I'd expect a US paper to bring such a carricature any day now, get the extremists to burn US embassies and thereby give an open declaration of war (burning an embassy certainly is that) so the Iran invasion plans can be executed.
You're probably right PaK. Still, but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow this kind of sheer madness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4684474.stm
It gives me the fucking creeps to think this was tolerated on British soil. It's a remarkable testament to tolerance in the west that the British police stood by and let them wave banners with that kind of content.
Can you imagine a bunch of angry westerners in the Middle East chanting and waving incitements of murder of muslims? Jeez, they'd be lynched in minutes and die a horrible death in the streets by a baying, frenzied mob. That's what freaks me out. The thought process behind Islamic extremism seems so violent and savage. I don't get how they justify it in their own minds.
1) Women rights ARE respected! Not a single verse of the Quran states that the women have to wear a mask. It only says they have to wear respectable clothes!!! That's all! I mean wtf go travel, see the world and never trust everything national geographics channel shows you.
2) Muslims will soon be something like 1.6 billion, the Tv only shows you the wrong 1%, and they don't talk about honest people who struggle to get a couple of dollars a day and live their life according to their fate without bugging any one.
3) Muslims are not bad people most of them are just like you and a fate can't determine the way you behave. It's all up to you.
4)As Mop says there should be no difference about freedom of speech and respect. If you don't use your freedom of speech to respect people why the fuck do you open your mouth for...
5)Pak has a point there, nowaday muslims has the same bad reputation as jews and communists had. WW2 hasn't started in a couple a day with Hitler spraying all his tons of absurdities about arian race and stuff.
Jews were bashed since a long time before this, the nazi party was just the final trigger to the Shoha.
Try to keep your head cold and understand every point of the problem before talking meaninglessly, Hatred attracts Hatred how can you hope that someone shows you respect if you're taking him for a brainwashed crazy killer...
6) "What's really hurting me, the name Islam is involved, and Muslim is involved and causing trouble and starting hate and violence. ... Islam is not a killer religion. ... Islam means peace, I couldn't just sit home and watch people label Muslims as the reason for this problem."
* from "Muhammad Ali Defends His Religion."
Well so I said what I wanted to say, I know I can't change the world with this few lines, but I'd really I planted a seed in your mind that'll let you think about the problem more seriously and not like the average fox news audience
I bet they'd get away with that shit in Canada. We just roll over when culture clashes get heated.
Most of the poeple I meet and speak to on a day-to-day basis seem so shocked that isolationism wasn't a permanent solution.
"but isolationism worked so well in the past? What went wrong?"
Now what I'm hearing in response to this cartoon dealie is "democracy will solve everything. It will just take time for the Arab people to figure that out"
It has less to do with freedom and democracy and more to do with years of festering rage. It doesn't matter who's responsible; mob mentality just looks for the most vunerable target. Trying to make sense of it all is the wrong approach to understanding this mess. It's not logical or fair...it's reactionary.
Good points Ramucho. Btw, I want to make it clear ( and If you re-read my posts I think it is ) that I was talking quite specifically about *extremism*, and not Islam per se.
[ QUOTE ]
The thought process behind Islamic extremism seems so violent. I don't get how they justify it in their own minds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Simple... they don't. When one's beliefs are based on faith in a rigid religious dogma -- rather than truth -- one tends to ignore any rational justification (or lack thereof) for one's own actions. It's a symptom of nearly all forms of fundamentalism, and not just Islamic extremism. It's a strange aspect of human behavior that I don't quite understand, since I was raised in a pretty secular environment (without any theistic or atheistic biases).
Don't worry Daz I just wanted to make everything clear once, extremism is a bad thing, it's just a way to unleash all your life frustration, and being part of a group just makes you think more confident about your stupidity.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
i dont get it either, no religion i can think of is ok with killing others. No one has the rite to kill another human. Thats why we as humans use dissociation of others we want to hate and kill. Do you want to walk around and shoot people because they are wearing green? Would you be ok with doing that, knowing that they have lives and people who care about them. No, or atleast you shouldn't. Now if you told yourself that every person in green was a deamon that had killed hundreds of children that wouldnt be so hard to do. Now if you had a loved one that had been killed by someone wearing green, you wouldnt even think twice before pulling the triger.
Thats where extremists sit daz, were are not human to them just deamons that should be killed. The religion part is the glue that holds them together, and tells them they are doing the rite thing because its on their side. As for them not folowing the rules of the religion. Well no one really does that, yet they all think they are good and holy.
I remember a girl telling me i was going to hell because i dont belive in god, and how she was going to heaven and all that jaz. Thing is she was the girl who every guy had sex with. In her mind the part where it says its a sin to have sex before your wed didnt apply to her.
So dont blame religion for wars, they all say not to have them. Blame your genetics because were made to wage war. We want what we have not there for we wage war.
To me all extremists are alike, all of them are facist scum that suffers from some kind of insanity. That does not mean that I go around shooting skinheads but it means I do support locking them up if they seem to pose a threat to society (as someone who calls for murder certainly does). These guys are trying to recruit people to brainwash and turn into loyal sheep that then proceed to spread even more FUD. Contagious insanity.
Additionally, those extremists are supreme idiots, they talk big about waging war and killing all westerners when there's a military superpower deadset on conquering their country and just looking for an excuse to do so. They think because they caused the west so many losses in previous wars that they'd have a chance in an all-out war. They don't think about stuff like westerners trying not to harm civilians. But that's the reason why noone used nuclear weapons, why nobody just put cities under artillery fire until there's nothing left (I think the Russians love doing that in Chechenia), why we don't wipe out entire cities because they might be hiding terrorists.
But no, they go on and on about how they're going to kill all of us, how we're the devil's spawn, how we oppress them. They're waving around words like "holocaust" when they don't even know what that really means.
And I'm pretty sure someone with a sign proclaiming a new holocaust would be lucky if he survived the trip to the hospital 'round here.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a better comparison than leaping to the extreme of Jesus murdering and raping, though didn't South Park have jesus go on a gun toting killing spree at one point?
Hi all, firstly I am a Muslim and wish to put across my view point on this situation.
Was the Danish newspaper company that published the caricatures exercising free speech?
In my opinion, they were not. However, what it was an attempt at was to exercise the right to insult a group of people freely without the backlash of confrontation that usually comes with insulting people.
As someone has already pointed out free speech is the ability to express your opinion freely about issues one may have that are off concern to them. However, even within free speech there are limits as to what can be said.
If the articulated point does not attempt to encourage debate but rather leads to argumentation and confrontation because the articulated issue is in fact more of an insult than it should not be said.
To me this is what is important. In Islam there is nothing prohibiting the questioning of why one should not make images of the prophet Muhammad. Therefore, if the newspaper company wished to make a point they should have done it in a way which would have encouraged intellectual debate.
For example, lets say there was some Nazi guy who has a problem with Muslims, and he has some genuine concerns about Muslims. Now he can either engage these Muslims through non offensive dialogue, and yes, the points the Nazi may have about Muslims is probably going to be offensive in essence because they are probably supported by ignorance, however what is crucial is that because the way in which the issues are articulated (not using derogatory or offensive language) would encourage debate, so the natural response for the Muslim would be to engage the Nazi through dialogue.
However, if the Nazi was to articulate his point as thus, why is it all you sand niggers blowing things up well, the natural response to this would be an aggressive response because the language used, although highlights an issue, does not attempt to encourage debate but to insult the other.
Both are forms of free speech, however, must be articulated in a way that will not cause offence but DEBATE! This is what is crucial, the issues a person has must be articulated in a way to encourage debate. There is nothing wrong with a Nazi having issues about Muslims so long as that Nazi attempts to do it in a way that will encourage dialogue.
