Bin Laden issues out warning to Europe

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

eh I know what the purpose of satire is .. thats why I said what was the point of the cartoons except as a poor attempt at satire.

"Poor" is subjective. Do not mistake "poor" with "contentious".

How does this apply to everyone who is not a member of Islamic society? I live in london where there is an enormous Muslim population. How come I dont feel I am looking over my shoulder?

I failed to qualify that remark correctly. It applies to anybody who is not a member of Islamic society and passes a remark that is critical of Islam or challenges a belief/practice of islam. It is perceived that you can say very little for fear of being attacked. And the west has had more than a handful of fairly high-profile murders over the last decade to prove that point.

Sorry to disagree but I dont think I'm missing any 'fundamental point'. Yes these clerics have a warped logic and they percieve injustice where there is none. But in this case there was an injustice and a continuing injustice.

Satire works because there is truth behind it. That's part of the whole f.*.c.k.i.n.g. point of satire. Is using humour to get at a difficult-to-dicuss truth an injustice? No, what you're encouraging is just blatant revisionism and appeasement of a school yard bully.

Personally speaking, I wish more Muslims (i'm sure many do, but that many would appear very much a minority) would question their own belief structure; if not to break it down but to improve upon understanding of it and to highlight those cases where others are trying to manipulate it for their own goals; case in point - firebrand clerics telling half-truths to stir hatred. But because people are fearful of offending Islam by questioning or critiscing such people, they go unchecked.

Its not the fact that an image of Mohammed was printed but the fact that it was intented in an offending and ridiculing manner. Muslims will percieve this as an attack on them and their faith

Actually, had a picture of the prophet Mohammed been printed in any context by a western media outlet there would have been uproar, with the west accussed of attacking Islam.

A point that says more or less that they have put up with this kind of behaviour if the want to be members of our society.

This is, I think, the most single and individually important comment you've made on this thread. To be a member of our society you HAVE to be willing to put up with this sort of behaviour, and people do it all the time. The fact that we have a large sub-group who are demanding to be exempt from t his whilst threatening to carry out wanton acts of violence appears to be lost on you.

SeanW

Playboy wrote: »

This sentence just about sums you up. I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post because I think your judgement is clouded by some other agenda and what I say isnt going to change your mind.

Of course.

First you misquote me, quite egregiously I might add, then you ignore all the evidence while looking for a pathetic excuse to dismiss my arguments out of hand. I fear it is your judgement that is being clouded by some other agenda, and for that reason I won't be responding to any more of your ... contributions.

Manic Moran

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

This is just great. Why did they reprint the cartoons after the outrage the first time it happened. Looks like Europe is more and more of an enemy to extremists by the day...

You're kidding, right?

You're saying it's Europe's fault that the extremists can't take a joke? That we should not exercise, within our own borders, one of our most fundamental rights? That we should restrict this right for fear of the threat of violence? Is that not the goal of terrorism?

Frankly, Europe is an enemy to the extremists anyway regardless of what we print. That's why they're extremists with respect to us.

NTM

Playboy

SeanW wrote: »

Of course.

First you misquote me, quite egregiously I might add, then you ignore all the evidence while looking for a pathetic excuse to dismiss my arguments out of hand. I fear it is your judgement that is being clouded by some other agenda, and for that reason I won't be responding to any more of your ... contributions.

>Quote

Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

Its quite clear what agenda you serve. Your own words. I did not misquote you.

Denis Irwin

Osama can kiss my Irish arse. If he thinks We'll back down over his bullying and threats he's got another thing coming.

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

"Poor" is subjective. Do not mistake "poor" with "contentious".

Well imo it was poor .. I wasnt aware that I wasnt allowed to be subjective? Your appraisal that the cartoons were 'contentious' and not 'poor' is subjective is it not :rolleyes:

Lemming wrote:

I failed to qualify that remark correctly. It applies to anybody who is not a member of Islamic society and passes a remark that is critical of Islam or challenges a belief/practice of islam. It is perceived that you can say very little for fear of being attacked. And the west has had more than a handful of fairly high-profile murders over the last decade to prove that point.

I have many muslim friends who I have frank and open discussions about Islam all the time. I am critical and I challenge a lot of their beliefs. I have never been threatened .. there has never even been a raised voice. The vast majority of Muslim people I have met (and i have met and have been friends with many) are very respectful and peace loving people.

If you have a point to make to a muslim about his/her faith and you make that point in a respectful and intelligent manner and you have educated yourself in the topic then I dont see why any sane muslim would have a problem with it.

