Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Row deepens over Danish cartoons


__Kratos__

Recommended Posts

Arab foreign ministers have condemned the Danish government for failing to act against a newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

At the Arab League conference in Cairo, they said they were "surprised and discontented at the response".

Islam forbids any depiction of Muhammad or of Allah.

The Jyllands-Posten newspaper published a series of 12 cartoons showing Muhammad, in one of which he appeared to have a bomb in his turban.

The Arab League's ministers council said the cartoons were an insult to Islam.

The government's response "was disappointing despite its political, economic and cultural ties with the Muslim world", it added.

Death threats

Danish Muslim community leaders held talks with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in July to complain about press coverage of Islam.

At the time, Mr Rasmussen said he could not tell newspapers what to print - or what not to.

Arab ministers also said they were unhappy that European human rights organisations have not taken a clear position on the issue.

There have been street protests both in Denmark and in Muslim countries following the publication of the cartoons.

The newspaper insists on freedom of expression and says it has the right to print whatever words and pictures it chooses.

It said both the paper and the cartoonist had received death threats.

Source

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a bunch of loonies. What makes Islam better then someone's right to free speech? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • __Kratos__

    13

  • Fluffybunny

    6

  • AdNauseamSuiGeneris

    5

  • PLO

    5

"showing Muhammad, in one of which he appeared to have a bomb in his turban."

AHAHAHAHAHAHa, thatd be some funny sh**. Suprised they did actually get away with printin that, but the Danes do swing slightly to the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Arab ministers also said they were unhappy that European human rights organisations have not taken a clear position on the issue.

Source

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a bunch of loonies. What makes Islam better then someone's right to free speech? :rolleyes:

I like that, "unhappy with Euro human rights organisations". This coming from Islam countries that have no human rights or any free speech. I guess those death threats arn't the same uh? Bring on the cartoons! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newspaper insists on freedom of expression and says it has the right to print whatever words and pictures it chooses

And some newspapers do indeed exploit that right tastelessly in order to make fools of themselves and disturb the peace; how primitive and ignorant! <_< Freedom of expression mixed with stupidity is an old formula for causing trouble. :geek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone here seen the cartoons? I have. If I find the link again, I'll post it here.

They are in no way offensive. I see meaner cartoons in the U.S. newpapers every day and have yet to make a death threat based on them. If you don't like the editorial, don't damn read it! Modern peoples vote with their wallet, not with death threats and Jihads. This is exactly why no one in the world respects the islamic world. Thier leaders make them seem so rediculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the most ridiculous situations I have seen in a while... If the folks have such a hatred for free speech then they should move to a M.E. country that will make sure that a person who dares to draw mohommed will be punished...

How is it that muslims can be in a country and think that they can somehow force that country to change it's entire belief system in order to fit their needs?

If I as an American were to move to Riyadh in order to open up a liquer store/adult magazine stand I would not be so well received, and should I live through the event I would realize that a country will not change it's belief systems and laws simply because I think it should.

If the muslims are so deeply offended by this act(Whether it was intended to be offensive or not does not matter), then perhaps they should consider moving to a place more in line with their own personal beliefs than where they are.

The fact that they are willing to threaten people with death for drawing a cartoon that they do not agree with gives you an idea of what kind of people the Danish are dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian Penrod

4 Fairfield Avenue

West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006

(973) 220-1601

julianpenrod@comcast.net

December 31, 2005

To all:

The posts summarily denouncing Muslim response to the Danish "editorial cartoons" deliberately mocking Mohammed show all the characteristics of right wing psudo-pedagogery, venom, misrepresentation, minsinterpretation and hypocrisy, with the apparently inevitable sign of aggressive ignorance.

In introducing the article about Muslim outrage at Jyllands-Posten's evidently calculatedly provocative publishing of cartoons poking, frankly, ham-handedly gratuitous fun at Muhammed, Kratos, with seeming inevitability, adds the commentary, "What a bunch of loonies. What makes Islam better then [sic] someone's right to free speech?"

PLO's reply was, "AHAHAHAHAHAHa [sic], thatd [sic] be some funny sh**."

Addressing the issue of Muslim declamations against The European Union for allowing what seems a deliberate act of political provocation, and death threats from several Muslim sources against those who mocked their religion and culture - because that is what they did! - kjmk added, "I like that, 'unhappy with Euro human rights organisations'. This coming from Islam countries that have no human rights or any free speech. I guess those death threats arn't [sic] the same [sic] uh? Bring on the cartoons!"

Lord Umbarger's response is, "If you don't like the editorial, don't damn read it! Modern peoples vote with their wallet, not with death threats and Jihads. This is exactly why no one in the world respects the islamic [sic] world. Thier [sic] leaders make them seem so rediculous [sic]."

