Muslim boycott of Denmark/The cartoon controversy opinions please

Gangsta

shuushh wrote:

theres a bit of sickness at the heart of every religion, personally i applaud their decision to publish the cartoons in the first place and i hope the editor will publish these Iranian holocaust cartoons next in his paper. I do find it disturbing aswell to see all these people crying out for religious tolerance when Islamic states forbid it.

Freedom of speech is one of the best things in our society and we should be celebrating it honestly I dont think the cartoons were very offensive in the first place

Yeah I agree I can't understand people who say Islam should be tolerated yet they don't tolerate any other religion in their countries? Doesn't make any sense to me but it's defo not stated in Islamic law as Muhammed allowed Jews to live in peace in Arabia. So mainly it's just because they're narrow-minded bigots. Tbh I agree with some of the above posters that both are wrong here ie. the cartoonists and the rioteers (who are in the minority certainly).

grubber

Gangsta wrote:

what do you mean?

I was responding favourably to the mention of muslims staying in their own countries. They don't seem to travel well. What do you think?

Gangsta

Freddie59 wrote:

Is caliphate a word which = world domination?

No man, after the prophet died a Khalifa was decided upon who would rule over the muslims and make important decisions etc. much like the pope for christianity. When the Khalifa died a new one was appointed. And since the Muslim empire collapsed a new one has never been appointed and they're all divided which is why a new Khalifa is being sought to state the Islamic view on things.

grubber wrote:

I was responding favourably to the mention of muslims staying in their own countries. They don't seem to travel well. What do you think?

I dunno man, me and my mates seem to be doing just fine.

adonis

Peanut wrote:

To quote Moz...
"Love, peace & harmony... oh very nice very nice very nice.. but maybe in the next world.."

plus, in the song above peanut, i think moz is taking on the role of a disco dancer...and is being ironic! not snide.

to quote him back at you.

"its so easy to laugh its so easy to hate"

so take time, think and dont have knee jerk reactions to sky news and irish independent reporters. -both sensationalism-
and those people with god bless america and support denmark signatures, disgust me..no burka for the west! LOL
especially that quote under the god bless america one...its obviously a joke, as they havent learnt anything from vietnam (anyway, off topic)

Peanut

hmm not sure about that Adonis !
"..and if you think peace is a common goal, then it goes to show how little you know..."

People, esp. policitans, calling for respect towards other's values - well sorry but that's just not the real world. And I fully expect that they know as much themselves. e.g. 'Ireland abhors publication' :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0212/mcaleese.html

So it's inevitable various groups will try to take advantage of a situation for promoting their own particular agenda. I agree with previous posters that neither side is 'right'.

Sir Oxman

adonis wrote:

so take time, think and dont have knee jerk reactions to sky news and irish independent reporters. -both sensationalism-
and those people with god bless america and support denmark signatures, disgust me..no burka for the west! LOL
especially that quote under the god bless america one...its obviously a joke, as they havent learnt anything from vietnam (anyway, off topic)

I block out 'sigs'. 'Nuff said. Twats.

Oh yeah and as for Mr Ian O Doherty - kneejerk utter twonk, play to the crowd, irrational fears,ex-herald now scum-indo hack my God/Allah/Buddah who the feck could take that delevan cohort seriously?

500 demonstrating here, 1000 there, wow in total about ~50000...out of 1billion?

London (second one) and Dublin demos were sound, people demonstrating their disgust in a civil manner.

Sir Oxman

Sand wrote:

So you cant be rich, educated, living in a modern democracy with strong civil rights and fundamentalist? A large wing of the US Republican Party would disagree. So would an unknown proportion of European muslims who are radicalised.