This is fundamentally the key problem with these caricaturess that were made. The language of caricatures are by nature meant to offend. Yes we can defend it by saying oh but this is just someone making harmless fun. Well I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. We are supposed to be civilized human beings. Yes we all have differences, but ultimately we must try to respect one another. And that goes for extreme Muslims too. Both sides need to learn to love one another and dialogue with one another a lot more.
Anyway, I hope that kind of makes sense. I also have problems articulating points not the most intellectual person. So I hope you can understand my point.
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means. Yeah ninja its so easy to learn, why don't you just stop being lazy and do all that stuff...
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about thier brand Islam. Here are some opening lines that seem to work well for those interested in trying to learn more about this brand of Islam:
- "Pardon me, "Mr Seething Ball O' Rage" can I sit down and have a theological discussion with you that doesn't end in my death?
- "Might I get a copy of your holy teachings in my language so I can better understand you? Hello, did you hear what I said?"
- "Can you stop shooting long enough to let me ask a question? All this noisey gun fire makes it hard to talk"
- "Do you think you can put the duffle bag of TNT down, I have a few questions"
The problem is every time we find a fundementalist who might be able to answer the questions we have, they are in a bah-zillion little pieces, and they flip the switch not any of us. If they really wanted me to understand them they would be trying to teach me instead of kill me.
They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[This was fustrated humor, feel free to rage agaist my post as you see fit. It's a message board if it helps you get it all out without killing someone then I have done my job =P]
EDIT: I was working on this post the same time Hawk posted so I didn't get a chance to read it yet. Thanks for the info, I am reading it now
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means.
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about Islam. They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry my friend that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.
[ QUOTE ]
This is fundamentally the key problem with these caricaturess that were made. The language of caricatures are by nature meant to offend. Yes we can defend it by saying oh but this is just someone making harmless fun. Well I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
[/ QUOTE ]
caricatures are meant to be taken in fun. maybe it's just a western thing, but we've got this history of taking the piss out of ourselves and others. i find a horde of religious nutcases burning flags and demanding for mass executions far more insulting than a drawing. and heres jesus getting a blow-up doll for christmas from battle pope
Remember how long the Catholic church prevented translations of the Bible? It's about control and those extremists don't act in any form of faith, they do that to deceive those who believe but are blinded by hate and make them loyal slaves. Isn't that what priests usually say the devil does? Take those who bear evil in their hearts and abuse them to take over the world?
EDIT: I was working on this post the same time Hawk posted so I didn't get a chance to read it yet. Thanks for the info, I am reading it now
[/ QUOTE ]
You have to understand it from this angle too m8. Many Muslims feel that the western world in hell bent on seeing the destruction of Muslims. That is their perception. In my opinion many of these protests are a little bit of an over reaction, however, inevitable because of the western worlds treatment of Muslims. Fort example, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has lead to thousands of civilian Muslims being killed and possibly Iran will be next too. Furthermore, the kidnapping of Muslims by American secret services and taking them to parts of Europe for interrogation that will lead to torture and then we have guantanamo too. Muslims feel they cant dialogue with the west because the west have no interest to do so, and as I have said an aggressive response will inevitably lead to a counter aggressive response.
There are many Muslims that I know of who truly desire for peace and wish to engage non-Muslims through intellectual debate, but it is hard to do so because most of the dialogue tends to be very insulting.
I think both side are very ignorant of each other. And this is the fundamentally the sad thing about it. Unless both sides break their ignorance of each other, and begin to think of each other as human beings than we may achieve results. Not sure m8.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means.
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about Islam. They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry my friend that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was sarcastic fustrated humor and I didn't mean to make it sound like all muslims where that way. I have talked to a few friendly muslims the type that are open to questions and they had a few vauge answers but basiclly shrugged and said "they are crazy and desperate what do you expect"
I have tried to research the subject a few times and I always end up with more questions than answers. It always seems the only people who can truely answer my questions are inacessible to me. It's GREAT to have you here, I am finally getting some good info! I have to head off to work now but I'll try and check back and post when I can.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is fundamentally the key problem with these caricaturess that were made. The language of caricatures are by nature meant to offend. Yes we can defend it by saying oh but this is just someone making harmless fun. Well I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
[/ QUOTE ]
caricatures are meant to be taken in fun. maybe it's just a western thing, but we've got this history of taking the piss out of ourselves and others. i find a horde of religious nutcases burning flags and demanding for mass executions far more insulting than a drawing. and heres jesus getting a blow-up doll for christmas from battle pope
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it may be poking fun. However, the person must be aware of the sensibilities of the person they are making fun of. There are different forms of humour. And obviously Muslims do not find western humour amusing; therefore it is important for that person to be culturally aware of what the effects will be by poking fun at someone who may not consider it to be fun. If it will lead to a negative response such as what is happening now, then it is better to avoid.
As I have said we all have a poor cultural understanding of each other and need to develop these further.
[ QUOTE ]
Jeezus depicted as a white man, no one blinks. Draw a picture of Moohamud, and everyone gets all dirka dirka.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that does not serve as an excuse to make fun of Muslims. Just because one group of people do not mind to have their god or prophet made fun of. Does not mean everyone else will be as willing. In my opinion it was poor judgement on the Danish newspaper. Maybe they need to catch up more on world issues so that they better understand the current situation of the world and what effect it would have by publishing such caricatures.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means.
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about Islam. They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry my friend that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was sarcastic fustrated humor and I didn't mean to make it sound like all muslims where that way. I have talked to a few friendly muslims the type that are open to questions and they had a few vauge answers but basiclly shrugged and said "they are crazy and desperate what do you expect"
I have tried to research the subject a few times and I always end up with more questions than answers. It always seems the only people who can truely answer my questions are inacessible to me. It's GREAT to have you here, I am finally getting some good info! I have to head off to work now but I'll try and check back and post when I can.
Free speech is free speech. In the USA we often refer to a quote by Voltaire (French author, not an American talk show host ...) "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "
The free exchange of ideas and opinions is a necessary part of a mature, developing culture. That means, for better or worse, everything is on the table, including being able to offend people with those ideas and opinions. Free speech is not necessarily a part of "democracy" it's a part of cultural maturity.
The proper response to an insulting caricature is NOT to burn down the embassy of the country(ies) that are home to the newspaper that published it or demand that an entire nation apologize for the opinions of one or more citizens. Asking for an apology is acceptable. Applying economic pressure against the publisher is acceptable (American Christians do that all the time ... and it works ... no riots, no burnings, no deaths). Publishing mocking caricatures of the offenders is acceptable. These are all the reasonable responses of people ready to be citizens of the 21st century.
Regardless of whether or not there are hundreds of millions of believers in Islam who do NOT burn embassies, or riot when ever they feel offended, those who do are the visible representatives of the muslim culutre. The violent Islamists are the face of Islam that the world sees.
If the peaceful followers of the Prophet want to make the world believe that they are not a religion of hate-filled rioters and terrorists then it is they, not the rest of the world who needs to do something about this situation.
[ QUOTE ]
Or example, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has lead to thousands of civilian Muslims being killed
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't find the Iraq war particularly good thing, but from a muslim point of view you should be SO happy that Saddam doesn't butcher 75'000 muslims per year anymore. The numbers vary strongly since you won't find any information about his victims in governmental files.
Check the bodycount of the Iraq war for a comparison. Sounds like a dishonest argument to me if you argue only with the number of deads, western people bring upon muslims.
[ QUOTE ]
Free speech is free speech. In the USA we often refer to a quote by Voltaire (French author, not an American talk show host ...) "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "
The free exchange of ideas and opinions is a necessary part of a mature, developing culture. That means, for better or worse, everything is on the table, including being able to offend people with those ideas and opinions. Free speech is not necessarily a part of "democracy" it's a part of cultural maturity.
The proper response to an insulting caricature is NOT to burn down the embassy of the country(ies) that are home to the newspaper that published it or demand that an entire nation apologize for the opinions of one or more citizens. Asking for an apology is acceptable. Applying economic pressure against the publisher is acceptable (American Christians do that all the time ... and it works ... no riots, no burnings, no deaths). Publishing mocking caricatures of the offenders is acceptable. These are all the reasonable responses of people ready to be citizens of the 21st century.