But .. when you are insulting to any faith in the global media then of course you are going to have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you .. and also .. you are going to offend a hell of a lot of people.

Lemming wrote:

Personally speaking, I wish more Muslims (i'm sure many do, but that many would appear very much a minority) would question their own belief structure; if not to break it down but to improve upon understanding of it and to highlight those cases where others are trying to manipulate it for their own goals; case in point - firebrand clerics telling half-truths to stir hatred. But because people are fearful of offending Islam by questioning or critiscing such people, they go unchecked.

There are 1.8 billion muslims in the world. A lot of them live in poverty in 3rd world countries and have little or no education. What you are asking is quite impossible for the time being.

However I think you will find that muslims living in the western world with a decent education like you and I are just normal people who do question their 'own' belief structure ... whatever that belief structure may be. You do know that Islam is not a centralized religion like the catholic church and there are mny different interpretations of the religion and the sharia law. Your sweeping statements are utter codswallop.

Lemming wrote:

Actually, had a picture of the prophet Mohammed been printed in any context by a western media outlet there would have been uproar, with the west accussed of attacking Islam.

Not true. Mohammed appeared on South Park where he was running around saving people alongside Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. There was no uproar about that .. the episode has been repeated many times on european television. Why no uproar?

Lemming wrote:

This is, I think, the most single and individually important comment you've made on this thread. To be a member of our society you HAVE to be willing to put up with this sort of behaviour, and people do it all the time. The fact that we have a large sub-group who are demanding to be exempt from t his whilst threatening to carry out wanton acts of violence appears to be lost on you.

Who is this large sub group that are demanding? Have you done a survey that Im not aware of. I think that its fair game for anyone in a civilized society to feel that they should not have to put this sort abuse. Would it be acceptable if this were racism? Why is there different standards. Peoples religion is fair game but race isnt? The fact is that you probably could not do something more insulting to the muslim community .. potraying their prophet in the way that the cartoons did was designed to have the kind of reaction it did.

Still the negative reaction and threats came from a minority of individuals within the muslim community. It offended every muslim but the vast majority just got on with it. But small minded people dont recognize the majority .. they want to focus on the minority that react and they try and paint the whole community with the same brush. And to make their point they continue to insult the average moderate muslim because they feel like they have to make this ridiculous point about free speech to this extreme minority.

oscarBravo

Raspberry wrote: »

الجهاد سرب

The lingua franca of this forum is English, so translate please.

lostexpectation

more facist v fascist

lostexpectation

Denis Irwin wrote: »

Osama can kiss my Irish arse. If he thinks We'll back down over his bullying and threats he's got another thing coming.

back down on what?

SeanW

Playboy wrote: »

>Quote

Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

Its quite clear what agenda you serve. Your own words. I did not misquote you.

You did before. You paraphrased this post as:

Playboy wrote:

telling muslims to feck of back to the dark ages

First of all, you said Muslims without any other qualifying criterion when I clearly qualified my statement by saying "someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions" and secondly, I was merely pointing out that some of these origin countries are still in the Dark Ages, Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc, in fact many places where Islamic law is currently implemented.

I have no problem with the muslims, minority or majority as they may be, who just live their lives, praying, going to mosque, buying their HalAl foods or whatever, and generally don't bother anyone else. However, those are not the kind of Muslims we're talking about in this thread - and I think you know that.

Go back to post 25 before responding.

Sesshoumaru

Playboy wrote: »

So by your logic should we allow racist, bigoted, sexist cartoons be printed because some people find it funny .. After all thats what is important .. our right to be amused at other peoples expense.

I doubt many people would buy a newspaper that printed racist material. I believe it is better to let people air their views whatever they may be. Better then to challenge those views in public. Social ostracization should be the consequence for a person or publisher who says things society strongly disagrees with.

I think this is how free speech has benefited and allowed progress in Western society over time. I mean a black person sitting at the front of a bus offended a lot of people at one time! Women demanding the vote and equal rights offended a lot of people also in our past. Homosexuals parading and demanding rights sure as hell offended a lot of people. If you had granted free speech without the right to offend where would be today? Where would the gay movement be? Where would African Americans be? and equal rights for women?

The right to offend people is absolutely necessary. Thankfully I see most people here are vigorously defending this right we have inherited.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

Well imo it was poor .. I wasnt aware that I wasnt allowed to be subjective? Your appraisal that the cartoons were 'contentious' and not 'poor' is subjective is it not :rolleyes:

No, and I shall use a :rolleyes: to follow that. 'Poor' is a matter of personal perspective. 'Contentious' is recognising the reality that you will offend somebody with whatever satire it is that you choose to publish.