Indeed. Some would say there is a concerted 'Christian' based assault on the Islamic part of this world far exceeding anything the other side have apparently thrown at 'us'

Those cartoons = (some would say orcestrated) offence to most of Islamic world

Violent response = (orchestrated) minimal participation considering over 1 billion Muslims in this world of ours

Media response = excellent lesson in preparing the world for Axis of Evil target number two about to be shown the error of their ways

Debate = minimal


and so it goes round and round and round

biko

On a similar note http://www.idealog.us/2005/12/pornographic_po.html

Hobbes

delah wrote:

500 demonstrating here, 1000 there, wow in total about ~50000...out of 1billion?

London (second one) and Dublin demos were sound, people demonstrating their disgust in a civil manner.

1.5 million muslims in the UK (2001 census). That works out around 0.06% of the muslim population in the UK.

approx 19,147 (census) muslims in Ireland. Thats around 2.6% of the muslim population in Ireland. Unless you mean that it was 5000 then it was about 6%

Doesn't sound like a majority to me.

Hobbes

Gangsta wrote:

Yeah I agree I can't understand people who say Islam should be tolerated yet they don't tolerate any other religion in their countries?

Actually they do, and the religon also teaches to be tolerant of other religons (even though your basically going to hell if your not a muslim). Subject came up on the Islam forum some time back.

Wibbs

Gangsta wrote:

Well Christianity did most of its expanding by imperialism?

No argument there, but it did it only after it was absorbed as the state religion of an imperialist society, Rome. The founder of the faith called for no such secular/worldy plans. Many of the worlds religions have been spread by the sword, even Buddhism, but in a manner you would suspect not exactly favoured by the founders of same.

Neither did Muhammed (pbuh)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_warrior
There's plenty there that suggests that the religion is unusual among current world faiths in it's military origins. While he laid down rules of warfare with regard to prisoners etc, it would be naive to say that the religion was not imperialist in tone and spread by warfare. By the end of his life, the fledgling empire encompassed the Arabian peninsula.

and it's mostly Non-Muslims who want another worldwide caliphate as they consistently complain that Islam needs a universal voice to speak on belhalf of the faith much like the Pope for Catholicism.

Many of the radicals have expressed a desire for the Caliphate, but that's a good point.

Hobbes wrote:

1.5 million muslims in the UK (2001 census). That works out around 0.06% of the muslim population in the UK.

approx 19,147 (census) muslims in Ireland. Thats around 2.6% of the muslim population in Ireland. Unless you mean that it was 5000 then it was about 6%

Doesn't sound like a majority to me.

Exactly. It's not a majority by any means. Like anyone else, 99% of Muslims want to just live their lives. TBH, I even suspect that these cartoons are not even a blip on the radar of most Muslims.

Actually they do, and the religon also teaches to be tolerant of other religons (even though your basically going to hell if your not a muslim). Subject came up on the Islam forum some time back.

Well the argument for tolerance is historically/religiously an open one TBH, as same thread discussed. While jews/Christians had some rights(depending on circumstance), Pagans and other non believers were a very grey area, both at the start and since. Among Muhammeds last words where "Drive the non believers out of the Arabian Peninsula". Given that was the extent of the Muslim lands at the time, the suggestion could be taken by nutbags to say that extends to any Muslim land.

Boggle

Those cartoons = (some would say orcestrated) offence to most of Islamic world

Is there actually any evidence if this or is it just people jumping to conclusions because the stories don't agree with them?

Violent response = (orchestrated) minimal participation considering over 1 billion Muslims in this world of ours

Minimal response would have meant no violence. The sheer viciousness exhibited in some of these protests scares me (although I am no fool and realise that many don't care and that there were peaceful protests untelevised). So does what they are protesting against which, in reality is not the cartoons themselves (as they would merely protest against the papers), but rather they are protesting at the Danish govt's decision not in interfeer in a free press policy.

Media response = excellent lesson in preparing the world for Axis of Evil target number two about to be shown the error of their ways

In fairness the Iranians are making easy targets of themselves.

