Shooting in Demark

DeadHand

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

A picture I just drew.

Oh, great.

Now we all die.

Cheers for that!

Bob24

Egginacup wrote: »

What you don't seem to understand is that some people take insults very seriously. Now it will be very easy for people to scream that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct than anything else. Even above and beyond the "right" to humiliate people.

This is not about freedom of speech. This is about subjugation. This is about finding a button to push and enrage people. The cartoons that these guys have created aren't even the slightest bit interesting or thought-provoking. They are anti-intellectual, the kind of childish dross that muckrakers would produce in an attempt to spark a reaction no matter how negative or sinister that reaction was.
The persons who killed them should be tried, and if convicted, be jailed for the better part of their lives.
But the message should be that if you think it's funny to insult an entire swath of people for cheap chuckles then you will be within your rights to so do, and your killers will be prosecuted but you are ill-advised to engage in such adolescent activity.

Muslims do not give a shit about alcohol, pork, pornography, etc in the western communities in which they live. I have never once heard of an example of Muslims in Britain fire-bombing an "offy" or a "chippy". So the thought of them trying to change society into some radical autocracy is laughable.
They just don't want to be insulted. It's that simple. And if you think that "well I don't care about having my religion insulted so why should they?" is a good enough reason for digging your heels in then you're never going to understand much of anything.

Firstly, I am glad you are not saying than anyone deserved to die anymore.

About the cartoons, I don't know how many of them you have seen or if you have the language or cultural background to claim you fully understand them (I happen to claim that myself), but while they can often arguably be of poor taste I think you are quite incorrect in saying "they aren't even the slightest bit interesting or thought-provoking". If you are interested, I would be very glad to take a few of the ones I have seen incorrectly categorised as racist by people who do not get have the right cutural background, and explain why they are actually though provoking and just the opposite of racist.

Now you are saying "the message should be that if you think it's funny to insult an entire swath of people for cheap chuckles then you will be within your rights to so do, and your killers will be prosecuted but you are ill-advised to engage in such adolescent activity.". Isn't a TV series like Father Ted an insult to all the clerics in the Catholic Church, occasionally portraying them as alcoholics, idiots, interested in power and money, in women, etc. Yet no-one ever felt insulted to the point of becoming violent about it. I am already hearing you saying it is not the the same as Charlie Hedbo (sure nothing is ever the same, but still everything is related), but I will ask a question: would anyone anywhere in this world dare releasing a TV series depicting a Muslim community let by a group of Imams amongst which one is an alcoholic and an other one is an idiot? (even if it is full of good sentiments as Father Ted can also be). I personally think the answer is no. And I am not sure I am OK with the fact that a specific religious group can us a combination of being offended and violence from part of that group to be safe from satire, while it is OK to make fun of the other religious groups none feel physically threatened by them. Also the general speech around these things is very ambivalent: most people (which I assume we are both part of) are making a difference between a violent minority and the rest of the European muslim community, but on the other and when you are saying "to insult an entire swath of people" you are putting all Muslims back in the same basket again. I am not sure it is a good thing as it is blurring the lines about which side "moderate" (for lack of a better word) Muslims are on.

The point of your argument I haven't addressed yet is that leaving religion aside, if you are going to insult someone who might be violent you should be ready to take the consequences.
But then I will ask you the same I have asked in a previous post: do you think a cartoonist or a journalist should refrain from reporting or making fun of member of drug cartels or mafias. Surely this people would be offended and could be violent.
Also, do you think a non European movie that would portray the average Italian as a mafia criminal on a tone of mockery would justify the killing of the director be the mafia? Would you think he looked for his trouble because he insulted the whole Italian Nation?
What is the difference between mocking Italy and mocking Islam?


To me it all boils to to how far society is ready to bow for people who are using terrorism to request the wider community they are part of to be treated differently from the general population.

Defender OF Faith

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

A picture I just drew.

Lol I cant see anything wrong with the picture, there have been visual depictions of the prophet in the form of miniatures and pictures in the Iranian context, the Turkish context, the central Asian context. When the Muslim get upset over depictions of Muhammed it's because how one represented him rather then breaking the Islamic rule regarding the prohibition of depicting Muhammed.