Regardless of whether or not there are hundreds of millions of believers in Islam who do NOT burn embassies, or riot when ever they feel offended, those who do are the visible representatives of the muslim culutre. The violent Islamists are the face of Islam that the world sees.
If the peaceful followers of the Prophet want to make the world believe that they are not a religion of hate-filled rioters and terrorists then it is they, not the rest of the world who needs to do something about this situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
Can I ask if I called your mum a crack loving whore (which she is not) what would your honest natural response be? If I had some concern about your mother would it be right for me to have articulated it in that way?
The only way two people of different ideas can exchange their ideas and opinions, and although each may have a negative view of each other is through debate ONLY! If the methodology of articulating those issues and concerns you have for each other does not lead to debate, but argumentation and confrontation then what is the point? I think many people have a naive understanding of what free speech truly means. Free speech is not about saying what the hell you feel like, but having the ability to express concerns and issues without being cut to bits for doing so. I think free speech today has evolved into something that it originally was not meant to be, which is open season to say any nonsense to anyone and not expecting an aggressive response.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or example, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has lead to thousands of civilian Muslims being killed
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't find the Iraq war particularly good thing, but from a muslim point of view you should be SO happy that Saddam doesn't butcher 75'000 muslims per year anymore. The numbers vary strongly since you won't find any information about his victims in governmental files.
Check the deathcount of the Iraq war for a comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
But was that truly the intent for the war? Either way I have no desire to go OT.
Doesn't matter if you argue simply with the bodycount. But even if it would: Would you rather have killed thousands of muslims than having someone reduce the bodycount for the wrong reasons?
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how he's contraticting himself. Freedom of speech is exactly as it states, it's the freedom to SAY anything you want. If a statement is directed at you, even as an insult, you have the freedom to SAY something back. He's just suggesting that it should be kept civil rather than the way it's currently being handled.
If you insult my mom, sure I'll get pissed. I'll probably insult your mom back, or insult you personally. I'm not going to hit you over it.
Words can lead to actions, which is why people should use common sense with their speech. That is where this whole situation has gone wrong, a break down of common sense.
[ QUOTE ]
Can I ask if I called your mum a crack loving whore (which she is not) what would your honest natural response be? If I had some concern about your mother would it be right for me to have articulated it in that way?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would think that you were a fucking idiot and never speak with you again. Would I attack you or burn down your house? No. Violent protest does not, as I see that you are fully aware of, work. It only cemets a view of someone as prone to harm others and unreliable.
I very much agree with you that dialog is the only way to solve issues, but since extremists of all kind believe that they are right no matter what, violence is just a natural and unfourtonate effect. You can't reason with someone who tries to bash your face in. This conflict will hopefully not reach that level, but since one boy has already died so far, I'm not very optimistic.
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how he's contraticting himself. Freedom of speech is exactly as it states, it's the freedom to SAY anything you want. If a statement is directed at you, even as an insult, you have the freedom to SAY something back. He's just suggesting that it should be kept civil rather than the way it's currently being handled.
If you insult my mom, sure I'll get pissed. I'll probably insult your mom back, or insult you personally. I'm not going to hit you over it.
Words can lead to actions, which is why people should use common sense with their speech. That is where this whole situation has gone wrong, a break down of common sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
But that is the point, the potential is only to lead to insults which is not healthy. And I disagree, freedom of speech is not as simple as being able to say what you want. Even in freedom of speech there are limits. To say what you want, i.e. insults is a naive view in my opinion. You have to remember we are supposed to be civilized human beings. The realm of insults is for the uncivilized, and debate is for the civilized.
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that the newspapers were trying to get across is that they have a right to print whatever they want even if it is offensive. You can call my mom a crack whore all day, because THAT IS THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH! I can't sue you, and if I attack you you can use leathal force to defend yourself.
You see, they are just words. Insulting people IS defended in the constitution as "free speech". I don't understand what you don't get. The government has no say in what a newspaper prints, which is why the government can't appologize for it. If you want to print a newspaper in the US of buddha eating his own shit, GO FOR IT! That is what is so great about the US. We don't have to get all pissed off about everything.
There are plenty of Muslims who are my countymen and I think that is great. I also agree with Pak, that this was probably just the last straw. Even still, there is no justifying it.
[Edit] I just read that last post ahead of mine, and of course, civil people debate, but guess what! I have the freedom to be an asshole! Maybe people living under tyrany can't understand why I wouldn't be an asshole all the time if I didn't have the government ready to destroy me. I'll tell you why. It is because I am reasonable. And in my opinion, being reasonable by nature is a lot better than being forced into it.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with civilized or uncivilized. There is no limit to freedom of speech from a legal aspect. The limitations are moral limitations. Morally, I know not to use my freedom of speech to spew hate towards others. Morally, I know that I shouldn't insult someone, especially if I don't intend to anger them. That is where the common sense comes in that I was refering to.
I'm not saying that it was acceptable to print these comics, I'm just saying that it IS allowed under freedom of speech... at least the way it's handled in the U.S. I think it's ignorant for someone to do something like that and not apologize for it after anger. But what I think is more ignorant is to riot over it. The person that made the statement/comic isn't suffering, everyone else is.
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that the newspapers were trying to get across is that they have a right to print whatever they want even if it is offensive. You can call my mom a crack whore all day, because THAT IS THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH! I can't sue you, and if I attack you you can use leathal force to defend yourself.
You see, they are just words. Insulting people IS defended in the constitution as "free speech". I don't understand what you don't get. The government has no say in what a newspaper prints, which is why the government can't appologize for it. If you want to print a newspaper in the US of buddha eating his own shit, GO FOR IT! That is what is so great about the US. We don't have to get all pissed off about everything.
There are plenty of Muslims who are my countymen and I think that is great. I also agree with Pak, that this was probably just the last straw. Even still, there is no justifying it.
[Edit] I just read that last post ahead of mine, and of course, civil people debate, but guess what! I have the freedom to be an asshole! Maybe people living under tyrany can't understand why I wouldn't be an asshole all the time if I didn't have the government ready to destroy me. I'll tell you why. It is because I am reasonable. And in my opinion, being reasonable by nature is a lot better than being forced into it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well anyway, I have a lot of work to do today and cant be side-tracked, I will check up on this thread a little later. But I think you are missing the point. Dont you think it is a hypocritical statement for one to assert that they are a tolerant and civilized group of people when they behave the opposite? Yes Insults is a form of free speech. However, those that use Insults as a way to express their concerns are uncivilised in my opinion. Unfortunately we live in a world filled with a great many pseudo intellectuals...how sad!
[ QUOTE ]
...Don’t you think it is a hypocritical statement for one to assert that they are a tolerant and civilized group of people when they behave the opposite?
No one was arguing that these statements were civilized, they are just saying that it's part of freedom of speech. I understand what you're saying, and I'd love everyone to be more civilized. Unfortunately, it seems too many people these days are uncivilized. I think the point most people in this thread were making is, it's more uncivilized to riot over a statement/drawing. Both actions were uncivilized, but at least the artist's actions didn't kill anyone (directly).
[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with civilized or uncivilized. There is no limit to freedom of speech from a legal aspect. The limitations are moral limitations. Morally, I know not to use my freedom of speech to spew hate towards others. Morally, I know that I shouldn't insult someone, especially if I don't intend to anger them. That is where the common sense comes in that I was refering to.
I'm not saying that it was acceptable to print these comics, I'm just saying that it IS allowed under freedom of speech... at least the way it's handled in the U.S. I think it's ignorant for someone to do something like that and not apologize for it after anger. But what I think is more ignorant is to riot over it. The person that made the statement/comic isn't suffering, everyone else is.