Debate = minimal

I thought sand had an excellent post and I notice that none of the "ban offensive cartoons" bunch have countered this argument. So try starting the debate at home and try realising that debating is pointless if you cannot counter anothers arguments.
(If only we could get rid of the head in the sand debating that goes on by some in this forum...)

Gangsta

Wibbs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_warrior
There's plenty there that suggests that the religion is unusual among current world faiths in it's military origins. While he laid down rules of warfare with regard to prisoners etc, it would be naive to say that the religion was not imperialist in tone and spread by warfare. By the end of his life, the fledgling empire encompassed the Arabian peninsula.

Well, actually these laws were laid down as a result of the pagans who were attacking the Muslims of which there was two battles between them.

Wibbs wrote:

Many of the radicals have expressed a desire for the Caliphate, but that's a good point.

If they did I doubt very much he/she would side with the radicals:D

Wibbs wrote:

Exactly. It's not a majority by any means. Like anyone else, 99% of Muslims want to just live their lives. TBH, I even suspect that these cartoons are not even a blip on the radar of most Muslims.

Very true.

Hobbes wrote:

Actually they do, and the religon also teaches to be tolerant of other religons (even though your basically going to hell if your not a muslim). Subject came up on the Islam forum some time back.

No dude the point I'm making is that it isn't a rule in Islam which forbids this but it's actually the people ruling said land who impose them. Islam doesn't care who you are, where you come from or what religion you believe in, equal rights for all.

Hobbes

Boggle wrote:

Is there actually any evidence if this or is it just people jumping to conclusions because the stories don't agree with them?

No they were offensive. When they were first printed the paper recieved a lot of mails from people saying they found them offensive. The paper apologised and it should of ended just there. Instead more papers knowing they were offensive printed them.

Minimal response would have meant no violence.

Up until they were printed in more papers there was minimal response. Actually in ratio to the population of Muslims violence is a minimum. But then you never see in the media those Muslims that are not rioting as it doesn't make for good news.

Freddie59

adonis wrote:

especially that quote under the god bless america one...its obviously a joke, as they havent learnt anything from vietnam (anyway, off topic)

My my - do I detect a tantrum? Yep - they slipped up in Vietnam.......but I like to concentrate on the times when they freed the world(and protected it from) the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, and Castro.....to name but a few. I actually appreciate the hard-fought freedoms won for us by the USA so that other people now have the right to argue against us having them (or are in a state of denial as to who we owe them to;) ).

marco murphy

Off topic?

Freddie59

shuushh wrote:

theres a bit of sickness at the heart of every religion, personally i applaud their decision to publish the cartoons in the first place and i hope the editor will publish these Iranian holocaust cartoons next in his paper. I do find it disturbing aswell to see all these people crying out for religious tolerance when Islamic states forbid it.

Freedom of speech is one of the best things in our society and we should be celebrating it honestly I dont think the cartoons were very offensive in the first place

Well said.:)

adonis

Freddie59 wrote:

My my - do I detect a tantrum? Yep - they slipped up in Vietnam.......but I like to concentrate on the times when they freed the world(and protected it from) the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, and Castro.....to name but a few. I actually appreciate the hard-fought freedoms won for us by the USA so that other people now have the right to argue against us having them (or are in a state of denial as to who we owe them to;) ).

yeah castro was a major threat allright. he still is...
wanna watch cuba...big place, big army...
and stalin? did he not help win ww2 by pushing the germans (hitler) back from stalingrad? (off topic)

one question though, do you agree with the right to bear arms in the usa (this is not off topic)?

Wibbs

Gangsta wrote:

Well, actually these laws were laid down as a result of the pagans who were attacking the Muslims of which there was two battles between them.

I'm sure the pagans(I though they were a Jewish tribe in Mekkah) weren't too happy at the raiding of their caravans by the Mulsims either. I suppose it depends like everything on your point of view. Also, IIRC there were a lot more than 2 battles fought by the early Muslims against fellow tribes of unbelievers.

If they did I doubt very much he/she would side with the radicals:D

Possibly, though good luck with electing a female Caliph.