"In 871, a Muslim merchant to China recorded his encounter with the emperor who asked the merchants whether they could identify prophets from the pictures that he had.

At one point in the narrative, the merchant records: "I saw the picture of the Prophet Mohamed, God bless him and keep him, mounted on a camel with his companions around him on their camels, with Arab sandals on their feet and tooth sticks in waistbands, and I wept." “Ask him why he is weeping,” the emperor said to the interpreter.” “This is our prophet and our master, eternal peace be upon him.”*


The Muslim cultures were never necessarily hostile to images. the offence felt by the Muslim today when faced with images of the Prophet is not a case of him being depicted or not, but rather how he is depicted.

It all hinges on whether he is being portrayed as a man of violence, of sensuality, of depravity. All of these arise out of medieval Europe’s caricaturisation of Mohamed as part of their campaign against Islam. Because of this, the way many Muslim respond to images of Mohamed have less to do with a lack of creative imagination and disdain for free, artistic expression, and more to do with what they consider to be a perverted image of an exemplary man of God.

Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...w-9983412.html

Donkey Oaty

Two charged in Copenhagen with aiding the killer:

http://news.sky.com/story/1428272/police-charge-copenhagen-attack-suspects

Egginacup

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The Buddhists extremists in Myanmar should be exterminated without mercy just like the Islamists. An international force should go in there and kill them all. But of course nothing will be done. Westerners will just sign petitions and have die in protests. They don't want boots on the ground to stop these fanatics.

All your talk about killing without mercy and exterminating makes you sound like a bit of an extremist yourself mate.

UCDVet

Such an embarrassing time to be religious.

Egginacup

alwald wrote: »

Very good post indeed, you hit all the right points (not sure about Iran myself), add Libya to the list as the post Gaddafi is even worse than when he was ruling the country, Libya was left in a complete chaos and god knows what's happening in there.....what kind of a monster will eventually come out of that country is unthinkable?

Libya was the richest and most stable country in Africa under Ghadaffi. What's this "even worse" that you're talking about?

daUbiq

UCDVet wrote: »

Such an embarrassing time to be religious.

Indeed, adults believing in farytales is embarrassing...

alwald

Egginacup wrote: »

Libya was the richest and most stable country in Africa under Ghadaffi. What's this "even worse" that you're talking about?

Are you aware about the atrocities that he committed in his own country? are you aware about the killings that he committed in his country and beyond? are you aware about the different alliances that he tried to build and his plans? are you aware about his style of ruling Libya? if not then use google, I am not here to educate people about basic knowledge.....especially posters like yourself who write a simple sentence and pretend to know everything.

Egginacup

Letree wrote: »

Ah come on, it has been a monumental f**k up. They tried to bring democracy and all they managed was a situation where ISIS are romping through the place bring mayhem, brutality and destruction.

Of course the concept of democracy is good and it would be great of it could come to fruition. But these two numskulls have set the place back centuries.

They never try to "bring democracy". Why would they give a shit about democracy? That's a slogan for the dope in the street.

jaykay74

daUbiq wrote: »

Indeed, adults believing in farytales is embarrassing...

There is a sanity clause I believe but only applicable to kids.

wretcheddomain

UCDVet wrote: »

Such an embarrassing time to be religious.

Every time is an embarrassing time to be religious. :pac:

Egginacup

DeadHand wrote: »

So, are people who express disdain for Christianity and highlight the obvious, negative effect it has had on humanity also "bigots"?

That all depends. Mostly those religious people who decry other religions are bigoted. Those who decry all religions tend to be more open-minded.

Egginacup

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Misrepresenting my posts much?

Point out where I said Turkey was an atheist country?

Saying this country or that is atheist is one of your wilder claims.

Your posts are bizzare. Go back and read the contexts of my posts including the posts I was responding to. And then apologise.

I will give you a clue. Modern Turkey was founded as a secular democracy. You get it now?

I will not apologise. Try that condescending crap with someone else. I am well aware that Attaturk was the man who was responsible for the birth of the modern secular Turkey but you said that Turkey "rejected Islam for the evil that it was"
This is where I called you out. Turkey has ALWAYS been a muslim country. When the hell did Turks renounce their faith in Islam as you claimed? Hence the question about Turkey being atheist.

Wurzelbert

DeadHand wrote: »

[...]
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Turkey are all neighbouring powers with more than enough military muscle to crush ISIS in a week if they wanted to. Yet, why don't they?

There are obviously political and strategic concerns at play too, for example NATO wouldn't tolerate an Iranian occupation of Iraq, but it seems to me there is a lot of tacit support and tolerance of ISIS in the Muslim world in general.
[...]

yes, a nation like saudi arabia would have the means to finance a massive campaign against isis if only they wanted to...but the saudis have their own agenda and would rather keep it quiet and passive as long as the oil keeps flowing, while at the same time funding muslim propaganda abroad...
there can be no doubt that political and strategic concerns are at play here as well, and that there is indeed a lot of tacit support and tolerance of isis in the muslim world...no such organisation could ever exist and thrive without substantial popular support...unfortunately this world is not as black and white as some like to see it...

Akrasia

One of the most ridiculous thing about this entire 'muhammad' affair is that the muslims who think it's offensive to make images of 'the prophet' also think it's offensive to make images of any 'prophet' including Jesus. (Muslims believe jesus was a prophet)

Any person who thinks we shouldn't draw muhammad to avoid offending these people should also support banning all christians from wearing a crucifix, and banning the sale of those 'sacred heart' paintings that are in almost every house in Ireland

Freedom of speech seperates free nations from totalitarian ones. If the price of freedom is that you might get your sincerely held beliefs challenged or mocked, then that is a cheap price to pay and you should consider it a badge of honour.

Egginacup

DeadHand wrote: »

Right so ISIS are developed enough to do all the expanding and ethnic/religious cleansing they do yet the rest of the Muslim world is "developing" so unable to stop them?

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Turkey are all neighbouring powers with more than enough military muscle to crush ISIS in a week if they wanted to. Yet, why don't they?

There are obviously political and strategic concerns at play too, for example NATO wouldn't tolerate an Iranian occupation of Iraq, but it seems to me there is a lot of tacit support and tolerance of ISIS in the Muslim world in general.

If a fundamentalist Christian group gained power in central Europe today and immediately began slaughtering religious and sexually minorities it would be swiftly removed by surrounding powers.

Yet, no such virtue from Muslim populations or powers. More Muslim British men are fighting for ISIS today than are serving in the British army.

The Kurds, who are themselves Muslim, fight manfully to prevent their own cleansing and the sexual enslavement of their female population but with how much support from the Arab or Muslim worlds? They rely on Western aid and Western aerial intervention to help stave off their own holocaust.

Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS. Why would they want to crush them? ISIS are conducting a campaign of genocide against the Shia and this is precisely what the Saudis want. They have ethnically cleansed Northern Iraq of Shia.

Snake Plisken

Timmyctc wrote: »

How do you know he reported your posts. I reported this post because you're attacking the poster and not the post. Why does he need to condemn the attacks in Copenhagen. Are the families that distraught without his condemnation? Was he thought to be personally at fault?

I notice you have yet to condemn the attack of Craig Stephen Hicks on the three Muslims he killed. Or the recent attacks on Peshawari Shia Muslims who were killed in their mosque by *Shock surprise* other Muslims. Or is violence only an issue when its orchestrated by Muslims upon non Muslims? Will it make an ounce of difference if you condemn the attack or not. Absolutely not. The only thing Nodin, Muslims, Pakistanis or Us share in common with the fundamentalists is that we breathe the same air. Beyond that we as much responsible for their actions as one another. Not a single iota, that is.

There is no need for anyone to condemn something that's so obviously wrong that it doesn't need to be said and people don't have to come out and condemn it because you dictate it so. Sadly what also shouldn't need to be said is that Islam as a whole is not the issue, however, people like yourself throw a spanner in the works RE: that.

In summary, your posts are retarded and you should feel bad.

I can't be commenting on every thread like others! this happened at the weekend when I was off and browsing boards, you know i stand by my original comment, and hey 60 board users thanked my post, but hey I'll be banned off this thread and probably after hours in the coming hours (maybe that's a good thing)!

Egginacup

Shurimgreat wrote: »

People of a radical Islam bent weren't killing 30 years ago? Is that what you are saying? So who carried out the bombing of an american barracks in beiruit in 1982?

Violent radical islam is not new. Its as old as Islam itself. The only reason it declined was because the violent islamists met the west who were better armed.

Islam and radical violent Islam are closely linked, now and in the past going back to mohammad.

You think the Marine barracks was bombed by religious lunatics? It was bombed by nationalists to get the the occupying American forces the fuck out of the country.

Egginacup

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You are once again fighting your own straw man arguments. I am not rising above the other arguments. I am making my own. We are not in a room together. I oppose bush. Jail him. Jail Blair. Jail a few dozen neo-cons.

No doubt the US has in part caused the radicalisation. No doubt israel has. But that doesn't justify the radicals.

That argument was used to justify the IRA a decade or more back ( Catholics were oppressed, therefore all violence is acceptable). I heard members of my extended family justifying the Omagh bombings with that nonsense.

Can you have the moral clarity to oppose the killings of comics and Jewish people without recourse to whataboutary. Easy enough.

Sorry but that tactic of trying to force me to condemn/oppose these killings is not going to work with me.
I'll neither condemn nor condone as your attempt is mere verbal chicanery designed for nothing other than your own personal one-upmanship.

Wurzelbert

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

...Because of colonialism, usually.

not in the case of denmark, though..

Egginacup

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you defeated your own argument there. Why is the region unstable?

Why is western Europe stable?

Could it have something to do with religion in the middle east and the different interpretations?

The answer is yes.

That is drivel if ever I heard it. Pick a Muslim country that is suffering from internal strife. Blame it on Islam. Say "end of!".

Tell you what, to add to your stellar analytical skills I'd like to proffer:

"Why is Western Europe cold and wet? Why is the Middle East warm and dry?"

"Could it have something to do with religion?"

"The answer is yes" :rolleyes:

Egginacup

Bob24 wrote: »

Firstly, I am glad you are not saying than anyone deserved to die anymore.

About the cartoons, I don't know how many of them you have seen or if you have the language or cultural background to claim you fully understand them (I happen to claim that myself), but while they can often arguably be of poor taste I think you are quite incorrect in saying "they aren't even the slightest bit interesting or thought-provoking". If you are interested, I would be very glad to take a few of the ones I have seen incorrectly categorised as racist by people who do not get have the right cutural background, and explain why they are actually though provoking and just the opposite of racist.

Now you are saying "the message should be that if you think it's funny to insult an entire swath of people for cheap chuckles then you will be within your rights to so do, and your killers will be prosecuted but you are ill-advised to engage in such adolescent activity.". Isn't a TV series like Father Ted an insult to all the clerics in the Catholic Church, occasionally portraying them as alcoholics, idiots, interested in power and money, in women, etc. Yet no-one ever felt insulted to the point of becoming violent about it. I am already hearing you saying it is not the the same as Charlie Hedbo (sure nothing is ever the same, but still everything is related), but I will ask a question: would anyone anywhere in this world dare releasing a TV series depicting a Muslim community let by a group of Imams amongst which one is an alcoholic and an other one is an idiot? (even if it is full of good sentiments as Father Ted can also be). I personally think the answer is no. And I am not sure I am OK with the fact that a specific religious group can us a combination of being offended and violence from part of that group to be safe from satire, while it is OK to make fun of the other religious groups none feel physically threatened by them. Also the general speech around these things is very ambivalent: most people (which I assume we are both part of) are making a difference between a violent minority and the rest of the European muslim community, but on the other and when you are saying "to insult an entire swath of people" you are putting all Muslims back in the same basket again. I am not sure it is a good thing as it is blurring the lines about which side "moderate" (for lack of a better word) Muslims are on.

The point of your argument I haven't addressed yet is that leaving religion aside, if you are going to insult someone who might be violent you should be ready to take the consequences.
But then I will ask you the same I have asked in a previous post: do you think a cartoonist or a journalist should refrain from reporting or making fun of member of drug cartels or mafias. Surely this people would be offended and could be violent.
Also, do you think a non European movie that would portray the average Italian as a mafia criminal on a tone of mockery would justify the killing of the director be the mafia? Would you think he looked for his trouble because he insulted the whole Italian Nation?
What is the difference between mocking Italy and mocking Islam?