I have many muslim friends who I have frank and open discussions about Islam all the time. I am critical and I challenge a lot of their beliefs. I have never been threatened .. there has never even been a raised voice. The vast majority of Muslim people I have met (and i have met and have been friends with many) are very respectful and peace loving people.

I'm sure you do have many reasoned and well educated Muslim friends. As for your claims of challenging their beliefs; I will have to take your word for that although I sincerely doubt you ask them nasty questions. In fairness, such questions aren't exactly table or casual conversation themes and it's not like people just break into such topics casually for the hell of it ...

If you have a point to make to a muslim about his/her faith and you make that point in a respectful and intelligent manner and you have educated yourself in the topic then I dont see why any sane muslim would have a problem with it.

You don't see why? Faith.

Faith spurred two very well educated Muslims [doctors] attempt to drive a car bomb into Glasgow airport. Faith led 19 hijackers, who were obviously intelligent enough, to train for and carry out the 9/11 attacks; London; Madrid, etc. Otherwise reasonably intelligent people. So why do such stupid, violent things?

I'd try to include some Christians in this, but tbh most I can think of have not been that remarkably adept at showing intelligence (other than pointing a gun) and tend to be complete lunatics. But I digress ...

Faith is funny like that. Faith makes otherwise ordinarily intelligent people do very f*cking stupid things.

But .. when you are insulting to any faith in the global media then of course you are going to have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you .. and also .. you are going to offend a hell of a lot of people.

So in order to not have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you, you should say nothing at all? Is that it?

Do you think Monty Python should have never written either 'The Quest for the Holy Grail' or 'The life of Brian' ? Do you think Galileo should never have defied the accepted teachings of the Vatican? Do you think the Irish Catholic church's stance on divorce, abortion, and paedophilia (and it's obstruction of investigation) should have remained unquestioned? In all of the above members of a faith were insulted and perceived their religion to be under attack.

To be perfectly honest, I could turn around and insult your favourite football team tomorrow and you might take it to heart and try and swing a punch at me. Whose fault would it be that you swing a punch because someone says something and you have so little control over yourself that you have to resort to violence?

There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. A lot of them live in poverty in 3rd world countries and have little or no education. What you are asking is quite impossible for the time being.

For the time being? Do you think that the Islamic world will suddenly just change overnight? Christianity didn't, nor did most other sects of religion I'm sure.

The issue of poverty is central to the cynical exploitation of many Muslims; by those pushing their own agendas twisting the Qur'an for their own means and using so many Muslims as pawns. I see that as nothing short of disgusting and what irks me is that we do not hear many Muslims speaking out and challenging such people. I'm sure there are those who do speak out, they just don't seem to get the attention they rightly deserve.

However I think you will find that Muslims living in the western world with a decent education like you and I are just normal people who do question their 'own' belief structure ... whatever that belief structure may be. You do know that Islam is not a centralized religion like the catholic church and there are mny different interpretations of the religion and the sharia law. Your sweeping statements are utter codswallop.

Just like your own sweeping statements are utter codswallop.

There are many different interpretations; some obscure; some very predominant. The current sect that is creating much of the negative press for Islam in general is Wahisbm - exported from Saudi Arabia by the wealth of the country's oil business. And as I understand it, many Muslims from other sects view Wahisbm as somewhat ... primitive/extreme. And vice versa Wahisbm views most other sects in an unfavourable light, and non-Muslims in an even less favourable light.

Not true. Mohammed appeared on South Park where he was running around saving people alongside Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. There was no uproar about that .. the episode has been repeated many times on european television. Why no uproar?

Because it probably slipped under the radar. How many Muslims watch South-Park? What demographic of Muslim is most likely to watch South-Park? Compare and contrast with the general demographic likely to pick up and read a newspaper or watch the evening news.

The only reason the Danish cartoons caused the uproar they did was because a bunch of clerics with an agenda did a tour of the ME to stir up hatred and outrage. Otherwise it would have been a near non-entity except perhaps locally in Denmark.

Who is this large sub group that are demanding? Have you done a survey that Im not aware of. I think that its fair game for anyone in a civilized society to feel that they should not have to put this sort abuse. Would it be acceptable if this were racism? Why is there different standards. Peoples religion is fair game but race isnt? The fact is that you probably could not do something more insulting to the muslim community .. potraying their prophet in the way that the cartoons did was designed to have the kind of reaction it did.