[/ QUOTE ]
I dont wish to be rude m8, but dont you think that is a contradiction? You say it has nothing to do with being civilized or uncivilised but it has to do with moral limitations? Hmmmm ..The moral limitation is what determines whether we are being civilized or uncivilised m8. Yes in essence, free speech literally means say what you want, but because we are civilized human beings and live according to particular morals we do not go around spewing hate and offending people to make a point. A civilized person with morals would rather engage in an intellectual discussion.
I said FREEDOM OF SPEECH has nothing to do with civilized or uncivilized. It is a right given to everyone in this country. The civil and uncivilized relates to what is morally right to say. You still have the right to say it. It's not against the law to say something that is uncivilized. That is why it is unrelated.
You seem to be misinturpreting everyones statement to fit your point.
[ QUOTE ]
No one was arguing that these statements were civilized, they are just saying that it's part of freedom of speech. I understand what you're saying, and I'd love everyone to be more civilized. Unfortunately, it seems too many people these days are uncivilized. I think the point most people in this thread were making is, it's more uncivilized to riot over a statement/drawing. Both actions were uncivilized, but at least the artist's actions didn't kill anyone (directly).
[/ QUOTE ]
According to that logic then we cant really blame Saddam for ordering the deaths of thousands because he merely gave the order rather than doing the dirty work himself. Sorry a little bit of an extreme example I know, and probably a poor example too, but am in a rush , but the point is that yes the artist did not do anything violent, however, his work sparked that violence, therefore, he is just as accountable as the one throwing the petrol bombs at the doors of the Danish embassies. If that person who drew those pictures was more culturally aware of how offensive such images are then I am pretty sure that artist would think twice about drawing those images. As I said there are far too many pseudo intellectuals in this world.
[ QUOTE ]
I said FREEDOM OF SPEECH has nothing to do with civilized or uncivilized. It is a right given to everyone in this country. The civil and uncivilized relates to what is morally right to say. You still have the right to say it. It's not against the law to say something that is uncivilized. That is why it is unrelated.
You seem to be misinturpreting everyones statement to fit your point.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I am arguing that there are limits to free speech and we should not take it literally because you dont have the right to spew hate. Maybe free speech needs to be redefined for all the pseudo intellectuals dont you think m8?
I think the entire thing sums up the fundamental problem amongst radical Muslims and why they are at odds with the west.
Offensive political cartoon gets written. Lets burn down the embassy. Westerners view that as an extreme overreaction. Apparently Muslims do not.
I'm fairly certain that the US would not have a presence in Afghanistan or Iraq had 911 not occurred. Most Americans hadn't given the area much thought until then, and the US government wouldn't have been able to, or cared to, commit those kinds of resources unless they were given a reason.
Until radical Muslims learn that blowing up innocent people(in westerners view, or not so innocent in their view), they will *never* get what they want. All they will get is more pain and death. They just have to accept that the United States will *never* give in to terrorist demands. Ever. Once they do so, and eliminate the ridiculous "jihad", then something can be done to coexist peacefully.
But they have to stop killing innocent people first. All they have done thus far is kicked a very angry bear who was looking for a good excuse to crush them. If they keep it up, they will get their wish.
Do you even know what a pseudo intellectual is? I mean, I'll put my educational credentials up against yours any day of the week. What is your degree in? What is your IQ?
I agree with what Irritant said. Americans have peaceful co-existance here of many religions already. We aren't againt muslims. It is the muslim fanatics that are against us, democracy, (obviously judging from what Hawk is saying) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and Hollywood.
Really, I think the problem for them is that a large portion of the middle eastern population wants these things, and the fanatic minority sees that as "corrupting western influence". So they attack us for planting the seeds of progress and hope.
[ QUOTE ]
... but the point is that yes the artist did not do anything violent, however, his work sparked that violence, therefore, he is just as accountable as the one throwing the petrol bombs at the doors of the Danish embassies. If that person who drew those pictures was more culturally aware of how offensive such images are then I am pretty sure that artist would think twice about drawing those images. As I said there are far too many pseudo intellectuals in this world.
[/ QUOTE ]
I finally got a chance to see the comics the other day and was kind of shocked by how tame they were. Had I not know about all the uproar about them I wouldn't have given them a second glance. I have a feeling that the artists didn't think that would have been as poorly recieved as they are.
Hawk (and others): Even in the USA, Freedom of Speech rights do not excuse us from the consequences of our actions. Libel and slander (respectively printed and spoken expression that damages another person ... note that in this context, the Prophet would not likely be considered to be a person who could file charges) can be acted upon in civil court and damages requested as compensation.
Were you to insult my mother, then you would recieve the reasonable consequences for your action. In that circumstance, I might just response with an expletive, tell you what you could do with your opinions and ignore you thereafter. Even if I were an angry, impulsive man, those consequences might be to strike you. What would be wrong would be for me to ask for your home country to apologize for insulting my mother. It would be wrong for me to burn your house down for insulting my mother, or to make death threats against you and your family because of it.
I think the point that I and others are trying to make is even if you ARE insulted by these cartoons, the responses we are seeing in these Islamic nations and from some Muslims living in western nations are totally out of line with the offense.
Forbidding muslims to depict the Prophet in art may be a part of the Islamic faith, but if I read the INTENT of the scripture correctly, it is to prevent the BELIEVER from focusing on Mohammed the man as a potential object of worship and thus distract the believer from the worship of God. My question, to be blunt, "Has the emphasis on the non-depiction of the Prophet in this situation become a distraction that is doing exactly the opposite of the intent of the scripture?"
Ninja's...The Hamas was *voted* into power. That's the 'majority' speaking right there.
The assumption that the majority wants what western culture has is just...well it's not true.
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't againt muslims. It is the muslim fanatics that are against us, democracy, (obviously judging from what Hawk is saying) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and Hollywood.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got to look at it from a different perspective to understand where this violent backlash stems. Western culture is interested in the middle east oil resource and as a result destabilizes the region. In my opinion, that's the root of the problem.
Selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq during a 10 year war...these are the real reasons Muslims are so pissed off. Turning someone's home to rubble, blowing up a pakistani town cuz "oops! we thought terrorists were lurkin' round."
These cartoons are just the last straw. So don't come off like we're guilty of nothing, cuz it's short-sighted and naive.
Dunno, I've heard claims that the fanatics gathered some much worse depictions and toured the lands, pretending that what they showed there was what the paper printed after noone cared about what the paper really showed...
Either way, those fanatics are a severe threat to peace and the lives of everyone down there. I really think the local authorities should incarcerate them for inciting riots. That's a police job and if they do nothing it could be argued that they silently support these riots.
You can call my mom a crack whore all day, because THAT IS THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH!
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh but you could sue, its called slander =P If you research free speach and its roots you find out that in the US it means you have the right tp peacefully assemble and list grievances agaist the goverment without fear of repisal from the goverment. It has twisted and morphed into something else thanks largely to porn and the music industry.
This modern idea that you can stand on a street corner shouting hate messages or whatever you want, at the top of your lungs and not having any concequences for your words or actions, is mostly wrong.
I view the cartoons as the bratting younger brother in the back seat of a car with his finger inches away from his older sisters eye. All the time he is shouting "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you". The sister is yelling, "MOM he's poking me!". The parents are driving on down the road oblivious to what is going on. Both are being annoying, neither is right and both need to button thier pie holes.
The parents need to be parents to step in and tell the kids to be quite. The religous leaders need to not fan the flames and the goverments need to pressure but not restrict the press to stop printing inflamitory things. Maybe they can post them on web where you have to register and log in to see them? But then that doesn't sell papers does it...
Pak, I'm not saying that the US is the truth and the light. Of course we shouldn't be over there at all. On the other hand, if it weren't for the US buying so much oil, they would still be living life as nomads in the desert. Aramco was built by Rockefeller.
