Danish cartoons pissing off Muslims again.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

The Danish cartoons were published once in a small newspaper.

Then months later, they dug them out & published them again.

Because it was f*cking topical! What the hell is wrong with that? Surely you can see that it's entirely relevant, appropriate and good practice to reproduce a picture that was the cause of the murder plot they were reporting?

I'll add that the cartoons have been reproduced many, many more times by Imams and rabble rousers than they have by western newspapers

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7247817.stm

OK, I agree with freedom of speech of course. But why are the Danes trying to stir the pot again?

At this point, folks are just protesting, yes? As much as I may disagree with their position, I want them to have that freedom to protest verbally, to gather peacefully, and to organize whatever civil response they want (they don’t even have to buy the papers).

We’re not talking about death threats (fatwas) or violence this time, correct?

"Why?" -- It’s my understanding that the Danish publishers (along w/the Wall Street Journal & UK’s Observer) decided to reprint one of the cartoons this month in solidarity and a sign of not be intimidated after an attempt to kill one of the cartoonists was discovered.

I don’t concur w/the Westboro Baptist (sic) analogy.

IM-ever-ho, a better analogy is to contrast the response to what many considered as near-equally offensive editorial page political cartoon (depicting a limbless soldier back from Iraq/Afghanistan and SecDef Rumsfeld as doctor listing his condition as “battle hardened”) that was published in the Washington Post on 29 January 2006: “A Reprehensible Cartoon” aka the “24-star” letter (pdf attached). Six men who arguably had/have access to the world’s largest arsenal of weapons responded to something they found deeply offensive with the pen.

Otoh, there was the rioting, killing, torching embassies, and calls for the political cartoonists and the Dutch publisher to be killed or otherwise subject to Sharia law in response to the 11 political cartoons of Mohammed.

Contrasting the two incidents serves as an illuminating example of one response versus something I don’t want.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

The Danish cartoons were published once in a small newspaper.

Then months later, they dug them out & published them again.

The Danes took a hard look at themselves and realized they let a bunch of violent, Islamo fascists take away freedom of the press in their own country, and now they want it back.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[nigel99 651]

Quote

Does this depiction of the Prophet Muhammad offend Muslims?

Yes cause he's got no balls

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I make no apologies for muslim protestors who preach violence.

But as for normal Muslims: I'm simply saying that maybe the way they feel about the cartoons is the way we feel when we see the Westboro group's antics.

I'm simply saying that maybe the way the Danish feel about the Muslims antics is the way we feel when we see the Westboro group's antics.

Quote

It is legal for both the Danish newspapers & the Westboro group to do what they are doing, but that doesn't mean that people who are offended by them are somehow wrong to be offended or to peaceably express that they are offended.

What the Danish newspapers are doing and what the Westboro cult is doing are both perfectly legal, but not very polite.

Both are trying (and succeeding) to deliberately piss people off.

Why do you continue to compare the Danish newspaper with the Westboro? The Danish newspaper is not protesting, the Muslims are protesting (because things offend their religion) and thus you should be comparing the Muslims with the Westboro who are also protesting (because things offend their religion).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[ROK 0]

Quote

OK, I agree with freedom of speech of course.

To enjoy freedom without discrimination of any kind, we need to tolerate that which others do when exercising that freedom without limiting them to our morals or beliefs. As soon as we forcefully impose our standards on others, we diminish that which we so passionately believe in, and fight for.

The line is drawn when the exercising of my rights, removes yours.

At the same time, using a little common sense may keep your ass from having a cap popped in it.

[skydiverton2 0]

Quote

Does this depiction of the Prophet Muhammad offend Muslims?

You will burn in hell, we will get you
.
.
.
.
big deal, free speech for all

Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habid.
.
.
Also in case you jump a sport rig!!!

[pirana 0]

Quote

Does this depiction of the Prophet Muhammad offend Muslims?

I think an important distinction missed is that offending people with ideas is not a crime. I don't see where anyone has a "right" to not be offended. It's too subjective.

If someone is offended, don't look, or don't read, or don't go, or don't participate, or don't buy. But to get all uppity shows their own narrow and ignorant mind.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley