The Jewish Response To Terror

Originally posted by Jakomo
Actually, Muslims FAR outnumber Jews the world over, so the mocking of Mohammed is far more serious.

so, because there are more of them, it is more wrong? that's nonsense. freedom of speech allows nazi skinheads to speak their minds in many countries yet you don't have jews rioting and killing and burning buildings in protest. Last I checked the Koran was not the book of law in countries with free speach so a cartoon depicting mohammed is legal in those countries and, therefore, the citizens of that country must put up with the cartoon. they don't have to like it but they HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT IT IS ALLOWED. this means no rioting over something you don't like.

Originally posted by Jakomo
And the Holocaust is, like, so 60 years ago. It's a shared horror (not only up to 6 million Jews died, but tens of millions of others (Russians, gypsies, homosexuals, retarded, intellectuals, etc).

The Holocaust is an event in the past. The prophet Mohammed is someone who Muslims honor daily in their prayers.

we talk about the holocaust so that it is never forgotten and never repeated. I'm sorry if the "it's in the past, get over it" theory is one you subscribe to but in reality it is far more evil to make fun of murder (of anyone) than it is to make fun of a religous figure.

let me put it to you in a different light. Let's suppose someone broke into your home and killed 90% of your family. 60 years have passed so it's ok for me to make fun of that event, right? I mean, we can talk about the comedy of the bloodshed, the cold, emotionless way the killers slaughtered your family, right? I highly doubt it.

Originally posted by Jakomo

The Holocaust is an event in the past. The prophet Mohammed is someone who Muslims honor daily in their prayers.

Can you not see the difference? What's worse :

Me making fun of the Crusades, accusing Christians of being murderers back then, or me taking a whizz on a cross?

the drawing showed the co-opting of a so called peaceful religion. nobody wiped themselves with the koran. rather, the cartoonist was portraying mohammed in a manner that befits the image the fundamentalists are portraying. was it meant to offend? quite possibly but it might also have been trying to wake the muslim world up to the image this small, yet very vocal faction, paints regarding Islam.

If you whip it out and spray a cross, it's wrong. If you draw a picture of yourself whizzing on a cross and the cross is, say, planted in the ground in front of a building that has a sign that reads "Church Of Dubya" well, that drawing might imply that you view the presidents use of catholicism to be worthy of a urinal. that would not be so offensive to catholics who find Bush to be destroying their image of catholicism.

Crakeur:

so, because there are more of them, it is more wrong? that's nonsense.

? What exactly do you mean?

If I say something that offends 100 million people, or I say something which offends 12 people, which is the more serious insult? Is it somehow 10 times worse to insult a Jew over a Gentile? Am I missing some math formula?

I'm sorry if the "it's in the past, get over it" theory is one you subscribe to but in reality it is far more evil to make fun of murder (of anyone) than it is to make fun of a religous figure

See, we will disagree on this. I believe making fun of someone's beliefs is far far worse than insulting something worldy. But hey, maybe you're atheist.

Let's suppose someone broke into your home and killed 90% of your family. 60 years have passed so it's ok for me to make fun of that event, right?

Sure, go ahead. If I haven't come to terms with it in 60 years, I've got problems. If I base my entire life on something that happened 60 years ago, I would be living in the past.

Originally posted by Jakomo
If I say something that offends 100 million people, or I say something which offends 12 people, which is the more serious insult? Is it somehow 10 times worse to insult a Jew over a Gentile? Am I missing some math formula?

you said there were more muslims in the world so the cartoon was therefore more offensive than mocking the holocaust. Offensive is offensive. One isn't necessarily worse than the other. The fact that the mohammed cartoon is legal in the countries where the cartoon was published means it might be insensitive but it is allowed. Calling for a contest to mock the holocaust (Iran's actions) is not attempt to make a point, it is just cruel. Political cartoons have a point. Iran holding a "let's mock the holocaust contest" is childish and cruel to the survivors of the holocaust.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Sure, go ahead. If I haven't come to terms with it in 60 years, I've got problems. If I base my entire life on something that happened 60 years ago, I would be living in the past.

up until the day they both died, my brother in law's parents both still had nightmares about their long term stays in several camps during the war.

Their father refused to talk about the holocaust so the three boys never found out how the hell this man survived while his 6 brothers and sisters, his parents and all of his uncles, aunts and cousins all were murdered. After he died they had 2 years to learn as much as they could from their mother who lost a total of 29 family memebers.

so don't be so quick to assume you'd be over it.