This large perceived sub-group is the Muslim community by your own words. You claimed that they were integrated into Western society and are feeling insulted and aggrieved by this. So I must assume that you have done a comprehensive survey yourself and are prepared to publish it for all to scrutinise.

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

No, and I shall use a :rolleyes: to follow that. 'Poor' is a matter of personal perspective. 'Contentious' is recognising the reality that you will offend somebody with whatever satire it is that you choose to publish.

Look any judgement you make is a subjective judgement. If you judge the 'satire' to be contentious then that is your subjective opinion. If you want to argue the point then start a thread on the philosophy forum.

Lemming wrote:

I'm sure you do have many reasoned and well educated Muslim friends. As for your claims of challenging their beliefs; I will have to take your word for that although I sincerely doubt you ask them nasty questions. In fairness, such questions aren't exactly table or casual conversation themes and it's not like people just break into such topics casually for the hell of it ...

For instance? Honor Killings, female circumcision, domestic abuse, the age of Mohammeds wives, stoning, 911, extremism etc etc. ? I have discussed all of these and have never had a problem with anyone I talked to. On the contrary I learned that I held a lot of mistaken beliefs and ill informed opinions. If you like I can ask any number of muslims to answer any questions you might have via email. You could also take a trip to the Islam forum and ask the people there.

Lemming wrote:

You don't see why? Faith.

Faith spurred two very well educated Muslims [doctors] attempt to drive a car bomb into Glasgow airport. Faith led 19 hijackers, who were obviously intelligent enough, to train for and carry out the 9/11 attacks; London; Madrid, etc. Otherwise reasonably intelligent people. So why do such stupid, violent things?

Assumption. You think it was faith .. how do you know? Maybe it was politically motivated. Whatever the case in any religion you are going to get some extremists or lunatics. You have all sorts of crazy christians and jews too you know killing people for religious reasons.

Lemming wrote:

Faith is funny like that. Faith makes otherwise ordinarily intelligent people do very f*cking stupid things.

It can also make them do some quite wonderful and extraordinary things like devoting your life to charity.

Lemming wrote:

So in order to not have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you, you should say nothing at all? Is that it?

Look Im starting to think that we are arguing around each other or you are not understanding my point.

By all means mock and insult .. that is your right. Personally I find that sort of thing irresponsible esp in the political climate at the moment. What I do object to is people attacking Islam and then accusing all Muslims of being violent when in fact it is only a tiny minority that react to this kind of thing. What purpose do these cartoons serve? What are they trying to achieve and who are they insulting.

Put yourself in the position of a regular Muslim. You live in the west and you work hard and try and live a good life. You are deeply religious and you religion is precious to you. You see cartoons mocking and offending your religion. You are upset but dont do anything. Then you see some extremists attack and kill people because of this .. something that also makes you sad because this goes against your religion. Then you have to deal with the cartoons being reprinted repeatedly and you have to listen to people and the media demonize your faith and your brothers because of the actions of some extremists. You probably even have to put up with people insulting you to your face because the media has created such a warped image of your faith.

The only people that are getting hurt in all of this are regular muslims .. most of who live good lives. Why should we insult a section of our society, be it gay, muslim, black, irish or whatever.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

Look any judgement you make is a subjective judgement. If you judge the 'satire' to be contentious then that is your subjective opinion. If you want to argue the point then start a thread on the philosophy forum.

Satire pokes fun at its subject in an attempt to get at it. Someone, somewhere is always going to be offended by it. Most probably the subject of the satire. That isn't a judgement. That's cold, stark reality.

Deciding whether the satire was good, poor, or indifferent is a matter of personal judgment.

Assumption. You think it was faith .. how do you know? Maybe it was politically motivated. Whatever the case in any religion you are going to get some extremists or lunatics. You have all sorts of crazy christians and jews too you know killing people for religious reasons.

We are both making assumption since we'll never really know. In reality it all boils down to hatred and nothing more, but the groups responsible claimed to be doing it for their faith. Whomever manipulated those people into doing what they did out did so by exploiting their faith. Those acts were carried out in the name of faith.

I choose the example of Muslim extremists since that is fairly central to this discussion. And I have already said there are extremists in other religions already.

It can also make them do some quite wonderful and extraordinary things like devoting your life to charity.

