alleged Holocaust. Nobody can do so, even if he is writing an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis, and discussing it scientifically. Such claims are
not acceptable. When Roger Garaudy talked about it, he was sentenced to jail, according to the laws. We want laws protecting the holy places, the
prophets, and Allah's messengers."
And this is a "moderate" according to the site? If this guy's a moderate, what are their Neo-cons of Liberal-Left like?  
So this guy thinks the UN should police international cartoonist to protect religion...brilliant!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:46 PM by yadboy
|
Originally posted by Odium
Equality?
The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of
Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.
Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle
East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to
readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.
So, is it honestly about "Freedom of Speech" or is it about something else? Do we really have the equality that people seem to be claiming? Why is
it O.K. to offend one group of readers, but not another? Why does the editor suddenly change his story?
Very odd this...
I think it VERY possible that the folks who decided to publish the cartoons had questionable reasons for doing so. But this in no way excuses the HUGE
overeaction from the people who have decided to turn the protests into acts of violence. They can protest all they want, but they should keep their
fists and firebombs to themselves.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:50 PM by Odium
|
Yadboy, we had thousands if not tens-of-thousands of people protesting in the United Kingdom - in London. Did we see mass carnage? Did we see anything
like what did happen in France? Or during the race riots of the 1980's and prior?
You can't judge everyone of them on the basis that some of them resort to violence, should we condemm everyone on the basis of what other members of
their "group" do?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:50 PM by Riwka
|
Originally posted by Odium
So, is it honestly about "Freedom of Speech"?
I think this is a good example of " freedom od press".
Of course it is on the own decison of Jyllands-Posten - a private media to decide what they will poste and what not.
I can't understand why you see a problem here, Odium.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:54 PM by Odium
|
Because, they are making it into an arguement of "Freedom of Speech" when they won't post something because it would upset some groups. It is
treating Muslim's different to Christian's and people on this forum and this thread seem to be unable to accept that this happens. Here is evidence
of the same company doing that.
Yes they have the right to, but it brings into question how much of this is about "Freedom of Speech" and not a member of the staffs own views. It
would raise a larger question in my mind if the Holocaust pictures, are also posted but the ones on Jesus won't be...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:05 PM by Riwka
|
Originally posted by Odium
. It would raise a larger question in my mind if the Holocaust pictures, are also posted but the ones on Jesus won't be...
So? Would you?
Then maybe this information is surprising to you:
Danish editor would publish Holocaust
cartoons
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Danish editor behind the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that ignited deadly riots in the Muslim world, said Wednesday that he
was trying to coordinate with an Iranian paper soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:08 PM by Odium
|
I do believe I've already posted that Riwka.
They are saying they will, the problem is what people say and what people do are not always the same. Do you not find it odd, they are willing to post
these images of the Holocaust [If the Iranian Government do have them made], willing to post images of Mohammed but not Jesus?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:17 PM by Riwka
|
No.
What is odd in that?
I am sorry, but I really do not understand your problem.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:20 PM by yadboy
|
Originally posted by Odium
Yadboy, we had thousands if not tens-of-thousands of people protesting in the United Kingdom - in London. Did we see mass carnage? Did we see anything
like what did happen in France? Or during the race riots of the 1980's and prior?
You can't judge everyone of them on the basis that some of them resort to violence, should we condemm everyone on the basis of what other members of
their "group" do?
Did I say anything implying that all the people protesting are violent. I don't think I did. You might try re-reading the post a little slower. I
made the point that I have a problem w/ the people who have turn the protests into violence. That does not imply that all people protesting have
resorted to violence.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:22 PM by Odium
|
My problem with it, is the fact this isn't based around Freedom of Press or Freedom of Speech but rather the newspaper trying to
cause problems. If they cared so much about it, they would not mind the Christians who they offended and that would have not even have been an
issue.