As far as Hamas is concerned, I was of the understanding that it was more of a vote against the existing regime than a vote for Hamas. Of course, I'm not over there talking to the man on the street. All I know about it is what I hear on NPR. I'm sure what the arabs want is along a spectrum, with taliban on one end and hollywood on the other. I don't pretend to know what exactly everybody wants, but women in Afganistan seem to want to learn how to read, and there are plenty of arabs who like living in the Aramco compounds because they are less restrictive.
[edit]
Vig, you could sue me for calling your mom a whore, but you would lose. And hate speech does have laws against it. The proper thing for these people to do would be to hire a lawyer and sue the dutch newspapers, not blame the dutch government and retract your diplomats. We have rules and laws to deal with these problems. Nothing was stopping Lebenon from following the correct procedure.
(a) why muslims want to live in europe.
(b) why muslims get upset about things published in european countries when it's clearly out of their relm.
Denmark should never appoligise in my view. We appear to be so fucking civilised over these animals who think a doodle is worth burning flags over.
seriously reminds me of when that bitch said that shed rather kill her own child than watch a white person buy one of her records. Delusional xenophobics with big mouths, shouting the loudest.
[ QUOTE ]
Western culture is interested in the middle east oil resource and as a result destabilizes the region.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that simple, especially if you know that only about 10% of all the US oil comes from the middle east. And the US even aim to reduce it to 2.5 percent within the next 20 years. The whole oil thing as an explination for it is very trendy since michael moore but as a matter of fact no serious historian I know would consider it to be the number 1 reason for the struggle in the middle east.
[ QUOTE ]
Selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq during a 10 year war
[/ QUOTE ]
That's one of the problems yes, but both sides were muslims at that time and both sides did get sympathy from certain arab countries. Calling it the real reason muslims are pissed off is way too simple.
Replies
I doubt LA really gave a shit about Rodney King's rights...it was more like the last straw, same thing.
-R
It gives me the fucking creeps to think this was tolerated on British soil. It's a remarkable testament to tolerance in the west that the British police stood by and let them wave banners with that kind of content.
Can you imagine a bunch of angry westerners in the Middle East chanting and waving incitements of murder of muslims? Jeez, they'd be lynched in minutes and die a horrible death in the streets by a baying, frenzied mob. That's what freaks me out. The thought process behind Islamic extremism seems so violent and savage. I don't get how they justify it in their own minds.
1) Women rights ARE respected! Not a single verse of the Quran states that the women have to wear a mask. It only says they have to wear respectable clothes!!! That's all! I mean wtf go travel, see the world and never trust everything national geographics channel shows you.
2) Muslims will soon be something like 1.6 billion, the Tv only shows you the wrong 1%, and they don't talk about honest people who struggle to get a couple of dollars a day and live their life according to their fate without bugging any one.
3) Muslims are not bad people most of them are just like you and a fate can't determine the way you behave. It's all up to you.
4)As Mop says there should be no difference about freedom of speech and respect. If you don't use your freedom of speech to respect people why the fuck do you open your mouth for...
5)Pak has a point there, nowaday muslims has the same bad reputation as jews and communists had. WW2 hasn't started in a couple a day with Hitler spraying all his tons of absurdities about arian race and stuff.
Jews were bashed since a long time before this, the nazi party was just the final trigger to the Shoha.
Try to keep your head cold and understand every point of the problem before talking meaninglessly, Hatred attracts Hatred how can you hope that someone shows you respect if you're taking him for a brainwashed crazy killer...
6) "What's really hurting me, the name Islam is involved, and Muslim is involved and causing trouble and starting hate and violence. ... Islam is not a killer religion. ... Islam means peace, I couldn't just sit home and watch people label Muslims as the reason for this problem."
* from "Muhammad Ali Defends His Religion."
Well so I said what I wanted to say, I know I can't change the world with this few lines, but I'd really I planted a seed in your mind that'll let you think about the problem more seriously and not like the average fox news audience
You're probably right PaK. Still, but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow this kind of sheer madness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4684474.stm
[/ QUOTE ]
I bet they'd get away with that shit in Canada. We just roll over when culture clashes get heated.
Most of the poeple I meet and speak to on a day-to-day basis seem so shocked that isolationism wasn't a permanent solution.
"but isolationism worked so well in the past? What went wrong?"
Now what I'm hearing in response to this cartoon dealie is "democracy will solve everything. It will just take time for the Arab people to figure that out"
It has less to do with freedom and democracy and more to do with years of festering rage. It doesn't matter who's responsible; mob mentality just looks for the most vunerable target. Trying to make sense of it all is the wrong approach to understanding this mess. It's not logical or fair...it's reactionary.
-R
The thought process behind Islamic extremism seems so violent. I don't get how they justify it in their own minds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Simple... they don't. When one's beliefs are based on faith in a rigid religious dogma -- rather than truth -- one tends to ignore any rational justification (or lack thereof) for one's own actions. It's a symptom of nearly all forms of fundamentalism, and not just Islamic extremism. It's a strange aspect of human behavior that I don't quite understand, since I was raised in a pretty secular environment (without any theistic or atheistic biases).
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
Thats where extremists sit daz, were are not human to them just deamons that should be killed. The religion part is the glue that holds them together, and tells them they are doing the rite thing because its on their side. As for them not folowing the rules of the religion. Well no one really does that, yet they all think they are good and holy.
I remember a girl telling me i was going to hell because i dont belive in god, and how she was going to heaven and all that jaz. Thing is she was the girl who every guy had sex with. In her mind the part where it says its a sin to have sex before your wed didnt apply to her.
So dont blame religion for wars, they all say not to have them. Blame your genetics because were made to wage war. We want what we have not there for we wage war.
Additionally, those extremists are supreme idiots, they talk big about waging war and killing all westerners when there's a military superpower deadset on conquering their country and just looking for an excuse to do so. They think because they caused the west so many losses in previous wars that they'd have a chance in an all-out war. They don't think about stuff like westerners trying not to harm civilians. But that's the reason why noone used nuclear weapons, why nobody just put cities under artillery fire until there's nothing left (I think the Russians love doing that in Chechenia), why we don't wipe out entire cities because they might be hiding terrorists.
But no, they go on and on about how they're going to kill all of us, how we're the devil's spawn, how we oppress them. They're waving around words like "holocaust" when they don't even know what that really means.
And I'm pretty sure someone with a sign proclaiming a new holocaust would be lucky if he survived the trip to the hospital 'round here.
I think this is a better comparison than leaping to the extreme of Jesus murdering and raping, though didn't South Park have jesus go on a gun toting killing spree at one point?
[/ QUOTE ]
yep, to save father christmas
Was the Danish newspaper company that published the caricatures exercising free speech?
In my opinion, they were not. However, what it was an attempt at was to exercise the right to insult a group of people freely without the backlash of confrontation that usually comes with insulting people.
As someone has already pointed out free speech is the ability to express your opinion freely about issues one may have that are off concern to them. However, even within free speech there are limits as to what can be said.
If the articulated point does not attempt to encourage debate but rather leads to argumentation and confrontation because the articulated issue is in fact more of an insult than it should not be said.
To me this is what is important. In Islam there is nothing prohibiting the questioning of why one should not make images of the prophet Muhammad. Therefore, if the newspaper company wished to make a point they should have done it in a way which would have encouraged intellectual debate.
For example, lets say there was some Nazi guy who has a problem with Muslims, and he has some genuine concerns about Muslims. Now he can either engage these Muslims through non offensive dialogue, and yes, the points the Nazi may have about Muslims is probably going to be offensive in essence because they are probably supported by ignorance, however what is crucial is that because the way in which the issues are articulated (not using derogatory or offensive language) would encourage debate, so the natural response for the Muslim would be to engage the Nazi through dialogue.
However, if the Nazi was to articulate his point as thus, why is it all you sand niggers blowing things up well, the natural response to this would be an aggressive response because the language used, although highlights an issue, does not attempt to encourage debate but to insult the other.