Fluffybunny offers up, "If the folks have such a hatred for free speech [sic] then they should move to a M.E. country that will make sure that a person who dares to draw mohommed [sic] will be punished..." They follow that up with, "How is it that muslims [sic] can be in a country and think that they can somehow force that country to change it's [sic] entire belief system in order to fit their needs?" Fluffybunny then adds, "If I [sic] as an American were to move to Riyadh in order to open up a liquer [sic] store/adult magazine stand [sic] would not be so well received, and [sic] should I live through the event [sic] I would realize that a country will not change it's [sic] belief system and laws simply because I think it should." Continuing, they assert, "If the muslims [sic] are so deeply offended by this act( [sic] Whether is was intended to be offensive or not does not matter), then [sic] perhaps they should consider moving to a place more in line with their own personal beliefs than where they are." They finish off with, "The fact that they are willing to threaten people with death for drawing a cartoon that they do not agree with gives you an idea of what kind of people the Danish are dealing with."

Among other things, despite Fluffybunny's attempt to brush this under the rug, it does make a difference whether something is done to be deliberately offensive! Because doing something deliberately to be offensive indicates the presence of animosity, of contempt, of hatred! And, frankly, that is what Jyllands-Posten demonstrated in printing the cartoons! They were not editorial cartoons! They were not apparently spontaneous expressions of commentary! They were commissioned by the publication, as part of a display they entitled "Mohammed's Face"! Anyone with anything even approaching what evidently would be considered an adequate familiarity with things would remember the old phrase "Der Fuhrer's Face", aimed derisively at Hitler! Jyllands-Posten, essentially, was equating Mohammed with Adolph Hitler, and doing it in a mocking and disdainful way!

They were expressing an evident definite, inherent hatred against the Muslims, a desire to do anything to encumber, even antagonize and mistreat them! A willingness to brutalize them wantonly! Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen, in fact, called the exercise a "necessary provocation"! At the same time, it is reported, Flemming Rose, "cultural editor" at the newspaper, denied that the pictures had been printed to provoke Muslims. Hypocrisy is one of the most reliable telltale marks of the malignant! The paper claims that the exercise was a test "to find out how many cartoonists refrained from drawing the prophet [sic] out of fear". But, if they had refrained out of fear, they would still have refrained out of fear! There is no less reason now for them to fear drawing a picture of Mohammed than before! Those who were willing to draw a picture of Mohammed now, apparently, are no less fearful than they were, previously! Hypocrisy is one of the most reliable telltale marks of the liar! To say the least, that is not something to be expected from something that dares to call itself "journalism"! To engage in this display automatically brands Jyllands-Posten as a tool of aggression against the Muslim race and culture, a self-proclaimed enemy of all Islam!

It has all the appearance of the periodical looking to deliberately incite rioting among the Muslims, so Bush could declare wholesale holy war against all of Islam, ordering the murder of every last Muslim! Then the right wing apparently would bring in their men with guns to murder every last Musliam man, woman and child, and steal their land and possessions!

And this apparent act of international criminality, so many on this board applaud!

Unsurprisingly, the way they cheer on this evident act of international criminality covers much of the spectrum of malignance!

Lord Umbarger, for example, joins Fluffybunny and Kratos in evidently trying to peddle the lie that this was just "editorial opinion", and the the Muslims were overreacting to just a legitimate sharing of thoughts. This was an overt and determined act of provocation! No "editorial opinion" was expressed in any of the cartoons! They were commissioned on the basis not of commenting on world affairs, but solely as willful mockery of Mohammed! Not even as japes against Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but Islam's Prophet! How much of an imbecile does someone want to appear, that they would actually say that Mohammed necessarily figures in a political cartoon about even affairs in the modern Middle East?

Fluffybunny paints the Middle East as composed of countries where anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed is punished. They try to depict the restriction as a pointless, meaningless demand, made universally against everyone. They are joined by the editorial staff of Jyllands-Posten who, evidently, decided to perpetrate the lie that a reason for the exercise of printing the cartoon was that "artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution". Among other things, it is only Muslims who are proscribed against depicting Mohammed, or, for that matter, any living being. Even in the Middle East, non-Muslims are allowed to draw depictions of any creature. Is Fluffybunny also willing to admit that they were unaware that sites like al Jazeera and other Islamic newspapers regularly host photographs of people? Fluffybunny also tries to represent the Muslims' position as being one based in "hatred for free speech", rather than a love of someone important to their religion. Is Fluffybunny willing to admit that they are so dim-witted that they do not know the place Mohammed holds for Muslims? Or is Fluffybunny admitting that they are incapable of that kind of love or that kind of religious piety? While death threats might not be the wholesome way to respond to a situation, if Christians had shown enough gumption to rise up with a decent amount of indignation at a picture of the Virgin Mary being painted in feces, or a photograph of the crucifix being taken through a bottle of urine, things might not have gotten so depraved that an evident psychopathic president would engineer attacks on American cities, in order to try to arrange the summary obliteration of the Constitution! God doesn't turn His eyes from a nation that respect His principles! How carefully the staff of Jyllands-Posten avoid going into depth about the book about Mohammed that artists were "reluctant to illustrate"! It has all the appearance that the book, itself, was intended as an abusive, inflammatory act of viciousness, making gratuitously venomous and false accusations against Mohammed! In the end, it may have been the deliberately provocative nature of the book that kept artists from illustrating it, not any proscription against visually depicting Mohammed! But don't expect the truth from as apparently deceitful and corrupt a rag as Jyllands-Posten!