Islam doesn't care who you are, where you come from or what religion you believe in, equal rights for all.

I don't think there's a religion on earth that doesn't care what you believe in, to be fair. That's the nature of them. I'm right, you're wrong. the best we can hope for is mutual friendly disagreement.

Freddie59 wrote:

My my - do I detect a tantrum? Yep - they slipped up in Vietnam.../...f denial as to who we owe them to ).

Sorry, what??

Hobbes wrote:

Actually in ratio to the population of Muslims violence is a minimum. But then you never see in the media those Muslims that are not rioting as it doesn't make for good news.

True. Well in fairness, blokes standing around doing nothing, save for saying, "down with that sort o' thing" isn't newsworthy unless it's on Craggy island. I'm surprised none of the Irish Muslim lads didn't take the p!ss in that way. Now that would have been priceless to watch on Sky news(irish edition), especially if they brought their own railings. I'd love to see them explain that one in the commentary.

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

No they were offensive. When they were first printed the paper recieved a lot of mails from people saying they found them offensive.

You haven't shown that the paper showed them just because they offended Muslims.

The paper apologised and it should of ended just there.

If the paper apologised then why are the protests all against Denmark?

Instead more papers knowing they were offensive printed them.

In what context were they shown? Were they part of a valid news story? Could it not have been that the papers felt that people had a right to decide for themselves if the pictures were inflamatory or actually part of a reasonable story??

All I'm asking for is proof that the pictures were published BECAUSE they were offensive rather than INSPITE of being offensive. There is quite a difference I hope you realise...

But then you never see in the media those Muslims that are not rioting as it doesn't make for good news.

Have I implied that they were all rioting? I was arguing for the right of a free press - not that the Muslim's were nuts...

Freddie59

Poblachtach wrote:

Off topic?

How is that whenever anyone (and there are several of us who do) try to repsond to a post about freedom of speech/the USA/etc inevitably someone quotes 'off topic' no matter which forum it's posted in? While the USA id not perfect, and does not appeal to everyone, it is no reason for one viewpoint to be continually stifled.

Freddie59

adonis wrote:

yeah castro was a major threat allright. he still is...
wanna watch cuba...big place, big army...
and stalin? did he not help win ww2 by pushing the germans (hitler) back from stalingrad? (off topic)

one question though, do you agree with the right to bear arms in the usa (this is not off topic)?

I see you conveniently omitted Hitler from the main list.......Castro was INDEED a major threat. It had to be faced down. Period. It is off topic (and both of us risk censure for it) - I do agree with it. Not a perfect system by any means......but it's part of the constitution.

Hobbes

Boggle wrote:

You haven't shown that the paper showed them just because they offended Muslims.

*sigh* regardless of the papers initial intentions it knew after the fact that they were offensive. The reprinting of them when they knew they were offensive did nothing except inflame the matter.

If the paper apologised then why are the protests all against Denmark?

Because like yourself people in the middle east aren't aware of everything that went on. First up a muslim group was currently in the middle east showing the level of racism directed at from the paper and material they received into the center.

About the same time other papers felt the need to post the pictures.

Could it not have been that the papers felt that people had a right to decide for themselves if the pictures were inflamatory or actually part of a reasonable story??

The original author could of got his story across by removing just the cartoons that were not openly offensive. The AO already knew that the cartoons would be offensive. While the paper claimed it was freedom of speech it refused to post offensive cartoons of Jesus before the muslim pictures on the grounds it would offend.

There is quite a difference I hope you realise...

regardless of if there is a difference of not point in fact is that (a) the OA knew that it would of caused some offense and (b) Reposting them after the fact that complaints came in that they were offensive didn't help matters.

Have I implied that they were all rioting? I was arguing for the right of a free press - not that the Muslim's were nuts...

No but from your original comments it seemed to imply that the first thing the Muslims did was riot.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

from your original comments it seemed to imply that the first thing the Muslims did was riot.

