Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

T-shirt Vendor Profits from Mohammed Cartoon Conflict

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


"We have to put an end to this story that we can talk to these people. They only want to humiliate people. Full stop. And what are we becoming? The civilization of melted butter?" Calderoli said.



:shk:

Again, let me insult you because someone I'm against happens to share your religion...

Apply that logic to any minority group....does it still makes sense to you?


Right there, though, he explains why he's doing it. Not to insult, but because of the reaction to freedom of expression. You're assuming he's insulting people because he's against someone of that religion. I would assume, based on his words, that he's insulting someone because that group wants to impose censorship on the media based on their cultural preferences. Why should western culture have to change to reflect Middle Eastern culture because some people are insulted by western culture?




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
His explanation was not convincing. I'd buy BH's explanation, it was well thought out, but not that Italian Minister. He wants to open dialogue by being an ass? Well I'd certainly be one of them waiting in line to talk with him


Nope, nope. It's looking like everyone who has an axe to grind with Islam is coming out and taking full advantage of this controversy. Getting less and less convinced it's about freedom of speech.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
His explanation was not convincing. I'd buy BH's explanation, it was well thought out, but not that Italian Minister. He wants to open dialogue by being an ass? Well I'd certainly be one of them waiting in line to talk with him


Nope, nope. It's looking like everyone who has an axe to grind with Islam is coming out and taking full advantage of this controversy. Getting less and less convinced it's about freedom of speech.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Right there, though, he explains why he's doing it. Not to insult, but because of the reaction to freedom of expression. You're assuming he's insulting people because he's against someone of that religion. I would assume, based on his words, that he's insulting someone because that group wants to impose censorship on the media based on their cultural preferences. Why should western culture have to change to reflect Middle Eastern culture because some people are insulted by western culture?


OK, I don't know how else to explain this, but here goes:

It's like saying its acceptable for me to use the N-word anytime I like, simply because I happen to believe a few blacks really are...

Are freakin' kidding me???





[edit on 14-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I was expecting a backlash from the Italian minister's actions. Looks like the Libyans have taken to the streets.


BBC NEWS

At least 10 people have been killed and several injured in Libya in clashes during a protest outside an Italian consulate, according to police.

Police confronted protesters who had set fire to the building in the port city of Benghazi, in the latest protests over the Muhammad cartoons.

They were said to be angry at Italian minister Roberto Calderoli, who had worn a T-shirt displaying the drawings.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has called for his resignation.

Mr Berlusconi was on the campaign trail in central Italy when he was forced to return to Rome to coordinate a response to the protests.

Speaking to Italian radio, Mr Berlusconi said the policy of the Italian government was one of respect for the Islamic religion.



You know they say that actions speak louder than words. His words totally contradict his actions. Or maybe not. Perhaps he was talking about the Italian government only, not himself.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Er...9 people died and an embassy was burned down in Lybia. Are you supporting that? Is it the Italian's fault?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Now JJ, don't put words in my mouth. You know I am against violence. I'm simply trying to point out that in a time when the situation is pretty delicate, the Italian minister's actions were akin to adding fuel to the fire, no pun intended.

Personally I don't think any of these riots have much to do with the cartoons per se. The protests maybe, but the riots? I think maybe there's something else going on, and the cartoons are just the catalyst to it.

Have you read Rasobasi420's thread, 'Are cartoons the news media’s way of maligning civil protest?' I posted two excerpts from external news sources regarding the riots going on in Pakistan. It appears certain groups have seized the opportunity presented to them because of this controversy to mobilize support for their militant causes.

I suspect that there may be similiar hidden agendas in the other countries where the riots happened. This is all still speculation, though. I'm trying to find out more about the situation in Libya, but so far all the news on that country I could find is either from international news sources that may have their own agenda or the Libyan government controlled media which isn't that informative.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I guess that's the big difference between you and I.

If I were to read on the news about a Christian burning down an abortion clinic or killing an abortion doctor, I would be very vocal at condemning that Christian. I don't care if they have a problem with abortion (as do I), I would be condemning their actions first and foremost.

In this case, it appears you're responding against, to continue my example, the abortion doctors for practicing abortion. At least, the primary focus of your posts haven't been condemning the riots, but talking about the Italians, Danes, etc. for their roles in these riots while, occasionally, mentioning that you disagree with the riots but not the protest. No real condemnation for the riots.

So, like I said, it appears this is one area that you and I differ greatly.