Lord Umbarger displays the same contempt to be found in all who apparently try to engineer social perceptions through the media and "entertainment". Lord Umbarger asserts, with what seems predictable vulgarity, "If you don't like the editorial, don't damn read it!" A blasphemy against something you hold sacred, however, is not something you should bury your head in the sand and ignore! That's one of the things that makes the sacred sacred, the fact that you don't ignore it being mistreated! Only the unimportant and tangential can be passed over and dismissed; what gives something meaning is the fact that you are not willing to just turn the page, when it is being assaulted! Such mentality is another sure sign of the malevolent! But consider, too, the many areas where that kind of sentiment is not "officially" endorsed! Editorials that were that contemptuous of blacks, homosexuals or Jews would be roundly ordered deleted! Where are Lord Umbarger's complaints about those displays of evident censorship? It's never suggested that blacks just not look at unflattering depictions of them, or that Jews not pay attention to condemnations of their actions. The reason given there, though, is that unpleasant things said about blacks or Jews or homosexuals are represented, by evident bribed shills in "government", as precursors to violence against them! In that case, "govenment" says, you shouldn't be allowed just to ignore things said against blacks, Jews and homosexuals, because they will purportedly inevitably lead to violence against those groups! But there is no such line of defense on the part of "government" for things said against Muslims, it appears! There is no one in "government" to denounce criticism, or abuse, of Muslims in print, on the grounds that it can or will lead to violence against them! And, of course, the same quisling "excuse" will be mounted that, "Well, Muslims will react with violence to unpleasant things said about someone else, but not Christian whites!" But, then, the Christian whites are exactly the same ones who are reputed to be the threat against blacks, Jews and homosexuals! Why are they to be protected from even legitimate criticism, on the basis of Christian whites using it as a pretext to mistreat them, yet Muslims are not accorded the same rights?

That is called discrimination, and that is supposed to be a crime! To the extent that it can represent hypocrisy as well, it is another reminder of the place of hypocrisy as a hallmark of unethicality!

And Fluffybunny's excoriation of people who "think that they can somehow force that country" to change its "entire belief system in orde to fit their needs". Fluffybunny claims that they wouldn't expect another country to change its belief system and laws simply because Fluffybunny wanted them to. If any Muslims are offended, Fluffybunny inhospitably grants, they can just move someplace else. Yet the invasion of Iraq, to remove Saddam Hussein, and the invasion of Afghanistan, to get rid of the Taliban, is precisely the kind of exercise Fluffybunny denounces, namely, forcing another country to give up their ways because you tell them to! Public execution, the education of women, democratic elections, all are facets of those countries' "belief systems and laws" that Bush ordered them to change, because he wanted them to! Where is Fluffybunny's condemnation of the United States requiring Iraq, Afghanistan, and, for that matter, numerous other countries to change their "belief systems and laws", because Bush wanted them to? Hypocrisy is a characteristic of the underhanded and insincere.

Among the most egregious insults against decency, though, is the wholesale reliance on "freedom of speech" in "excusing" this evident cultural attack on Muslims. It's almost laughable, the way that is prated about, both as the "legitimization" of the exercise, and as a presumed interest of the right wingers. Kratos, kjmk and Lord Umbarger all invoke "freedom of speech" as the essential issue behind the matter. But, among other things, "freedom of speech" is not an end in itself! It is not something to be used as an "excuse" for any exercise in everything from recklessness to viciousness! Freedom of speech is a tool, intended to be used in the service of expressions intended to pursue happiness, improve life or fulfill onesself as a human being! Freedom of speech has no place as an engine for malevolence, and is impermissible as the fundamental reason behind a display of venom! In the end, the purpose behind the invoking of "freedom of speech" must be considered before considering it as having been invoked validly! In that vein, what Jyllands-Posten engaged in was one of the foullest demonstrations of hatred, as well as one of the most craven displays of obfuscation, ever in history!

And to defend it is to be just as craven and contemptuous, both of decency and of Muslims!

Nor even is it even remotely plausible that the right wingers applauding Jyllands-Posten really mean what they say when they stress "freedom of speech"! How often are they to be seen denouncing criticisms of Bush or the actions of the Army in Iraq, for fear that it would "demoralize the troops"? Do they champion condemnations of Bush's evident psychotic machinations, or insist that the complaints "strengthen the 'terrorists'"? If they are so devoted to "freedom of speech", why don't they condemn the Bush White House for launching legal action against those who spilled the beans about their violating the law in their evident wiretapping of innocent citizens? Wasn't that "freedom of speech"? Why doesn't Lord Umbarger or Kratos defend those who revealed the fact that the White House apparently broke the law? Don't those people have "freedom of speech"? Kratos, Lord Umbarger, kjmk and apparently kindred right wing ilk don't seem to see any limitations to "freedom of speech" when assaulting Muslims! They seem to see that as falling within a boundless region of validation, permitted by "freedom of speech"! Why, then, don't they come to the defense of those who exercised "freedom of speech" when they blew the whistle on the evident criminals in the Oval Office?

Hypocrisy is a commonplace of the unprincipled.