Both are forms of free speech, however, must be articulated in a way that will not cause offence but DEBATE! This is what is crucial, the issues a person has must be articulated in a way to encourage debate. There is nothing wrong with a Nazi having issues about Muslims so long as that Nazi attempts to do it in a way that will encourage dialogue.
This is fundamentally the key problem with these caricaturess that were made. The language of caricatures are by nature meant to offend. Yes we can defend it by saying oh but this is just someone making harmless fun. Well I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. We are supposed to be civilized human beings. Yes we all have differences, but ultimately we must try to respect one another. And that goes for extreme Muslims too. Both sides need to learn to love one another and dialogue with one another a lot more.
Anyway, I hope that kind of makes sense. I also have problems articulating points not the most intellectual person. So I hope you can understand my point.
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means. Yeah ninja its so easy to learn, why don't you just stop being lazy and do all that stuff...
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about thier brand Islam. Here are some opening lines that seem to work well for those interested in trying to learn more about this brand of Islam:
- "Pardon me, "Mr Seething Ball O' Rage" can I sit down and have a theological discussion with you that doesn't end in my death?
- "Might I get a copy of your holy teachings in my language so I can better understand you? Hello, did you hear what I said?"
- "Can you stop shooting long enough to let me ask a question? All this noisey gun fire makes it hard to talk"
- "Do you think you can put the duffle bag of TNT down, I have a few questions"
The problem is every time we find a fundementalist who might be able to answer the questions we have, they are in a bah-zillion little pieces, and they flip the switch not any of us. If they really wanted me to understand them they would be trying to teach me instead of kill me.
They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[This was fustrated humor, feel free to rage agaist my post as you see fit. It's a message board if it helps you get it all out without killing someone then I have done my job =P]
EDIT: I was working on this post the same time Hawk posted so I didn't get a chance to read it yet. Thanks for the info, I am reading it now
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means.
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about Islam. They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry my friend that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.
This is fundamentally the key problem with these caricaturess that were made. The language of caricatures are by nature meant to offend. Yes we can defend it by saying oh but this is just someone making harmless fun. Well I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
[/ QUOTE ]
caricatures are meant to be taken in fun. maybe it's just a western thing, but we've got this history of taking the piss out of ourselves and others. i find a horde of religious nutcases burning flags and demanding for mass executions far more insulting than a drawing.
and heres jesus getting a blow-up doll for christmas from battle pope
EDIT: I was working on this post the same time Hawk posted so I didn't get a chance to read it yet. Thanks for the info, I am reading it now
[/ QUOTE ]
You have to understand it from this angle too m8. Many Muslims feel that the western world in hell bent on seeing the destruction of Muslims. That is their perception. In my opinion many of these protests are a little bit of an over reaction, however, inevitable because of the western worlds treatment of Muslims. Fort example, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has lead to thousands of civilian Muslims being killed and possibly Iran will be next too. Furthermore, the kidnapping of Muslims by American secret services and taking them to parts of Europe for interrogation that will lead to torture and then we have guantanamo too. Muslims feel they cant dialogue with the west because the west have no interest to do so, and as I have said an aggressive response will inevitably lead to a counter aggressive response.
There are many Muslims that I know of who truly desire for peace and wish to engage non-Muslims through intellectual debate, but it is hard to do so because most of the dialogue tends to be very insulting.
I think both side are very ignorant of each other. And this is the fundamentally the sad thing about it. Unless both sides break their ignorance of each other, and begin to think of each other as human beings than we may achieve results. Not sure m8.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means.
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about Islam. They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry my friend that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was sarcastic fustrated humor and I didn't mean to make it sound like all muslims where that way. I have talked to a few friendly muslims the type that are open to questions and they had a few vauge answers but basiclly shrugged and said "they are crazy and desperate what do you expect"
I have tried to research the subject a few times and I always end up with more questions than answers. It always seems the only people who can truely answer my questions are inacessible to me. It's GREAT to have you here, I am finally getting some good info! I have to head off to work now but I'll try and check back and post when I can.
[ QUOTE ]
This is fundamentally the key problem with these caricaturess that were made. The language of caricatures are by nature meant to offend. Yes we can defend it by saying oh but this is just someone making harmless fun. Well I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
[/ QUOTE ]
caricatures are meant to be taken in fun. maybe it's just a western thing, but we've got this history of taking the piss out of ourselves and others. i find a horde of religious nutcases burning flags and demanding for mass executions far more insulting than a drawing.
and heres jesus getting a blow-up doll for christmas from battle pope
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it may be poking fun. However, the person must be aware of the sensibilities of the person they are making fun of. There are different forms of humour. And obviously Muslims do not find western humour amusing; therefore it is important for that person to be culturally aware of what the effects will be by poking fun at someone who may not consider it to be fun. If it will lead to a negative response such as what is happening now, then it is better to avoid.
As I have said we all have a poor cultural understanding of each other and need to develop these further.
Jeezus depicted as a white man, no one blinks. Draw a picture of Moohamud, and everyone gets all dirka dirka.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that does not serve as an excuse to make fun of Muslims. Just because one group of people do not mind to have their god or prophet made fun of. Does not mean everyone else will be as willing. In my opinion it was poor judgement on the Danish newspaper. Maybe they need to catch up more on world issues so that they better understand the current situation of the world and what effect it would have by publishing such caricatures.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously don't know the first thing about islam
[/ QUOTE ]
It's soo easy to find a copy of the Khoran, since it is not allowed to be printed in any other language than Arabic. I mean who doesn't want to learn an entirely new language, then read a big thick book they won't understand until someone tells them what it means.
The truth is they really don't want you do learn about Islam. They just want you to roll over and die. The sooner everyone who is not muslim just dies, the sooner they can have world piece. It's so easy to get world piece you just have to roll over and die. But the stupid west is too dumb to just roll over and die so we end up with all this needless fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry my friend that is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was sarcastic fustrated humor and I didn't mean to make it sound like all muslims where that way. I have talked to a few friendly muslims the type that are open to questions and they had a few vauge answers but basiclly shrugged and said "they are crazy and desperate what do you expect"
I have tried to research the subject a few times and I always end up with more questions than answers. It always seems the only people who can truely answer my questions are inacessible to me. It's GREAT to have you here, I am finally getting some good info! I have to head off to work now but I'll try and check back and post when I can.
[/ QUOTE ]
No probs m8!
The free exchange of ideas and opinions is a necessary part of a mature, developing culture. That means, for better or worse, everything is on the table, including being able to offend people with those ideas and opinions. Free speech is not necessarily a part of "democracy" it's a part of cultural maturity.
The proper response to an insulting caricature is NOT to burn down the embassy of the country(ies) that are home to the newspaper that published it or demand that an entire nation apologize for the opinions of one or more citizens. Asking for an apology is acceptable. Applying economic pressure against the publisher is acceptable (American Christians do that all the time ... and it works ... no riots, no burnings, no deaths). Publishing mocking caricatures of the offenders is acceptable. These are all the reasonable responses of people ready to be citizens of the 21st century.
Regardless of whether or not there are hundreds of millions of believers in Islam who do NOT burn embassies, or riot when ever they feel offended, those who do are the visible representatives of the muslim culutre. The violent Islamists are the face of Islam that the world sees.
If the peaceful followers of the Prophet want to make the world believe that they are not a religion of hate-filled rioters and terrorists then it is they, not the rest of the world who needs to do something about this situation.
Or example, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has lead to thousands of civilian Muslims being killed
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't find the Iraq war particularly good thing, but from a muslim point of view you should be SO happy that Saddam doesn't butcher 75'000 muslims per year anymore. The numbers vary strongly since you won't find any information about his victims in governmental files.
Check the bodycount of the Iraq war for a comparison. Sounds like a dishonest argument to me if you argue only with the number of deads, western people bring upon muslims.