They are doing this for other reasons, not because they desire to show freedom of speech. I would not be shocked, if this was done to insite members
of the Islamic Faith and the idea of printing those "Holocaust images" was as a way to say "We Protect Freedom" and this caught them out.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:26 PM by Odium
|
Originally posted by yadboy
But this in no way excuses the HUGE overeaction from the people who have decided to turn the protests into acts of violence. They can protest all they
want, but they should keep their fists and firebombs to themselves.
Huge:
Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity
Of exceedingly great scope or nature
Originally posted by yadboy
Did I say anything implying that all the people protesting are violent. I don't think I did. You might try re-reading the post a little slower. I
made the point that I have a problem w/ the people who have turn the protests into violence. That does not imply that all people protesting have
resorted to violence.
By huge, it is making out as though it was a majority of the protest. The violence was a very minor part of it.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:26 PM by Riwka
|
Odium,
since you are even did not know which of the cartoons have been published by Jyllands-Posten
Did you inform yorself how it came that they printed those cartoons?
I assume, you do not know how the story around those 12 cartoon.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:28 PM by Odium
|
The story I did see, on the BBC, was that they had them commissioned for a book because no one else was willing to do the images of Mohammed. [For the
reasons which we are seeing now.]
Why, what is the story behind it?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:43 PM by Riwka
|
Originally posted by Odium
the images of Mohammed. [For the reasons which we are seeing now.]
I think you really should start to read the thread Denmark On Muhammeds Naughty List
to inform yourself aout the whole story.
The reasons "we are seeing now" are NOT the cartoons printed in the Danish media inSeptember 2005 - but a well orchestered rage by some
Danish imans around some FAKE cartoons.
[edit on 8-2-2006 by Riwka]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:50 PM by yadboy
|
Originally posted by Odium
Originally posted by yadboy
But this in no way excuses the HUGE overeaction from the people who have decided to turn the protests into acts of violence. They can protest all they
want, but they should keep their fists and firebombs to themselves.
Huge:
Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity
Of exceedingly great scope or nature
Originally posted by yadboy
Did I say anything implying that all the people protesting are violent. I don't think I did. You might try re-reading the post a little slower. I
made the point that I have a problem w/ the people who have turn the protests into violence. That does not imply that all people protesting have
resorted to violence.
By huge, it is making out as though it was a majority of the protest. The violence was a very minor part of it.
I don't think you understand the concept of an adjective. It's a HUGE "overreaction". I didn't say anything about a HUGE "majority".
Dictionary.com
overreaction
n : an excessive reaction; a reaction with inappropriate emotional behavior
Seems that fits pretty well to me. Once again, slow down and read before you respond. 
[edit on 2/8/2006 by yadboy]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 01:59 PM by Odium
|
Riwka, the picture which has caused the largest outcry from what I have seen in the U.K. was the one where Mohammed was shown to be a terrorist - this
one was printed.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 03:31 PM by LazyD
|
Why do Muslims think they should be allowed to force there beliefs on the rest of the world!?
Christians, Budhists, and the Jewish, don't do it.
It seems to me Islam is a backwards religion that still thinks it is the early centuries.
IMHO: I think all Muslims should be removed from Europe, or if they don't like it leave, nothing is keeping you there.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 03:43 PM by subz
|
Originally posted by Riwka
Yes, but if Muslims are prohibited from doing so- this prohibition does in NO case apply to non-Muslims!
Calm down, I never said it did/should apply to non-muslims.
Also there is a definate hypocrisy here. There are people locked away in jail because they voiced their opinion that the holocaust was
exagerated/faked. If you defend this Danish papers freedom of expression in printing something that offends muslims, you have to defend
everyones freedom of expression, not just those you agree with.
I personally dont find the cartoon offensive but then again our sensibilities are not the issue here, our right to freedom of expression is. Therefore
we cannot complain when people like Ahmadinejad express themselves and remain consistant with the principles of freedom of expression. Its not a hard
concept.
[edit on 8/2/06 by subz]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