It is a disgrace, though, the degree to which you have to come to the rescue of even just simple consideration, anymore! No matter what anyone says, what happened in Denmark comes across as just a deliberate attempt at goading Muslims into violent upheavel, for the purpose of "justifying" slaughtering them! It's nothing, evidently, but a trap! A display of utter and complete viciousness! Any number of shills can place posts simply saying "it's 'freedom of speech'", but that won't make it so! Apparently the Danes have no compunction against launching a violent bloodbath across the European continent, for the purpose of instigating an even larger case of butchery, where all the Muslims would be annihilated. And there is no reason to say that those who defend the action are any the less malignant or foul! There used to be a time when courtesy seemed to be considered of value, when initiating a brawl, to "legitimize" killing the other guy was considered evil! For so many, that day seems to have passed! It may never even have been! The kind of venom you see so often, these days, is something malingerers, users and thugs are born with! Strikers are condemned for trying to force an apparently criminal transit company into providing decent conditions! Loutish thug types get a brutish chuckle at the thought of Saddam Hussein being brutalized in custody! A Samsung commercial instructs you in how to use extortion to gain position in a company! And an evident attempt at unleashing violence across Europe are cheered! Using one of the most cherished rights as a depraved ersatz for "legitimization"!

Viciousness is abroad, these days, it appears! And intent on wholesale murder! There are some who try to stop it. And, then, there are some who will just sit back and smirk!

Julian Penrod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, it does make a difference whether something is done to be deliberately offensive!

Should offensiveness be outlawed then? Who gets to decide that? Was it ethical or nice to print the article? Probably not, but I am not worried about what is nice or ethical. Is it legal to print what was printed? Yes it was. Was it legal to threaten people’s lives over printing it? No, it isn't.

In example, I am deeply offended by your use of (sic) repeatedly; to the point of silliness. Deeply offended and annoyed... Yet I cannot threaten to murder you over it, regardless of how silly I believe it to be. I may laugh at the pretentiousness of your replies, but I won’t threaten you over them as the Muslim group has; I appreciate the fact that people are willing to state their opinion regardless of what it might be. I may not agree, but that is just fine.

A country does not need to redraw the freedoms it has established based on the threats of this group of people.

Fluffybunny's attempt to brush this under the rug

No rug brushing here, just simply stating my opinion, just as you have. Does that bother you? By the length of your reply I think so.

Edited by Fluffybunny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALNA70

Utica, Michigan 48317

January 2nd, 2006

For those of you who are not familiar with the use of [sic], an obvious favorite of julianpenrod, here's it's definition.

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus" or "so", used inside brackets [sic] to indicate that an unusual (or incorrect) spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is intended to be read or printed exactly as shown, and is not a transcription error.

This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully (for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker...") or to highlight an error, often for purposes of ridicule or irony (for instance, "Dan Quayle famously miscorrected a student's spelling to 'potatoe' [sic]").

In folk etymology, "sic" is sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an abbreviation of "spelled incorrectly" or "spelling is correct", or even "sorry, incorrect".

I like to think that julianpenrod uses it for ridicule or irony.

That's just my opinion and not to be taken as a proven fact. Please forward any complaints to the proper authorities.

Thank you, ALNA70

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all know what (sic) means, thanks. Personally, I think Julian's using it because he has delusions of being a real writer (this is my theory about why he includes his name and contact information at the head of all his posts, as writers do with manuscripts we are submitting to an editor) and he's under the mistaken impression that using (sic) adds to his credibility. That's how I read it, anyway.

(Psst! Sic 'em, Fluffy! :devil:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"show all the characteristics of right wing psudo-pedagogery"

ummm [sic] your saying that people who retain right wing beleifs are falsly pedantic?

wtf [sic] does that mean?

Edited by PLO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian Penrod

4 Fairfield Avenue

West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006

(973) 220-1601

julianpenrod@comcast.net

January 1, 2006

To all:

As I pointed out before, the right wing always seem to tend to rely on illegitimate pseudo-sophistry to make their points. Those who trade in untruths do not have anything to fall back on for genuine "proof" or "legitimization", and so must utilize tricks to mislead at least the gullible and those new to a subject. For that reason, every new demonstration of patently invalid "reasoning" can serve a purpose, in parading before those who act honorably the techniques that are used to derail that search.

In responding to my post, Fluffybunny starts off by quoting my declamation against doing something to be deliberately offensive, and asserts, "Should offensiveness be outlawed then? Who gets to decide that? Was it ethical or nice to print the article? Probably not, but I am not worried about what is nice or ethical."

I didn't say "offensiveness", I said "deliberate offensivesness"! In one case, it can be an accidental overstepping of bounds, but motivated by genuinely benign intent. In the other, it indicates willful act to assault another, probably with the intention of "getting a rise out of them". And it does appear that the purpose, here, was to incite Muslims to bloody rioting! That would cause harm both to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as well as potentially set off massive hostilities! Fluffybunny seems so sanguine with that machination! It is a common tactic of the unscrupulous and conniving to leave out crucial words or ideas, to mold something into what they want to represent it to be! Or did they not see the word "deliberate" in my post? If not, why don't they read it more carefully? Or is it that they don't know the meaning of "deliberate"? If so, where do they get the notion that they possess enough knowledge or wisdom to counsel others, which is what opinions do do? Or is it that Fluffybunny doesn't know the difference between "deliberate" and "accidental"? Why did they leave the word "deliberate" out?