I talk with Iranians. They all say their predisent is a hick and nut who somehow got in power. I believe them. Most Muslims aren't like that fruit.

You know, I'm a Christian, but if Southpark, or the Daily Show, or any other show makes a joke about Christians - and it's funny (or true) - I'll laugh at it. I know I'll be forgiven for it (and I don't believe laughing at a joke to be a mortal sin).

Now, since this topic is about the Jews, and I don't want to go off topic, why should they even have to have this contest? Why should 12 cartoons, printed in a Danish newspaper lead Jews to defend themselves? Why should it lead to their criticism? Honestly, if some Danish cartoonists can draw some pretty bland cartoons "depicting" Mohammed, and Jews become the target of violence and disdain over it, well, that's the Middle East in a nutshell isn't it?

Originally posted by Nakash
I talk with Iranians. They all say their predisent is a hick and nut who somehow got in power. I believe them. Most Muslims aren't like that fruit.

The American President must have shared his secret.

Edit: Spelling.

[edit on (2/16/0606 by PistolPete]

Crakeur:

Sorry, I can't see how making fun of the Holocaust and offending tens of millions of Jews is in any way worse than insulting the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

One is making fun of the murder of 6 million people, one is making fun of a religious icon, the singlemost important prophet of a religion. They’re both classless and stupid, but offending a person’s SYSTEM OF BELIEFS is far, far worse.

Make a joke to an Armenian about the Turkish massacre and see how he responds. Then insult the religion of his father, his grandfather, and all his ancestors, and see how he responds.

The Holocaust might be important, but people tend to take their belief systems pretty seriously.

jako

jakomo, we've sidetracked ourselves and it seems we've lost the point here. The response to the Iranian contest. I won't disagree that the original cartoon might not have been in the best of taste but it is allowed in the countries that printed it and it does fall under freedom of speech and freedom of press. Iran took offense to the cartoon being printed throughout Europe by announcing a contest meant to offend jews as retatliation for a DANISH CARTOON. The guy's a boob, his actions have proven, time and again, that he is a twisted, pathetic, immature figure. The response by this group of Israeli's clearly shows that, while they might not like the holocaust drawings, they are willing to accept the fact that freedom of speech and freedom of the press says that these things can be printed.

Is one worse than the other? I still think an intentionally mailicious cartoon mocking the death of millions is a bit more harmful than a drawing mocking the hijacking of a supposedly peaceful religion and its supposedly peaceful figurehead. Did the danish cartoonist know that it is forbidden in MUSLIM TRADITION to depict Mohammed? I'm guessing he didn't but I don't know.

Peace

Censorship of any kind (minus incitement to commit a crime which THIS IS NOT, people have been depicting Mohammad in both a Positive light and a Negative light for as long as Islam has existed, people seem to convieniently forget that fact) is bad period. I sense a double standard in you Jak. Maybe tomarrow I'll wear a T-Shirt depicting Mary in Hooker gear It's my right to do so and if I find a shirt like that I may just do it too. If someone tries to knock me out over it, it's THEIR FAULT FOR NOT "TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK" and it's in my RIGHT to lay charges for assault. However if I go out tomarrow wearing a T-Shirt which has a slogan on it beneath a Swastika saying to Kill the Jews / Muslims / Blacks then that is incitement. Insulting someones completely subjective belief structure is not incitement. It may be in their mind, but that is completely within their control. It's up to THEM to choose wether to protest Peacefully or Violently. If they choose the latter then it's their fault not ours. Buring down KFC's and Consulates is savagery. Starting a anti-semetic Cartoon contest is treading the line, but if they don't cross that line by calling for a "Final Solution" then it's fine by me and apparently it's fine to alot of Jews as well. I personally do not agree with the Holocaust denial laws but does that make me a denier? Hell no.

Point is there is a rather thick line between Incitement to commit a crime and Bad Taste.

Sardion:

Maybe tomarrow I'll wear a T-Shirt depicting Mary in Hooker gear It's my right to do so and if I find a shirt like that I may just do it too. If someone tries to knock me out over it, it's THEIR FAULT FOR NOT "TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK" and it's in my RIGHT to lay charges for assault. However if I go out tomarrow wearing a T-Shirt which has a slogan on it beneath a Swastika saying to Kill the Jews / Muslims / Blacks then that is incitement.