Free speech is free speech. In the USA we often refer to a quote by Voltaire (French author, not an American talk show host ...) "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "
The free exchange of ideas and opinions is a necessary part of a mature, developing culture. That means, for better or worse, everything is on the table, including being able to offend people with those ideas and opinions. Free speech is not necessarily a part of "democracy" it's a part of cultural maturity.
The proper response to an insulting caricature is NOT to burn down the embassy of the country(ies) that are home to the newspaper that published it or demand that an entire nation apologize for the opinions of one or more citizens. Asking for an apology is acceptable. Applying economic pressure against the publisher is acceptable (American Christians do that all the time ... and it works ... no riots, no burnings, no deaths). Publishing mocking caricatures of the offenders is acceptable. These are all the reasonable responses of people ready to be citizens of the 21st century.
Regardless of whether or not there are hundreds of millions of believers in Islam who do NOT burn embassies, or riot when ever they feel offended, those who do are the visible representatives of the muslim culutre. The violent Islamists are the face of Islam that the world sees.
If the peaceful followers of the Prophet want to make the world believe that they are not a religion of hate-filled rioters and terrorists then it is they, not the rest of the world who needs to do something about this situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
Can I ask if I called your mum a crack loving whore (which she is not) what would your honest natural response be? If I had some concern about your mother would it be right for me to have articulated it in that way?
The only way two people of different ideas can exchange their ideas and opinions, and although each may have a negative view of each other is through debate ONLY! If the methodology of articulating those issues and concerns you have for each other does not lead to debate, but argumentation and confrontation then what is the point? I think many people have a naive understanding of what free speech truly means. Free speech is not about saying what the hell you feel like, but having the ability to express concerns and issues without being cut to bits for doing so. I think free speech today has evolved into something that it originally was not meant to be, which is open season to say any nonsense to anyone and not expecting an aggressive response.
[ QUOTE ]
Or example, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has lead to thousands of civilian Muslims being killed
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't find the Iraq war particularly good thing, but from a muslim point of view you should be SO happy that Saddam doesn't butcher 75'000 muslims per year anymore. The numbers vary strongly since you won't find any information about his victims in governmental files.
Check the deathcount of the Iraq war for a comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
But was that truly the intent for the war? Either way I have no desire to go OT.
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how he's contraticting himself. Freedom of speech is exactly as it states, it's the freedom to SAY anything you want. If a statement is directed at you, even as an insult, you have the freedom to SAY something back. He's just suggesting that it should be kept civil rather than the way it's currently being handled.
If you insult my mom, sure I'll get pissed. I'll probably insult your mom back, or insult you personally. I'm not going to hit you over it.
Words can lead to actions, which is why people should use common sense with their speech. That is where this whole situation has gone wrong, a break down of common sense.
Can I ask if I called your mum a crack loving whore (which she is not) what would your honest natural response be? If I had some concern about your mother would it be right for me to have articulated it in that way?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would think that you were a fucking idiot and never speak with you again. Would I attack you or burn down your house? No. Violent protest does not, as I see that you are fully aware of, work. It only cemets a view of someone as prone to harm others and unreliable.
I very much agree with you that dialog is the only way to solve issues, but since extremists of all kind believe that they are right no matter what, violence is just a natural and unfourtonate effect. You can't reason with someone who tries to bash your face in. This conflict will hopefully not reach that level, but since one boy has already died so far, I'm not very optimistic.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how he's contraticting himself. Freedom of speech is exactly as it states, it's the freedom to SAY anything you want. If a statement is directed at you, even as an insult, you have the freedom to SAY something back. He's just suggesting that it should be kept civil rather than the way it's currently being handled.
If you insult my mom, sure I'll get pissed. I'll probably insult your mom back, or insult you personally. I'm not going to hit you over it.
Words can lead to actions, which is why people should use common sense with their speech. That is where this whole situation has gone wrong, a break down of common sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
But that is the point, the potential is only to lead to insults which is not healthy. And I disagree, freedom of speech is not as simple as being able to say what you want. Even in freedom of speech there are limits. To say what you want, i.e. insults is a naive view in my opinion. You have to remember we are supposed to be civilized human beings. The realm of insults is for the uncivilized, and debate is for the civilized.
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that the newspapers were trying to get across is that they have a right to print whatever they want even if it is offensive. You can call my mom a crack whore all day, because THAT IS THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH! I can't sue you, and if I attack you you can use leathal force to defend yourself.
You see, they are just words. Insulting people IS defended in the constitution as "free speech". I don't understand what you don't get. The government has no say in what a newspaper prints, which is why the government can't appologize for it. If you want to print a newspaper in the US of buddha eating his own shit, GO FOR IT! That is what is so great about the US. We don't have to get all pissed off about everything.
There are plenty of Muslims who are my countymen and I think that is great. I also agree with Pak, that this was probably just the last straw. Even still, there is no justifying it.
[Edit] I just read that last post ahead of mine, and of course, civil people debate, but guess what! I have the freedom to be an asshole! Maybe people living under tyrany can't understand why I wouldn't be an asshole all the time if I didn't have the government ready to destroy me. I'll tell you why. It is because I am reasonable. And in my opinion, being reasonable by nature is a lot better than being forced into it.
I'm not saying that it was acceptable to print these comics, I'm just saying that it IS allowed under freedom of speech... at least the way it's handled in the U.S. I think it's ignorant for someone to do something like that and not apologize for it after anger. But what I think is more ignorant is to riot over it. The person that made the statement/comic isn't suffering, everyone else is.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry m8, but you are slightly contradicting yourself. You say that it is important for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Could you then please tell how ideas and opinion are being exchanged from insulting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the idea that the newspapers were trying to get across is that they have a right to print whatever they want even if it is offensive. You can call my mom a crack whore all day, because THAT IS THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH! I can't sue you, and if I attack you you can use leathal force to defend yourself.
You see, they are just words. Insulting people IS defended in the constitution as "free speech". I don't understand what you don't get. The government has no say in what a newspaper prints, which is why the government can't appologize for it. If you want to print a newspaper in the US of buddha eating his own shit, GO FOR IT! That is what is so great about the US. We don't have to get all pissed off about everything.
There are plenty of Muslims who are my countymen and I think that is great. I also agree with Pak, that this was probably just the last straw. Even still, there is no justifying it.
[Edit] I just read that last post ahead of mine, and of course, civil people debate, but guess what! I have the freedom to be an asshole! Maybe people living under tyrany can't understand why I wouldn't be an asshole all the time if I didn't have the government ready to destroy me. I'll tell you why. It is because I am reasonable. And in my opinion, being reasonable by nature is a lot better than being forced into it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well anyway, I have a lot of work to do today and cant be side-tracked, I will check up on this thread a little later. But I think you are missing the point. Dont you think it is a hypocritical statement for one to assert that they are a tolerant and civilized group of people when they behave the opposite? Yes Insults is a form of free speech. However, those that use Insults as a way to express their concerns are uncivilised in my opinion. Unfortunately we live in a world filled with a great many pseudo intellectuals...how sad!
...Don’t you think it is a hypocritical statement for one to assert that they are a tolerant and civilized group of people when they behave the opposite?
[/ QUOTE ]
Um... we aren't the ones buring down embassies.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with civilized or uncivilized. There is no limit to freedom of speech from a legal aspect. The limitations are moral limitations. Morally, I know not to use my freedom of speech to spew hate towards others. Morally, I know that I shouldn't insult someone, especially if I don't intend to anger them. That is where the common sense comes in that I was refering to.
I'm not saying that it was acceptable to print these comics, I'm just saying that it IS allowed under freedom of speech... at least the way it's handled in the U.S. I think it's ignorant for someone to do something like that and not apologize for it after anger. But what I think is more ignorant is to riot over it. The person that made the statement/comic isn't suffering, everyone else is.