And, frankly, it is not surprising to see Fluffybunny opine that they are not worried about things being unethical! That does answer so much about right wing machinations, since before the days of Nixon, but certainly including Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes! Concern for ethics is a sign of the honorable and decent, ignoring unethicality, not denouncing something for being unethical, is a sign of the underhanded and malevolent! Justice systems do take a definite stand on all manner of unethicality, no matter how slight or minor, so they see something important in the subject! Disinterest in whether or not they are subjecting others to unethical treatment is a common hallmark of the patently unjust, as well! And this is not flaming, because Fluffybunny said, in so many words, that they, themselves, are not concerned about unethicality!

"Is it legal to print what was printed?", Fluffybunny continues, "Yes [sic] it was. Was it legal to threaten people's lives over printing it? No, it wasn't." As I pointed out, killing is not constructive and not, in that way, a desirable way to resolve a conflict. Even when dealing with a periodical apparently dabbling in international criminality. But the response of the Muslims, it has to be remembered, is not founded in a whimsical, arbitrary catering to hurt feelings! It would be an expression of a deeply held passion and attachment to a loved one, namely, Mohammed! And that, the courts look very differently on! If someone maligned a loved one, especially in print, and you took drastic action, the courts would frown on it, but they would also perceive "extenuating circumstances"! They would see your actions as "provoked", and, frankly, they would hold the person perpetrating the maligning as more at fault than you, and likely even place greater penalties on them than you! That is the "legal" position, in a case like this! If you went into, say, a black neighborhood, and began screaming epithets against them, and using recognized inflammatory verbiage, the likelihood is that you would be attacked, and the courts would not hold you innocent! They would say that you had to know what would come of your actions! And, yet, it is an exercise of "freedom of speech"! And, if you were to go into a black neighborhood, say, and start bad-mouthing someone's mother, about the only thing the courts would grant you by way of damages would be carfare home! Deliberate - and, yes, I did use the word "deliberate"! - provocation is construed by the law differently from innocent victimhood! And, no matter what Fluffybunny says, what Jyllands-Posten did was deliberate! They admit it! And, in this sense, deliberate provocation does not qualify for protection under "freedom of speech"! Fluffybunny and their ilk can drag that phrase out as much as they want in a desperate bid to cast the Muslims in a bad light, but, in fact, the law - founded, remember, in the Constitution! - sees it eminently differently!

Fluffybunny then proceeds, among other things, to take issue with my "use of (sic) [sic] repeatedly; [sic] to the point of silliness." They depict themselves as "deeply offended and annoyed", but - again invoking the idea of Muslims being out-of-control murderers! - "I cannot threaten to murder you over it." I use the symbol [sic], first of all, because it is legitimate and even recommended, when literal or grammatical errors are shown, to indicate that you are not endorsing it, that you recognize it to be a fault and to instruct others to avoid it! It has a useful role, yet Fluffybunny apparently cannot see far enough beyond their own interests to perceive it as anything more than "silly" or "offensive" or "annoying". They could avoid it by learning to spell and mastering proper grammar!

And, as I pointed out, the law would not look upon violent reactions to valid criticism as they would to violent reaction to an attack on a loved one!

Again, Fluffybunny trots out the tired sentiment that, "A country does not need to redraw the freedoms it has established [sic] based on the threats of this group of people." But inciting to riot is not a right! And no matter how much you dress it up in the garment of "freedom of speech", it will not be perceived that way!

Finally, Fluffybunny takes a shot at the length of my posts. They say, "just simply stating my opinion, just as you have. Does that bother you? By the length of your reply [sic] I think so." Also not particularly surprising that Fluffybunny would take the size of my posts to be based on something other than content! They seem to think that, if I get angered by something I spew out reams of empty verbiage, just to express distaste! The idea of my words having meaning, and my posts having length because they have substance seems something alien to Fluffybunny, or something they would like to convince others is not so! According to Fluffybunny's "interpretation" of reality, my last post wasn't extensive because it answered each members assertions; it denoted the palpably extraordinary nature of Jyllands-Posten's drawings as well as the gratuitousness of its publishing them; it established the patent deliberately confrontational and provocative nature of Jyllands-Posten's article; it argued against deliberate provocation of violence and showed that it does not constitute a case of "freedom of speech". But Fluffybunny prefers to mislead - and, yes, it is misleading! - others into thinking it was long only because I was angry that Fluffybunny had an opinion. And, in that, they also try to depict me as intolerant of others having ideas!

When opposing those who oppose truth, you must be aware of their tactics and machinations.