Was it not a fact that the first thing that Danish Muslims did was to stir things in the ME, not with the original cartoons, but with additional ones that had NOT been published? That would seem to me to be far worse than rioting and smacks of an agenda.

Sand

*sigh* regardless of the papers initial intentions it knew after the fact that they were offensive. The reprinting of them when they knew they were offensive did nothing except inflame the matter.

So even if a paper has a valid story, it should not run with it in case its offensive? If, say, some paper runs with the story of the Catholic Church covering up sexual abuse should they not run with it in case it offends Catholics to paint their church as some sort of group that enables child abuse? Remember, youre talking about Muslims offended by a cartoon. Can you imagine the sheer carnage if it was actually something serious like accusing a respected imman of covering up child sex abuse?

Seriously Hobbes, muslims are offended by the story. Thats a shame, but that should have no greater weight than the offence of Christians. I imagine youre still campaigning for the banning of Life of Brian because it offends Christians? You know, to be consistent?

First up a muslim group was currently in the middle east showing the level of racism directed at from the paper and material they received into the center.

Thats the most friendly interpretation you could give of what they did. None of the protests have delivered a message other than blaming JP/Other Papers (and the various governments for not stopping them) for publishing the cartoons - which we were initially led to believe was the 12 in JP. Only much later did it become apparent what the Danish Muslim group had claimed was printed in JP. These protests are not about "Stop the racist hatemail against our Brothers in Denmark", its entirely about the JP cartoons. Either the Danish muslims made a piss poor job of explaining what was published and what wasnt - or they deliberately misrepresented what was in JP.

I tend towards the latter because, last I heard, the Danish Muslim group that incited the riots has refused to co-operate in determining where these images came from, who received them etc etc. And someone spread a porky about the Danish government owning JP.

While the paper claimed it was freedom of speech it refused to post offensive cartoons of Jesus before the muslim pictures on the grounds it would offend.

It doesnt have to though Hobbes. You do not have to defend or advocate my views, and I do not have to defend or advocate yours. All free speech requires and implies is that you can say what you want within reason, and I can do likewise. Free speech implies that JP can put forward its own views, not that it has to be a platform for all views.

And as for these images of Jesus - any links? If theyre anything like Piss Christ then I could see why JP wouldnt want to print them. Its not like they printed Piss Mohammed for starters.

Reposting them after the fact that complaints came in that they were offensive didn't help matters.

I think it did help. It helps the muslim world recognise that Europe isnt Saudia Arabia and the rules are different here. Its good to have this debate now on what the ground rules of liberal democracy are before European Muslims form a large voting bloc, which demographic trends imply are the way things are going. France is 20% muslim at this stage IIRC.

After all, freedom of expression is good for Islam as well, once they get their heads around the idea that what they hold sacred mightnt be held sacred by all others. Afterall, Christians could justifiably be offended by Muslim claims that Allah is the one true god. Free expression lets them say that though. Doesnt mean everyone has to agree with it though.

Gangsta

Wibbs wrote:

I'm sure the pagans(I though they were a Jewish tribe in Mekkah) weren't too happy at the raiding of their caravans by the Mulsims either. I suppose it depends like everything on your point of view. Also, IIRC there were a lot more than 2 battles fought by the early Muslims against fellow tribes of unbelievers.

I was referring to battles in the prophet's lifetime which is when the rules regarding prisoners were made. But we're going off topic here.

Wibbs wrote:

Possibly, though good luck with electing a female Caliph.

Are you stating that women in Islam aren't on equal footing with men?

Wibbs wrote:

I don't think there's a religion on earth that doesn't care what you believe in, to be fair. That's the nature of them. I'm right, you're wrong. the best we can hope for is mutual friendly disagreement.

Dude what are you on about? We were talking about tolerence for other religions not discussing at all which religion is right or wrong. Islam doesn't agree with persecution based on religious beliefs.