EDIT: I guess my focus would be on the riots, or clinic burnings/murders, with a sidenote that the protests are acceptable, instead of focusing on the protests with a sidenote that the riots are wrong.

[edit on 2/18/06/18 by junglejake]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Good points. I didn't notice that myself. Thanks for pointing it out


But I must say that example of yours is not a very good example. You are talking about an individual's act of burning a clinic. The situation now are riots involving masses of people. So the emphasis should be on the one's leading or instigating the riots.

Now if I know which groups of people are leading the riots, and who their leaders are, I would be condemning them. As it is I only know there's that nasty Danish Imam, and then there's this radical muslim leader in Pakistan that was recently arrested to prevent him from leading continued protests. I even sent in a news submission on ATSNN about that, but it looks like nobody's really interested in that... burning embassies are better news pieces. I'm trying to find out what I can on the net who is inciting the riots in Libya. Not having much luck though.

The point is, I place more emphasis on the leaders of such acts. There will always be followers. And we all know that sometimes followers can follow blindly. Heck, most times they follow blindly if the leaders are charismatic enough or the propaganda is strong enough. They are sheep and in most cases they don't even know they are being manipulated. It is the leaders that should be condemned. They should know better. Or maybe they do, but they don't care.

That is also why am vocal at criticizing that Italian minister. He is a leader. He should have known better.

As for protests, well let them. They are excercising their freedom of expression. I'm ok with that. In fact I myself protest that one particular cartoon, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
That is also why am vocal at criticizing that Italian minister. He is a leader. He should have known better.


And who's leading the riots? Are they just followers reacting to the Italian minister's statements? If so, then your condemnation should go towards Mohammed for leading these followers to such acts.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Wait, that doesn't make sense. Why should I condemn the Prophet? He isn't the one leading the riots? His teachings were that of tolerance, that of understanding. The people who are leading the riots have twisted the Prophet's teachings for their own gains.


Do you condemn Jesus for what atrocities Christians did in the past? No! Of course not, those people twisted his teachings to suit their own agenda.

So who is leading the riots? It has been determined that in Pakistan it is radical opposition leaders who are taking advantage of the situation to undermine their current govenrments. They are leading the riots, perverting the teachings of the Prophet. They are who should be condemned. They have twisted the teachings of the religion for their own political gain.

I suspect that elsewhere the situation is quite similiar to the Pakistani case.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Well, I guess what I don't understand is that if you condemn these riots, and believe the are completely contrary to the prophet's teachings, why have you been blaming the American media (on another thread), the Italian minister and the Danish newspaper and government and remaining fairly silent in the condemnation of the rioters and instigators?

If I were in your place, and I have been because some people have done some stupid things in the name of Christianity, I would be adamantly condemning of those doing the stupid things. Why? Because it's giving my faith and religion a bad name, and sending the wrong message of what Christianity is all about. Seeing that I believe my faith to be of far greater importance to myself and to the eternal wellbeing of everyone, someing corrupting the Salvation of Christ is far more important than politics. I would be condemning the leaders of the riots, and the rioters themselves because they, too, should know that Christianity is not about violence.

Yet, I haven't seen that from the muslim world, nor from the followers of the Prophet here on ATS. I've seen agreement that the rioters are wrong, then the blame game. Do you believe worldy politics are more important than defending your faith, because that's the message I've been getting.

Coming from that perspective, can you see why myself and others who believe like me (there are several on this site) would be confused by this reaction? It appears you're more concerned with saving face than defending your religion...



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
You misunderstand the bit about the media. I was just pointing out that the media is quick to point out whatever bad nonsense 'muslims' are involved in, whereas when it comes to anything good like the condemnations of these acts it doesn't get that much coverage or airtime.

The fact that you yourself have not noticed it is prove of my point. This thread by Umbrax shows muslims against such acts, in addition to peaceful protests against the cartoons. There are many others, but like I said, it's just not getting as much coverage. Nasty news makes a better lead story. And I am sure I've pointed out the bias in Arab news as well. It's similiar to that in the west, only on the opposite end of the spectrum.

And as for politics, the problem here is people already confuse the religion with worldly politics. Instead of Pakistani protestors or Libyan rioters, it's all painted with a broad brush of 'muslim' protestors/rioters. I'm simply trying to separate the two. It's more about politics than about religion, yet people keep on thinking it's the religion. It's all different states here and there.

I know that at the core of it there's nothing wrong with my religion, just as there's nothing wrong about other people's religion. What's wrong is the people from this or that region's misinterpretation of the religion. And no matter how many times I say it, people keep going back to the religion.

Now do you understand my point of view?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
You misunderstand the bit about the media. I was just pointing out that the media is quick to point out whatever bad nonsense 'muslims' are involved in, whereas when it comes to anything good like the condemnations of these acts it doesn't get that much coverage or airtime.


That wasn't the point I was making at all. I was stating that first and foremost, most vocally and most whole heartedly, I would be condemning the actions of the rioters rioting, killing and destroying in the name of my religion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your religion, I'm saying the lack of outcry by the Muslim population in regards to these actions makes me believe that, even if it's not encouraged by Islam, rioting, murdering and destroying is acceptable by Islam as a reflection of Islam.

In Christianity, I am moved to become more like Christ. My actions, as a professing and vocal believer, reflect upon that belief in who Christ is. I am, essentially, as all Christians are, ambassadors for Christ here on Earth. If the American ambassador to Bobland gets drunk and punches out the prime minister of Bobland, there is a major scandal and incident going on because that ambassador represented America.

These rioters rioting and killing, with imams giving a $1,000,000 bounty on the head of any cartoonist who depicts the prophet, are ambassadors of Islam. So are you. You are representing your religion here on ATS because you have made your religion known here. When you condemn those who depict the prophet with 95% of your words, applaud the actions of the protesters with 4% of your words, and say the rioters don't reflect what Islam is with 1% of your words, where would you place that believers priorities? When seemingly all ambassadors of that religion are doing the same, would you really think that religion condemns murder, destruction and calls for assassination? To go back to the US analogy, do you think Bobland would accept the US's apology if we said, "Yeah, sorry about that, but your prime minister never should have gotten in the way of his fist. If you didn't serve alcohol, this never would have happened. If your prime minister hadn't said the things he did to cause our ambassador to punch him out, this never would have happened. We're boycotting all of your goods. But..uh...sorry."

As representatives of our religion, we need to stand for what we believe in, and make known to people when people are abusing our religion. There should be no excuses for that abuse. When there are, it makes those outside of our religion think it's a false apology, that we don't really condemn those actions. I see a lot of "sorry but" instead of, "sorry, they are completely wrong in representing my religion". It leads me to believe, and it has lead many others along the same path, that Islam is not a religion of peace as so many are telling us. It leads me to believe that Rabia was really stretching saying Allah is love, and it makes me grateful to worship a God of love and forgiveness instead of one of revenge.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   
When did I condemn those who depict the Prophet with 95% of my words? If you have read all my post you will know that I condemn just two out of the twelve cartoons, and out of that two, only one of them I really find insulting, the other one is actually quite funny(heaven's out of virgins). What I condemn is what that one cartoon is implying, that the Prophet is a terrorist (bomb-turban). I have no problems with the rest.

If you read my posts I condemn those who are rioting or protesting violently. I have said that it isn't about Islam, and by extension it is not representative of Islam. And the protesters I applaud are those who protest peacefully and with purpose and sense. I find those who protest carrying placards that say things to the effect of "Europe your 9/11 is on it's way" or "God bless Hitler" as extremely idiotic and just doing more damage to Islam.

This is the problem. Moderates like me and those who think like me are not getting our voices heard. Or when we are heard, due to the massive amounts of coverage on the negative side it gets muffled. It even gets subconsciously dismissed, thanks to the constant bombardment of negative images. Have you read my post on conditioning?

I have been trying to get my voice heard on this matter since the day I registered. I have to say that I don't see much progress and I'm about ready to just give up. For every post that I make that condemns these deplorable acts and explain my position, I'm met with more than a dozen voices who parrot what the western MSM is implying. It's a losing battle. I have conferred with some of my fellow muslims on ATS via u2u, and we've all agreed, it's somewhat a waste of time trying to present our points here. The resistance is so great.

As such I've moved my agenda from trying to present my religion to finding out what dirty political motivations the riot leaders have. It's easier to present and I actually get an audience.

And just for the record, I agree with you, these rioters and these imams with these bounties are doing a pisspoor job at representing my religion.

I'm tired, JJ. I'm ready to move on to other topics. I've stated my position repeatedly here and there, but still people either subconsciously forget about it or just keep being being obtuse. It's gotten to the point where I actually save the links to my posts where I state my opinions because I don't feel like typing it all over again, as evidenced by this link-peppered post.

I suppose this is also why you don't see many muslims on this board voice their opinions on the matter. It's extremely tiresome to get our point across.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join