To me it all boils to to how far society is ready to bow for people who are using terrorism to request the wider community they are part of to be treated differently from the general population.

First of all I never said anyone deserved to die so for you to say that you're glad I don't say that anymore is an insult. Seems you and others just love insulting people but I guess that's what this thread is about even if you can't help yourself.

As for the whole Father Ted thing, I don't care. It doesn't bother me in the slightest as I'm not religious. If anything I never really found the show that funny to begin with. If anything it irritated me that it was a good dig at the Irish rather than the Catholic religion. The English getting a good laugh at the provincial drunks and simpletons across in leprechaunland.

Getting to the freedom of speech thing here. The people who are shouting the loudest over the right to be able to insult Muslims, that so called precious freedom of speech that they keep yammering on about, are the very people who want Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange strung up for exercising their right to free speech.

I am a firm believer in free speech and I'm not saying that drawing cartoons should be banned. I'm saying that if people insist on doing the one thing that will cause a negative reaction then they should be aware that their actions could have very grave consequences for them. That's all.

Donkey Oaty

Egginacup wrote: »

As for the whole Father Ted thing, I don't care. It doesn't bother me in the slightest as I'm not religious. If anything I never really found the show that funny to begin with. If anything it irritated me that it was a good dig at the Irish rather than the Catholic religion. The English getting a good laugh at the provincial drunks and simpletons across in leprechaunland.

Your understanding of Father Ted is about as deep as your understanding of Charlie Hebdo, Islam and world affairs.

Egginacup

alwald wrote: »

Are you aware about the atrocities that he committed in his own country? are you aware about the killings that he committed in his country and beyond? are you aware about the different alliances that he tried to build and his plans? are you aware about his style of ruling Libya? if not then use google, I am not here to educate people about basic knowledge.....especially posters like yourself who write a simple sentence and pretend to know everything.

Are you aware of the fact that Ghadaffi had very little power in Libya and that most decisions were made by regional councils? Were you aware that electricity was free in Libya while petrol was about 2 cents a gallon? Education for all was free. Are you aware of that?

What atrocities and killings are you on about? You rant that Ghadaffi was some kind of Saharan Stalin but then say "find it out yourself."

You are the one making these claims and assertions. The onus is on you to back it up, mate.

Egginacup

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Your understanding of Father Ted is about as deep as your understanding of Charlie Hebdo, Islam and world affairs.

What on Earth are you on about?

Nollog

that explains the 35 cent flights ryanair were offering last week.

Bob24

Egginacup wrote: »

First of all I never said anyone deserved to die so for you to say that you're glad I don't say that anymore is an insult. Seems you and others just love insulting people but I guess that's what this thread is about even if you can't help yourself.

I will just quote the post I was referring to rather than arguing about what it did or did not mean.

Egginacup wrote: »

They deliberately printed what the knew was going to cause offence or insult to the point of violent backlash.

A man in Spain recently lashed back and killed a guy for allegedly photographing his daughter in a restaurant. The majority consensus seems to be that the guy with the iPad deserved his death.

I am still not sure what majority consensus you were talking about ...



Now on the rest of our answer:

Egginacup wrote: »

Getting to the freedom of speech thing here. The people who are shouting the loudest over the right to be able to insult Muslims, that so called precious freedom of speech that they keep yammering on about, are the very people who want Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange strung up for exercising their right to free speech.

This is simply not true. You might want to double check the political alignment of the cartoonists who got killed. Took 20 seconds on Google to find a cartoon from Charb mocking Hollande for saying he will stand firm against US spying and doing nothing in practise: http://p2.storage.canalblog.com/21/71/177230/88117600_o.jpg.

I also remind you of my other points: Father Ted didn't cause any killings by offended catholics, I have never been shown a racist drawing from Charlie Hedbo, would you say newspapers should stop reporting about the mafia since it could trigger violent backlash?

daUbiq

Wurzelbert wrote: »

not in the case of denmark, though..

They had soldiers in Iraq during the second gulf war and in Afghanistan...

Wurzelbert

daUbiq wrote: »

They had soldiers in Iraq during the second gulf war and in Afghanistan...

yeah, incl. mbts in afghanistan...but never had a colony in the muslim world as far as i am aware...