Freddie59 wrote:

My my - do I detect a tantrum? Yep - they slipped up in Vietnam.......but I like to concentrate on the times when they freed the world(and protected it from) the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, and Castro.....to name but a few. I actually appreciate the hard-fought freedoms won for us by the USA so that other people now have the right to argue against us having them (or are in a state of denial as to who we owe them to;) ).

"why are u gloating on america's so called victories against tyrants? Stalin is the one who actually broke the german offensive in ww2, not usa. Castro as far i know 'ol Fidel is still around. And then you're going to tell me that "But we stopped Saddam unleashing his deadly 'WMDs":eek:!" ah yes those:rolleyes: But wait! Those don't exist lol and even if they had, who put him in power? Ah yes, the good ol' U.S of A;) Futhermore the butchering of innocent Somalians with the invasion claiming to end the famine and oust Aidid which turned out to be some fiasco as the famine was still kicking on.Why all of a sudden did America care of a poor African nation? Why don't they care anymore? Naturally I could go on but no need.

Successful people look at where they went wrong and look on how not to repeat these mistakes to improve themselves, this is what makes them successful, not elating of false victores.


And on a side note, just edit your first post as when you post replies you seem to send two/three in a row which is annoying to scroll thru.

Frederico

Freddie59 wrote:

My my - do I detect a tantrum? Yep - they slipped up in Vietnam.......but I like to concentrate on the times when they freed the world(and protected it from) the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, and Castro.....to name but a few. I actually appreciate the hard-fought freedoms won for us by the USA so that other people now have the right to argue against us having them (or are in a state of denial as to who we owe them to;) ).

Quite right, but don't forget the millions dead as a result of failed American foreign policy during and after the Cold War.

Snickers Man

delah wrote:

I block out 'sigs'. 'Nuff said. Twats.

Oh yeah and as for Mr Ian O Doherty - kneejerk utter twonk, play to the crowd, irrational fears,ex-herald now scum-indo hack my God/Allah/Buddah who the feck could take that delevan cohort seriously?
.

Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't hear one person on the Late Late condone the torching of embassies or the killing of westerners. The Muslims simply protested that the cartoons were offensive so why publish them if you didn't want to offend.

O'Doherty's response: '"I'm sick of Muslims complaining"

Waters response: "Every newspaper in Europe should print these cartoons to emphasise the importance of free speech"

Yeah OK but those who are being insulted don't have to like it.

I didn't like the London Evening Standard's cartoon some 20 years ago which showed a billboard advertising a movie called

"The Ultimate in Psychopathic Horror---The Irish"

Featuring the IRA, INLA,UVF, UDA, UFF

All the faces in the cartoon were hideous simian goblins.

I didn't go around torching any embassies but I didn't like it. At all.

And I have a natural resistance to believing anything a British government says when it goes to war. I wonder could the two facts be at all related.

Gangsta

Does anyone know anywhere I can download the late late show's discussion on the subject?

SeanW

*sigh* regardless of the papers initial intentions it knew after the fact that they were offensive. The reprinting of them when they knew they were offensive did nothing except inflame the matter.

The Sun probably got lots of complaints when it started publishing Page 3 pictures. Chrisitain-Right-Moral-Majority types, feminists etc.

So the publishers of the Sun Know they're offending somoene via Page 3. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong - in the context of a free society not ruled by Islamofascists and PC police.

One point that I think has been neglected is that JP aired both sides of the story.

That is, among the 12 cartoons are some pictures very unflattering to the newspaper. I refer specifically to the "PR Stunt" pic and the Mohammed schoolboy who wrote "JPs editors are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs."

JP was fair and balanced, and their usage of all the cartoons was justified. I find no fault with JP, the Danish Government, or Arla foods (who are the big losers in the boycott).

But I'm sure Hobbes would love to remind us how were all evil racists and how anything offensive should be left unpublished (Does this include The Sun's Page 3?)