Indeed it can. I also know quite a few non-religious people who have devoted considerable amounts of their time to charity as well. What's your point? That only the religious are good people? Personally speaking, I've met religious people who would make your skin crawl. I also have a childhood friend who had very religiously inclined family members enact appalling circumstances upon him because of his sexual preferences (all within the last 10 years I might add ... ). Like most things in life, there are nice people and there are not nice people and it doesn't matter what background they have.

Look Im starting to think that we are arguing around each other or you are not understanding my point.

Oh I understand full well the point you're trying to make. It completely misses the point of what we consider within our society to be a central core principle.

By all means mock and insult .. that is your right. Personally I find that sort of thing irresponsible esp in the political climate at the moment. What I do object to is people attacking Islam and then accusing all Muslims of being violent when in fact it is only a tiny minority that react to this kind of thing. What purpose do these cartoons serve? What are they trying to achieve and who are they insulting.

Personally, I find not speaking out when you really should to be even more irresponsible. Anyone who mocks and insults for the sake of it is being an arsehole. Satire however serves a purpose as a vehicle of discussion. And currently, whether you like it or not, Islam is being given a bad reputation within the West currently by a bunch of extremists both at home and abroad stoking the fans of hatred. Even seemingly innocent acts become great mole-hills. A teddy bear anyone, for example? How about the charity worker who was married to an Iraqi and had lived there for 30 years who was then kidnapped and beheaded by Al Queda in Iraq a couple of years back? Margaret Hassan I think? There are a couple of incidents (at least one of which is still on-going) related to Dublin but I wont mention them in case I step in a legal minefield.

How do your friends reconcile with the reality of radical clerics gaining prominent posts in Mosques in the West and preaching hatred for the very countries that have sheltered them; preying in the young and impressionable to indoctrinate? Would they challenge the "teachings" of these people? Or turn their backs and simply quietly go about their business and hope it goes away?

How would your friends reconcile with knowing someone in the same neighbourhood is an known Al Queda operative/fundraiser granted asylum and laundering money through claimed Islamic charities?

How would your friends reconcile the knowledge that a teacher narrowly escaped physical beatings and had to be smuggled out of a country for fear of being beaten to death by a lynch mod in the name of Islam for allowing the children in her class hold a vote on a teddy bear's name?

So as you can see, Islam is a hot-topic so to speak. Maybe next week it'll be the Mahon tribunal and some satire about Bertie. Maybe the week after that it'll be the cocaine-snorting socialites of Dublin, etc. etc.

Put yourself in the position of a regular Muslim. You live in the west and you work hard and try and live a good life. You are deeply religious and you religion is precious to you. You see cartoons mocking and offending your religion. You are upset but dont do anything. Then you see some extremists attack and kill people because of this .. something that also makes you sad because this goes against your religion. Then you have to deal with the cartoons being reprinted repeatedly and you have to listen to people and the media demonize your faith and your brothers because of the actions of some extremists. You probably even have to put up with people insulting you to your face because the media has created such a warped image of your faith.

Oh, I sympathise for ordinary Muslims caught in the middle of all this. I really do. And to be honest, being half-Scot and catching some flack for my Irish-side once or twice I can appreciate some of what they perhaps have to deal with. To answer your question; I'd be more angry with the b*stards doing horrendous things in my name (when I never said so) than the people who react angrily.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

If we want freedom of speech, we have to allow for people being offended. That is the sacrifice.

So it's ok to make jokes about blacks, disabled people, etc etc. It's ok for English comedians to constantly take the piss out of Irish people?

Raspberry wrote: »

Why is it that you feel we should trim our opinions in an effort to try and avoid offending a bunch of people due to a ridiculous belief they have?

If you didn't like the mother of some guy you worked with, if you thought she was a slut who sleeps around, would you draw a cartoon taking the piss out of her and stick it up on the office noticeboard? No you wouldn't. Why? Because he would get extremely upset with you. Depend on the type of person he was he would not every talk to you again or maybe he would beat the life out of you. So if you would not do this, then why would you draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad which would cause similar feelings of hurt for billions of Muslims around the world? I just don't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing unless their real motive is to cause division between Muslims and non-Muslims.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. I have issues with Islamofascism. I don't want to live under an extremist Sharia jackboot. Full stop.

You misquoted me. I said Muslims in the West who feel that their religion is in direct conflict with the native laws and norms of the Western country they occupy, should - instead of introducing Sharia law to the United Kingdon which is what some were trying to do - go piss off to some place like Saudi Arabia which does have Islamic law and is already in the Dark Ages.