Yeah, whatever. Wear what you want. Of course, I’ll reserve my right to make fun of you incessantly, and probably laugh at you, but you can wear a Mary in hooker gear t-shirt as you want. Why would I care? Exactly why should I give a rat’s ayse about what your singular opinion is?

Of course, I would not recommend wearing it anywhere near a Southern church, because you’ll probably get shot. More of a chance if you’re non-white, too.

Of course, wearing a t-shirt that threatens violence will probably get you arrested, but you’re probably not concerned with an ACTUAL argument here.

Insulting someone’s belief is wrong. If I walk around saying Jesus was never the Son Of God, he was just some homo carpenter dude, and I spit on all he represents, then you know what? I’ll get flack. Well deserved flack. And if a Christian who has given his life and hope to the Lord decides that I am blaspheming and I deserve to get beat up, then you know what? I’ll deserve it. Because I am personally insulting what matters MOST to him in his life.

That you can’t even begin to understand this makes me think you are neither religious, empathetic, or particularly intelligent.

Of course, I would not recommend wearing it anywhere near a Southern church, because you’ll probably get shot. More of a chance if you’re non-white, too.

NO. I remember somebody in the daily show tried to go to a sb convention somewhere in the South and make wise cracks of all sorts, and nobody took it like that. Everybody invited him in and was nice to him (they didn't know he was a daily show member). We just don't do that sort of thing, it's unchristian and would serve no purpose. That's the difference between Islam and Christianity

Muslims engage in Jihad because their religion orders to engage infidels as punishment or to prevent "dishonour to Allah"

Christianity has it's members witness patiently to the most hostile individuals possible for their own good, we want them as brothers not subjects (ie: Paul and the guard while in jail, or the slave who went back to his "master" so he could be converted).

See the difference?



[edit on 16-2-2006 by Nakash]

Originally posted by Jakomo
Of course, I would not recommend wearing it anywhere near a Southern church, because you’ll probably get shot. More of a chance if you’re non-white, too.

...

Insulting someone’s belief is wrong.

Wow. I didn't even have to search, the complete hypocrisy was in the same post seporated by two lines. :shk:

junglejake: I wrote:

Of course, I would not recommend wearing it anywhere near a Southern church, because you’ll probably get shot. More of a chance if you’re non-white, too.

...

Insulting someone’s belief is wrong.

and you said :

Wow. I didn't even have to search, the complete hypocrisy was in the same post seporated by two lines.

? I somehow insulted someone's beliefs by implying that if you're BLACK, and living in the American South, you have to be more careful about who you offend than a white person would?

Um, it's the truth. Say that statement to anyone who is black and they'll say "Duh, of course." So what exactly are you implying?


jako

I'm not implying anything, I'm explicitly stating that that was a very hypocritical statement. Sardion stated that he was going to get a Mary in hooker garb T-Shirt. You explained that if he were wearing it near a southern church, he would get shot. Southern churches, typically Southern Baptist (and I'm assuming that was the intent from the proper noun "Southern" instead of geographical adjective "southern"), are especially violent when confronted with T-Shirts of the kind Saridon mentioned? Southern churchgoers are racist, as well?

So you just called a geographical or denominational group of Christians violent racists. Two lines later, you state "insulting someone's belief is wrong." Apparently, you believe that, except in the case of Christians in the southern states, because their beliefs are violent and racist.

junglejake:

So you just called a geographical or denominational group of Christians violent racists. Two lines later, you state "insulting someone's belief is wrong." Apparently, you believe that, except in the case of Christians in the southern states, because their beliefs are violent and racist.

I didn't insult their beliefs, I insulted them. I didn't say their God is a jerk, I said they are. (Well I actually didn't but I'm proving a point)

If I were to think of what region in North America has the most violent racism against blacks, I'd say the southern United States.

And I would be right.

Coincidentally it's also home to a heckuva lot of Biblethumpers. Weird, huh?

Originally posted by Jakomo
If I were to think of what region in North America has the most violent racism against blacks, I'd say the southern United States.

And I would be right.

Can you back that up with some demographics of hate crimes? I can't, I looked a bit, but came up naught. I did find a report by the US Department of Justice on hate crime, but that seemed to show an even distribution from Alaska to Georga. I'm not really sure where you're getting your information from...

Coincidentally it's also home to a heckuva lot of Biblethumpers. Weird, huh?

Just wanted to repeat that.