Julian Penrod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to officially state for the record that I am thoroughly sick and tired of everyone whining about this and that. You moved to the country willingly no one forced you into a society that is completely different from the one of which you are accustomed to. If you find something that is offensive or distasteful do not read it or subject yourself to it. The government is not designed to filter everything for you. It is not a parent and shouldn’t act like one. I pray for the day when everyone regardless of religious or political agendas finally pulls up their socks and realises that the rest of the world is not interested in whether or not they have their knickers in a twist over something as paltry and ridiculous as a cartoon in a paper. Pfffffff

Having said that I would also like to mention that the said cartoon is dead funny ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or do others also think that julianpenrod's posts are more suitable to a blog because they are not addressing anyone in particular?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lolz i just called julianpenrod and left her a message on her machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say "offensiveness", I said "deliberate offensivesness"! In one case, it can be an accidental overstepping of bounds, but motivated by genuinely benign intent.

So can you say Julian that you are not attempting to be "deliberately offensive" by taking the stance that you have? btw, you misspelled "offensiveness", but I am not going to be so distressed by it...I will let you place your trusty [sic] next to it yourself. You seem to have plenty; I wouldn't want to take that task away from you.

You could also learn to use the "Quote" function to differentiate between your own typing and others, but it appears you get too much of a kick out of belittling others to take the high road and let the little errors slide.

It makes it much easier to see what your goal is when you take so much time to point out others minute errors rather than adding the "Substance" you claim to add. Your goal is obviously not "substance", but rather to diminish those around you.

Your English skills and pomposity far outweigh the "substance" of your posts.

Or is it that Fluffybunny doesn't know the difference between "deliberate" and "accidental"?

See my response to your first quote above, then lookup hypocrite. :tu:

Your assumption that I am "right wing" is about as far off as you can get. If you were to actually ask I am very open about my political beliefs, but you are dead wrong. Do you know what they say about assuming?

When opposing those who oppose truth, you must be aware of their tactics and machinations

Whose truth would that be? Is my truth any less valuable than your truth?

Are you the embodiment of all worldly truth? I had no idea that our little forum would be so lucky as to have the only person in the universe to have a corner market on "truth".

I have a little gift for you:

oo

oo

OOOOOO

OOOOOO

OOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOO

^ Do you know what it is? It is a step stool to help you get down off of your high horse. Your over the top pretentiousness is getting rather old and comical. You have a wonderful grasp of the English language, of that you should be proud... However your determination to belittle everyone with your replies does you a horrible disservice and is rather sad. It is apparently something you enjoy as the bulk of your replies in this forum are very much the same. Did I mention it was sad? I can do it as well, but I would much rather have an open discussion and not a flame war.

But Fluffybunny prefers to mislead - and, yes, it is misleading!

Yes, that is my goal in life, to mislead you and the entire western world in regards to the Rights of Free Speech.

The idea of my words having meaning, and my posts having length because they have substance seems something alien to Fluffybunny, or something they would like to convince others is not so!

Substance and pretentiousness are not the same thing. It appears that you have them confused.

But inciting to riot is not a right! And no matter how much you dress it up in the garment of "freedom of speech", it will not be perceived that way!

Having stayed in several Middle Eastern countries I can assure you that it takes surprisingly little to incite a riot. It sounds horrible, but it is true. I have witnessed it on many occasions for many reasons.

I doubt very many westerners would wish to live under laws that assured that no situation, no words, no pictures, and no thoughts were able to incite a riot in any group. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, and people are going to be offended from time to time.

The same freedom that allows the drawing to be published is the same freedom the Muslims have to respond by articles and responses in the very same paper, as well as television, radio, and internet responses. There are many legal recourses for those that are offended to take.

No where in the above freedom is the right to threaten people with their lives for publishing a cartoon, or to riot in the streets.

Julian, perhaps if you were to stop trying to push the bounds of pomposity with every post we would be able to get someplace productive, but my guess is that you are unable to do that.

I await your next reply. Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same freedom that allows the drawing to be published is the same freedom the Muslims have to respond by articles and responses in the very same paper, as well as television, radio, and internet responses

Hmm... that would be possible if someone wrote an article with a minimum of research and intelligence behind it, not primitive cartoons . These retarded trouble makers that draw meaningless cartoons of the prophet, and the more retarded ones that publish them lack the necessary reasoning to have a meaningful and constructive dialogue with Islam, or at least about it. They are idealogically bankrupt and Islam remains the fastest growning religion in the world, that's why they resort to provocations. Of course they know in advance the reactions that this kind of provocation is going to draw, their purpose is to show the Muslims, and thereby Islam as violent and intolerant as possible, although I haven't heard of any riots in this particular case. Those few Muslims who throw death threats at the hatemongers and trouble makers are naively falling into their trap, so are the 'freedom of speech' dogmatics who defend this kind of disgusting hatemongering and inciting violence. I'm going to use the Internet to say that the paper should be on trial for inciting violence, so should anybody that resorts to death threats because of a stupid cartoon in a stupid newspaper that's so obviously and purposfully inciting them to it. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sake, it's no different than the guy that painted jesus, surfing half naked smoking a massive joint. Pretty amazing picture, that kickd up a fuss, at the end of the day its only a cartoon, ffs. and julian penrod has little grasp of our language though would like to beleive otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These retarded trouble makers that draw meaningless cartoons of the prophet, and the more retarded ones that publish them lack the necessary reasoning to have a meaningful and constructive dialogue with Islam, or at least about it. They are idealogically bankrupt and Islam remains the fastest growning religion in the world, that's why they resort to provocations.