Where are you getting this idea that Muslims in the UK want to introduce Sharia Law to the UK???? That is totally untrue. Muslims in the UK want the option to be able to settle certain family issues, such as divorce cases according to Muslim law (Jews already have these rights in the UK). This will in no way replace the existing UK laws on divorce. It will just allow a Muslim couple who want to get divorced according to Islamic law to do so. And both the husband and wife have to agree to handle the divorce in this way. If either disagree then it is settled using the standard UK divorce laws. You could think of it as when you have a small car accident. Standard procedure is that you should notify your insurance company and make a claim off the other persons insurance. However you my decide, if the other person agrees, to settle the problem without going through the insurance company. This is all Muslims want the right to be able to do. Currently a divorce takes 3 years to process in the UK. If Muslims were able to settle their divorce using Islamic rules, this process could be completed in a few months.

Raspberry

irishconvert wrote: »

So it's ok to make jokes about blacks, disabled people, etc etc. It's ok for English comedians to constantly take the piss out of Irish people?

Yeah, it is.

irishconvert wrote: »

If you didn't like the mother of some guy you worked with, if you thought she was a slut who sleeps around, would you draw a cartoon taking the piss out of her and stick it up on the office noticeboard? No you wouldn't. Why? Because he would get extremely upset with you.

These are two scenarios are completely different and your point is rather ridiculous. Not even the logic you've used in your scenario applies to the danish cartoons. You wouldn't take the piss out of your mates mother because you have no reason to since it's on a personal level. The cartoons were highlighting the point that radical Islam is dangerous and that whilst Islam is claimed to be a peaceful religion, it is not all that peaceful. Also, as the cartoons were directed at a religion, the cartoons were not personal.

irishconvert wrote: »

Depend on the type of person he was he would not every talk to you again or maybe he would beat the life out of you. So if you would not do this, then why would you draw a cartoon of the profit Muhammad which would cause similar feelings of hurt for billions of Muslims around the world? I just don't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing unless their real motive is to cause division between Muslims and non-Muslims.

If it were offensive to a large group of people that you chose to drink alcohol whether it was in front of their face or not, would you drink alcohol? The point is that they have a ridiculous belief, and they want to impose their own rules on the rest of the world to uphold this belief.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

Yeah, it is.

But it is not, it would not be published in any newspaper here or shown on TV.

Raspberry wrote: »

These are two scenarios are completely different and your point is rather ridiculous. Not even the logic you've used in your scenario applies to the danish cartoons. You wouldn't take the piss out of your mates mother because you have no reason to since it's on a personal level. The cartoons were highlighting the point that radical Islam is dangerous and that whilst Islam is claimed to be a peaceful religion, it is not all that peaceful. Also, as the cartoons were directed at a religion, the cartoons were not personal.

They are personal, I am tying to explain to you how Muslims feel about the prophet Muhammad being insulted. It is even worse than somebody insulting your mother or wife or someone close to you. Does that make sense to you?

Raspberry wrote: »

If it were offensive to a large group of people that you chose to drink alcohol whether it was in front of their face or not, would you drink alcohol? The point is that they have a ridiculous belief, and they want to impose their own rules on the rest of the world to uphold this belief.

Look, there are over 30,000 Muslims in Ireland, over 2 million in the UK. I didn't see or hear any protests about the cartoons. People were hurt by it but just got on with their life. Why would you want to publish a cartoon when you know it will hurt and offend so many people who do not act in a violent way?

Raspberry

irishconvert wrote: »

But it is not, it would not be published in any newspaper here or shown on TV.

No, generally jokes and English comedian slagging off Ireland aren't published in daily newspapers. Keyword newspapers.

irishconvert wrote: »

They are personal, I am tying to explain to you how Muslims feel about the profit Muhammad being insulted. It is even worse than somebody insulting your mother or wife or someone close to you. Does that make sense to you?

Well you failed miserably with that example. Drawing images of a a religious figure is completely different to drawing pictures slagging off your best friends mother and posting it up in the office. Just stop with that line of reasoning all together. I'm telling you now that you're wrong.

irishconvert wrote: »

Look, there are over 30,000 Muslims in Ireland, over 2 million in the UK. I didn't see or hear any protests about the cartoons. People were hurt by it but just got on with their life. Why would you want to publish a cartoon when you know it will hurt and offend so many people who do not act in a violent way?

There were mass protests actually. People with signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" and all sorts. Hell, a number of people were killed in Pakistan and an embassy was burned to the ground in Iran. You quite obviously didn't follow this at all.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

raspberry.. seriously, marry me.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

Well you failed miserably with that example. Drawing images of a a religious figure is completely different to drawing pictures slagging off your best friends mother and posting it up in the office. Just stop with that line of reasoning all together. I'm telling you now that you're wrong.