[/ QUOTE ]
I dont wish to be rude m8, but dont you think that is a contradiction? You say it has nothing to do with being civilized or uncivilised but it has to do with moral limitations? Hmmmm ..The moral limitation is what determines whether we are being civilized or uncivilised m8. Yes in essence, free speech literally means say what you want, but because we are civilized human beings and live according to particular morals we do not go around spewing hate and offending people to make a point. A civilized person with morals would rather engage in an intellectual discussion.
You seem to be misinturpreting everyones statement to fit your point.
No one was arguing that these statements were civilized, they are just saying that it's part of freedom of speech. I understand what you're saying, and I'd love everyone to be more civilized. Unfortunately, it seems too many people these days are uncivilized. I think the point most people in this thread were making is, it's more uncivilized to riot over a statement/drawing. Both actions were uncivilized, but at least the artist's actions didn't kill anyone (directly).
[/ QUOTE ]
According to that logic then we cant really blame Saddam for ordering the deaths of thousands because he merely gave the order rather than doing the dirty work himself. Sorry a little bit of an extreme example I know, and probably a poor example too, but am in a rush
I said FREEDOM OF SPEECH has nothing to do with civilized or uncivilized. It is a right given to everyone in this country. The civil and uncivilized relates to what is morally right to say. You still have the right to say it. It's not against the law to say something that is uncivilized. That is why it is unrelated.
You seem to be misinturpreting everyones statement to fit your point.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I am arguing that there are limits to free speech and we should not take it literally because you dont have the right to spew hate. Maybe free speech needs to be redefined for all the pseudo intellectuals dont you think m8?
Offensive political cartoon gets written. Lets burn down the embassy. Westerners view that as an extreme overreaction. Apparently Muslims do not.
I'm fairly certain that the US would not have a presence in Afghanistan or Iraq had 911 not occurred. Most Americans hadn't given the area much thought until then, and the US government wouldn't have been able to, or cared to, commit those kinds of resources unless they were given a reason.
Until radical Muslims learn that blowing up innocent people(in westerners view, or not so innocent in their view), they will *never* get what they want. All they will get is more pain and death. They just have to accept that the United States will *never* give in to terrorist demands. Ever. Once they do so, and eliminate the ridiculous "jihad", then something can be done to coexist peacefully.
But they have to stop killing innocent people first. All they have done thus far is kicked a very angry bear who was looking for a good excuse to crush them. If they keep it up, they will get their wish.
I agree with what Irritant said. Americans have peaceful co-existance here of many religions already. We aren't againt muslims. It is the muslim fanatics that are against us, democracy, (obviously judging from what Hawk is saying) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and Hollywood.
Really, I think the problem for them is that a large portion of the middle eastern population wants these things, and the fanatic minority sees that as "corrupting western influence". So they attack us for planting the seeds of progress and hope.
... but the point is that yes the artist did not do anything violent, however, his work sparked that violence, therefore, he is just as accountable as the one throwing the petrol bombs at the doors of the Danish embassies. If that person who drew those pictures was more culturally aware of how offensive such images are then I am pretty sure that artist would think twice about drawing those images. As I said there are far too many pseudo intellectuals in this world.
[/ QUOTE ]
I finally got a chance to see the comics the other day and was kind of shocked by how tame they were. Had I not know about all the uproar about them I wouldn't have given them a second glance. I have a feeling that the artists didn't think that would have been as poorly recieved as they are.
Were you to insult my mother, then you would recieve the reasonable consequences for your action. In that circumstance, I might just response with an expletive, tell you what you could do with your opinions and ignore you thereafter. Even if I were an angry, impulsive man, those consequences might be to strike you. What would be wrong would be for me to ask for your home country to apologize for insulting my mother. It would be wrong for me to burn your house down for insulting my mother, or to make death threats against you and your family because of it.
I think the point that I and others are trying to make is even if you ARE insulted by these cartoons, the responses we are seeing in these Islamic nations and from some Muslims living in western nations are totally out of line with the offense.
Forbidding muslims to depict the Prophet in art may be a part of the Islamic faith, but if I read the INTENT of the scripture correctly, it is to prevent the BELIEVER from focusing on Mohammed the man as a potential object of worship and thus distract the believer from the worship of God. My question, to be blunt, "Has the emphasis on the non-depiction of the Prophet in this situation become a distraction that is doing exactly the opposite of the intent of the scripture?"
The assumption that the majority wants what western culture has is just...well it's not true.
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't againt muslims. It is the muslim fanatics that are against us, democracy, (obviously judging from what Hawk is saying) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and Hollywood.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got to look at it from a different perspective to understand where this violent backlash stems. Western culture is interested in the middle east oil resource and as a result destabilizes the region. In my opinion, that's the root of the problem.
Selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq during a 10 year war...these are the real reasons Muslims are so pissed off. Turning someone's home to rubble, blowing up a pakistani town cuz "oops! we thought terrorists were lurkin' round."
These cartoons are just the last straw. So don't come off like we're guilty of nothing, cuz it's short-sighted and naive.
-R
Either way, those fanatics are a severe threat to peace and the lives of everyone down there. I really think the local authorities should incarcerate them for inciting riots. That's a police job and if they do nothing it could be argued that they silently support these riots.
You can call my mom a crack whore all day, because THAT IS THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH!
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh but you could sue, its called slander =P If you research free speach and its roots you find out that in the US it means you have the right tp peacefully assemble and list grievances agaist the goverment without fear of repisal from the goverment. It has twisted and morphed into something else thanks largely to porn and the music industry.
This modern idea that you can stand on a street corner shouting hate messages or whatever you want, at the top of your lungs and not having any concequences for your words or actions, is mostly wrong.
I view the cartoons as the bratting younger brother in the back seat of a car with his finger inches away from his older sisters eye. All the time he is shouting "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you". The sister is yelling, "MOM he's poking me!". The parents are driving on down the road oblivious to what is going on. Both are being annoying, neither is right and both need to button thier pie holes.
The parents need to be parents to step in and tell the kids to be quite. The religous leaders need to not fan the flames and the goverments need to pressure but not restrict the press to stop printing inflamitory things. Maybe they can post them on web where you have to register and log in to see them? But then that doesn't sell papers does it...
As far as Hamas is concerned, I was of the understanding that it was more of a vote against the existing regime than a vote for Hamas. Of course, I'm not over there talking to the man on the street. All I know about it is what I hear on NPR. I'm sure what the arabs want is along a spectrum, with taliban on one end and hollywood on the other. I don't pretend to know what exactly everybody wants, but women in Afganistan seem to want to learn how to read, and there are plenty of arabs who like living in the Aramco compounds because they are less restrictive.
[edit]
Vig, you could sue me for calling your mom a whore, but you would lose. And hate speech does have laws against it. The proper thing for these people to do would be to hire a lawyer and sue the dutch newspapers, not blame the dutch government and retract your diplomats. We have rules and laws to deal with these problems. Nothing was stopping Lebenon from following the correct procedure.
(a) why muslims want to live in europe.
(b) why muslims get upset about things published in european countries when it's clearly out of their relm.
Denmark should never appoligise in my view. We appear to be so fucking civilised over these animals who think a doodle is worth burning flags over.
seriously reminds me of when that bitch said that shed rather kill her own child than watch a white person buy one of her records. Delusional xenophobics with big mouths, shouting the loudest.
Western culture is interested in the middle east oil resource and as a result destabilizes the region.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that simple, especially if you know that only about 10% of all the US oil comes from the middle east. And the US even aim to reduce it to 2.5 percent within the next 20 years. The whole oil thing as an explination for it is very trendy since michael moore but as a matter of fact no serious historian I know would consider it to be the number 1 reason for the struggle in the middle east.
[ QUOTE ]
Selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq during a 10 year war
[/ QUOTE ]
That's one of the problems yes, but both sides were muslims at that time and both sides did get sympathy from certain arab countries. Calling it the real reason muslims are pissed off is way too simple.