Well, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Would I have published the drawing? probably not as I do not think it makes much of a point, but I think that people have the right to publish such things if they see fit.

I don't see how fast Islam is growing as being any cause for why the paper printed it. I guess it could be, but my guess is that it was just frustration with the violence seen lately in the middle east...riots in Paris...and so on. That is just my guess though...

Those few Muslims who throw death threats at the hatemongers and trouble makers are naively falling into their trap, so are the 'freedom of speech' dogmatics who defend this kind of disgusting hatemongering and inciting violence.

The big difference is I am defending not only their right to publish the drawing but your right to present your argument too. I do not see it as inciting violence as the only thing that people have control over is themselves and how they react. If people aren't able to respond to an offensive article or drawing without resorting to violence, then there is a bigger issue to deal with in my opinion.

People are always going to be offended at one thing or another over time; as the old saying goes: "You can't please everyone all of the time". I get offended by people that threaten to kill folks over a drawing...you get offended over people being insensitive enough to publish the drawing. We all get to voice our opinion on the matter.

If we have to milk everything down to the folks that are most easily offended, then we are all going to be miserable and not have any ability to express ourselves. Of course that is the extreme, but I think that it is important to err on the side of keeping freedoms intact than to err on the side of making things illegal.

Again, that is just my opinion and how I feel. There have been plenty of things that I have seen or read that get my blood boiling, but I have to either let it go, or do whatever is in my power to protest. I've written letters to editors, to businesses, and to our government. Most of the time I protest with my wallet in that I make sure I avoid doing business with whatever group that I may disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If people aren't able to respond to an offensive article or drawing without resorting to violence, then there is a bigger issue to deal with in my opinion."

thats true, if people cant respond in an intelligent fashion then there are clearly larger issues at hand that need to be addresed. As violence does only show the mediocraty of the people behind the violence and possibly the instigators of it.

Edited by PLO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who knows the smallest thing about Islam knows that they find depictions of Mohammed extremely disrespectful. Call it "free speech" if you want to, but I think it's shameful. It's an insult to good, everyday Muslims everywhere who just want to be left in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, though. Everyone in the world is not required to respect Islam, nor, indeed, any other religion or system of beliefs and ideals. Everyone does not *have* to be polite to everyone.

I can't make any comments on the specific cartoons, not having seen them, but the fact remains that in Danish culture laws exist that guarantee freedom of speech, and that means that sometimes people are going to say (write/draw/publish) things that offend other people. Writing a letter to the editor to complain is perfectly acceptable. Refusing to buy the paper is perfectly acceptable. Calling on the government to condemn things that offend you is conceited (especially if you have emigrated to that country -- "I'm here now! Change to suit me!) and threatening to harm or kill some one over it is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Would I have published the drawing? probably not as I do not think it makes much of a point, but I think that people have the right to publish such things if they see fit

Thank you for granting me that right! Exactly, there is absolutely no point in the cartoons but pure provocations. They do not in any way or form contribute to any intelligent dialogue, there is nothing to be learned from them. The exercise of any right takes a minimum amount of intelligence and responsibility. With that right granted should they publish silly cartoons that they know provocitive in advance and bound to draw some reactions, although not always violent.

I don't see how fast Islam is growing as being any cause for why the paper printed it. I guess it could be, but my guess is that it was just frustration with the violence seen lately in the middle east...riots in Paris...and so on. That is just my guess though...

I see how! The paper is trying to provoke extermism and violence in order to portray ALL MUSLIMS and especially Islam as intolerant as possible in the eyes of their readers. They think they can impede the growing number of Westerners converting to Islam this way, there is a definate agenda, and if you don't agree with that, I'd be delighted to hear what you think their purpose is for publishing cartoons of the prophet when the publishers know in advance that they'd be offending many people. Is one going to just express any things because one has the right to or are the goals and purposes of those expressions the real reason why one expresses something? Do you express yourself solely because you have the right to, or do you do it because you really have something constructive to say?

I don't know what specific violence in the ME you are referring to, but in Iraq for example, the primary victims of violence and terrorism are Muslims which is the result of the failure of the occupiers to control a few terrorists (look at the number of Shias massacred in suicide bombings almost daily). As for the riots in Paris, as admitted by the French authotities as well, discrimination and social injustice practised against an important minority in that country are the main causes, Islam has absolutely nothing to do with the riots, but of course it's natural for people who are subject to systematic discrimination to seek refuge in religion, especially in a religion that is extremely against any kind of discrimination. Besides all this, why are the Danish editors and cartoonists 'frustrated' about events in the ME or in France? I really don't see the relation between publishing offensive cartoons of a prophet that has 1.6 billion followers worldwide and the said events, this reasoning is full of holes!

I do not see it as inciting violence as the only thing that people have control over is themselves and how they react. If people aren't able to respond to an offensive article or drawing without resorting to violence, then there is a bigger issue to deal with in my opinion.