You can't understand, nevermind.

Raspberry wrote: »

There were mass protests actually. People with signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" and all sorts. Hell, a number of people were killed in Pakistan and an embassy was burned to the ground in Iran. You quite obviously didn't follow this at all.

I am talking about the UK and Ireland. With over 2 million Muslims no violent protests. The question I am asking you is do you think it is ok to offend all these peaceful Muslims in order to try to make some point to the extremists who react violently, who are in a minority?

Raspberry

irishconvert wrote: »

I am talking about the UK and Ireland. With over 2 million Muslims no violent protests.

I guess you're right, threatening to behead people is not violent.

irishconvert wrote: »

The question I am asking you is do you think it is ok to offend all these peaceful Muslims in order to try to make some point to the extremists who react violently, who are in a minority?

It's unfortunate that it happens, but that's the price we're willing to pay to live in a society which lets us air our views with out censorship. People being offended is a product of our freedom of speech. You simply can't have freedom of speech with out the threat of offending someone because there will always be someone offended by something.

So which exactly would you prefer? Living in a society where you can only voice your opinion so long as nobody is offended by it, no matter how ridiculous them taking offense to your opinion is, or would you rather live in a society where anyone can freely say or believe what they like, and you have to deal with it if you don't like what someone else is saying.

Anyway, I'm not going to read your answer because I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread because your illogical conclusions and ridiculous arguments give me headaches.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

It's unfortunate that it happens, but that's the price we're willing to pay to live in a society which lets us air our views with out censorship. People being offended is a product of our freedom of speech. You simply can't have freedom of speech with out the threat of offending someone because there will always be someone offended by something.

So which exactly would you prefer? Living in a society where you can only voice your opinion so long as nobody is offended by it, no matter how ridiculous them taking offense to your opinion is, or would you rather live in a society where anyone can freely say or believe what they like, and you have to deal with it if you don't like what someone else is saying.

I agree with freedom of speech but I think there comes a responsibility with it. If what you are saying or doing is extremely offensive for a person or group of people, and these people say "please do not do this as it is extremely offensive to us", I think you should then not do whetever it is that offende them, especially if there is no real reason for doing it.

If you were editor of the Irish Times, would you publish these cartoons even though I as a Muslim am now telling you that I and other Muslims would find them extremely offensive and hurtful? And if your answer is yes, please explain why you would publish them? What purpose would it serve?

Raspberry

irishconvert wrote: »

I agree with freedom of speech but I think there comes a responsibility with it. If what you are saying or doing is extremely offensive for a person or group of people, and these people say "please do not do this as it is extremely offensive to us", I think you should then not do whetever it is that offendes them, especially if there is no real reason for doing it.

If you were editor of the Irish Times, would you publish these cartoons even though I as a Muslim am now telling you that I and other Muslims would find them extremely offensive and hurtful? And if your answer is yes, please explain why you would publish them? What purpose would it serve?

Instead of leaving this thread, from now on I will refer you to the "ಠ .. ಠ" link in my signature. This will be my response to anything further you have to say in this thread.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

Instead of leaving this thread, from now on I will refer you to the "ಠ .. ಠ" link in my signature. This will be my response to anything further you have to say in this thread.

Why won't you answer the question?

gordon_gekko

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

A leading extremist moreover, but I would call it mad and more

The cartoon in question was taking the piss out of their prophet Muhammed.

big deal , so what if they made fun of the prophet

by having a bar on what you can say for fear of offending certain faiths , you put free speech and democrocy on a slippery slope
today its a bar on drawing satirical cartoons , tommorow its a ban on having an arab as a bad guy in a hollywood movie
you dont cow tow to bullys or even to immature babys who throw there dummy out of the pram, that is cowardly and irresponsible , especially if its for the sake of PC piety like is the case with many who frequent boards
those people it seems are willing to give away all the individual right and western freedoms our forefathers have fought for and won with blood for the sake of appearing pc and trendy

is_that_so

Not sure if he is dead or alive but the timing is very good -to coincide with the anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. So Dubya's "we done good" is swamped by Bin Laden threatening Europe. Who knows whether it is just yet another ramble but it makes people nervous.

I am not sure he really has all that much credibility any more even amongst erstwhile supporters tbh. In a lot of ways he's just as much a populist as Bush or any other leader and he will jump on whatever suits him to get his message out - which is fear and hatred, in an attempt to ensure he maintains his own perceived relevance.

TheUnicorn

What I don't understand is : What are you talking about people getting divorced while being muslim when there is no such a thing like divorce in their religion. There is no such a thing like divorce in christian religion even and church don't accept it under usual circumstances - it's accepted only when the law was broken when couple was getting married. What are you talking about? Defending muslims saying that jews have their laws in UK? Jews came to UK around 900 years ago, just to let you know a bit about history - at one stage in 1600-1700 London had budget 4 times lower than the money they borrowed from Jew traders living there. Jews were the real power because they did well doing businesses - what kind of power represent muslims living in UK? Power of self-destruction or power letting them kill their own daughters because they had white / non-muslim boyfriends and they wasted honour of the family? I don't mind anything except forcing laws by people who don't respect the law they should because they are guests in europe.

SeanW

irishconvert wrote: »

If you were editor of the Irish Times, would you publish these cartoons even though I as a Muslim am now telling you that I and other Muslims would find them extremely offensive and hurtful? And if your answer is yes, please explain why you would publish them? What purpose would it serve?

That would depend. If the debate was limited to Muslims saying "I find these cartoons offensive" I probably would find no reason to.

If on the other hand, myself, my reporters, or newspapermen in Denmark etc were being threatened by religious whackos sending hate mail with messages like "if you print those cartoons I will cut your head off in the street like a dog, you filthy infidel" or indeed if there were to be actual physical violence about a stupid cartoon, I would find it a necessary step to protect press freedom.

You must remember, had radical Imams not used the original ones to start up trouble, they would have been forgotten and never reprinted. They are the ones who put Western media into a "fight or flight" situation.

In the West, everything is up for debate and ridicule. A few years ago, Jerry Springer made an opera, which was televised, which was totally disrespectful of Christianity including an actor playing Jesus who admitted that he was "a little bit gay." If you don't remember it, I am not surprised. Because it was, at best minimally controversial - noone rioted, nooone was massacred and no embassies were burned down. Devout Christians turned a blind eye. And because of that, noone even remembers the damn thing.

RedPlanet

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I mean a black person sitting at the front of a bus offended a lot of people at one time! Women demanding the vote and equal rights offended a lot of people also in our past. Homosexuals parading and demanding rights sure as hell offended a lot of people. If you had granted free speech without the right to offend where would be today? Where would the gay movement be? Where would African Americans be? and equal rights for women?

The right to offend people is absolutely necessary. Thankfully I see most people here are vigorously defending this right we have inherited.

You must be confused. All of the things you've cited are instances whereby a subset of people stood up for their civil rights, they weren't out "offending" anybody!

Liam Byrne

I'm with RedPlanet on that last post.....the black person didn't hold up a poster he'd drawn saying "white men are inferior", and the gay community didn't hold up graphic pictures of them in the act.

Actually, the anti-abortion group were probably the biggest offenders in this regard, showing objectionable photos during their protests which were DESIGNED to offend.

But "sitting on a bus" or "marching to highlight your entitlement to your rights" do not involve setting out to offend or poke fun at someone.

I've seen some supposed "funny" things (including a thread somewhere here containing what are called "Jesus jokes") and some of them are funny, while some of them are just crap and / or very bad taste. While that's subjective, the test is probably to put yourself in the other person's shoes and see how you'd feel - while you mightn't laugh out loud, if you can see a funny side then it has something, otherwise its probably snide and crude and a cheap shot.

Coming from Limerick, and watching some supposed comedians take cheap shots, I know all about this; if the gag is funny, I'll still laugh, but if it's something that you KNOW would cause a riot in Finglas or somewhere, it's best avoided. Mind you, sometimes the humour can come from the irony of the idiot who's taking the cheap shot, or even trying to make a serious point (which makes sense in their own head):

Example 1 : in the Canaries one day, a guy from South Armagh (of all places) said, when he heard we were from Limerick - "Oh, Stab City" !!!! If I'd reversed the scenario and commented on South Armagh, would I have been kneecapped ?

Example 2 : The Fianna Fail PRO in Clare complaining this morning about a journalist printing lies while defending his boss' ever-changing story about money

Example 3 : A Catholic bishop [not a decent, honest one, but one who has moved paedophile priests around to different parishes] getting high-and-mighty and complaining how Muslims mutilate their children

Setting out to offend is a cheap form of humour that appeals to idiots; being funny and inadvertently offending someone is different, and is forgiveable.