There was no violence that I know of in this particular case. The newspaper itself was claiming to have received threats, but I, for one have a hard time believing any claims made by these people as their agenda is just and exactly that, to show that Muslims are violent. Even if the paper is telling the truth about having received threats, it still does not exclude the possibility of any idiot picking up the phone or a pen and a piece of paper to make threats on behalf of others. So I wouldn't insist too much on the violent aspect of the responses to those stupid cartoons. Now, let's admit for the sake of argument that there were really certain Muslims that responded violently. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of human behaviour would tell you that it's very easy to provoke violent reactions within the extreme elements of any group of people. For example, imagine someone burning the American flag in the downtown of anytown USA, how likely do you think the person exercising his right to free expression and doing such a provocative act is, of receiving a punch in the face from someone going by? there are Muslims living in Denmark and some could react violently to certain provocations, but to extend the reactions of the few to all and concluding that Muslims are violent because Islam promotes violence in face of freedom of expression is completely twisted and far-fetched to say the least. I think the bigger issue is to deal with hatemongers and people who knowingly incite violence within a given group of people for their cynical agenda, rather than trying the impossible task of changing human nature by being dogmatic.

People are always going to be offended at one thing or another over time; as the old saying goes: "You can't please everyone all of the time". I get offended by people that threaten to kill folks over a drawing...you get offended over people being insensitive enough to publish the drawing. We all get to voice our opinion on the matter.

I get offended by people that threaten to kill folks, I think most everyone regards those types of people as a danger to society as a whole, that's why I said in my previous post that they, along with the hate inciters should be answering to the public through a hearing as to why they are doing what they are doing; the mere exercise of a right to express something does not explain why we chose that particular something to express.

If we have to milk everything down to the folks that are most easily offended, then we are all going to be miserable and not have any ability to express ourselves. Of course that is the extreme, but I think that it is important to err on the side of keeping freedoms intact than to err on the side of making things illegal.

I agree with you on that, I don't think making too many things illegal is a good thing (and believe me, I know something about that). In this particular case, what I like to hear most is what the editors were trying to achieve. Was it just to obtain a fleeting silly laugh on the part of their more ignorant readers? Is that second of laugh based on simple-minded stereotypes worth looking like coming from another age? Or is there a more sinister purpose to it? Perhaps they want to make people hate each other, god forbid! I don't want to see papers banned and journalists and cartoonists arrested, but sure would like to hear something other than the cliche 'freedom of expression' speaketh! :yes:

Everyone does not *have* to be polite to everyone.

Oh no? And why not? :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, though. Everyone in the world is not required to respect Islam, nor, indeed, any other religion or system of beliefs and ideals. Everyone does not *have* to be polite to everyone.

I can't make any comments on the specific cartoons, not having seen them, but the fact remains that in Danish culture laws exist that guarantee freedom of speech, and that means that sometimes people are going to say (write/draw/publish) things that offend other people. Writing a letter to the editor to complain is perfectly acceptable. Refusing to buy the paper is perfectly acceptable. Calling on the government to condemn things that offend you is conceited (especially if you have emigrated to that country -- "I'm here now! Change to suit me!) and threatening to harm or kill some one over it is stupid.

this post gets my award for most smart, succint, and stating the obvious without using all the words in the dictionary(you know who you are, julian, and GOD it must be hard to be a friend of yours, if you rant on like that all the time), on this thread

i am not required to respect islam, to believe in muhumad, or jesus, or budha.

why is it easy to paint the muslims as extremists? because of the reaction to such cartoons and editorials.

stop reacting in a nasty, have to issue a death threat manner and maybe i'd begin to respect the religion. maybe the west won't have ammo for attacking islam.

but what a load of pompous tripe from julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Update: Danish cartoons spark Islamic outrage

Beirut - From the burning of its flag to a boycott of its brands of butter and cookies, Denmark is feeling Islamic outrage over newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Angered by the drawings, masked Palestinian gunmen briefly took over a European Union office in Gaza on Monday. Islamists in Bahrain urged street demonstrations, while Syria called for the offenders to be punished. A Saudi company paid thousands of dollars for an ad thanking a business that snubbed Danish products.

The cartoons were first published nearly four months ago in Denmark and reprinted Jan. 10 by the Norwegian evangelical newspaper Magazinet in the name of defending free expression.

The Danish paper Jyllands- Posten first published the 12 cartoons, which included one showing Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a lit fuse. Another portrayed him with a bushy gray beard and holding a sword, his eyes covered by a black rectangle. A third pictured a middle-aged prophet standing in the desert with a walking stick.

Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, favorable or otherwise.

Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark and initiated a boycott of Danish goods. It was warned Monday by Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson that the EU would take WTO action if the boycott persisted.

The newspaper issued an apology Monday to the world's Muslims. The cartoons "were not in violation of Danish law but have undoubtedly offended many Muslims, which we would like to apologize for," editor-in-chief Carsten Juste said in a statement posted on the paper's website.

On Sunday, the newspaper printed a statement in Arabic addressed to Saudis, who had initiated the boycott. It said the drawings were published as part of a Danish dialogue about freedom of expression but were misinterpreted "as if it were a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and in the Islamic world."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free speech/press should always prevail. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.