Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !

POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:50
VIEWED: 48820
PAGE 9 of 26

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

CARTOON

Friday, February 10, 2006 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by walkerhound:
but should the anger be against the person pointing out the elephant in the room or agenst the persons that brought it inside in the first place?

The blame for the elephant in the room should be apportioned as follows...

1) It's George Bush's fault. No reason or explanation required. The Bush's are at fault for everything bad that's ever happened to mankind (and even stuff on other planets).

2) It's society's fault (specifically, Western society). After all, Western society promotes democracy, and democracy is a bad thing because it allows people to choose the way they want to live for themselves, and people are too stupid to choose, and need to have the choices made for them by people who aren't people.

3) It's the fault of the person who mentioned that the elephant was in the room. Duh... If this insensitive doofus didn't open their big mouths, surely everyone else (who are "sensitive" and "caring" individuals) would never had said a word, and everyone would've continued pretending that the elephant wasn't only in the room, but that the elephant wasn't actually an elephant, or that elephants in rooms are a completely natural occurence and/or acceptible lifestyle choice.

4) It's the elephant's parents fault. Obviously, they were inattentive, stupid parents who didn't know how to properly raise an elephant.

5) It's God's fault. After all, God made everything, so the elephant, the room, and the fact that the elephant is in the room is all His fault. This is applicable even for people who don't believe there is a God, because then the blame certainly has to fall onto the "idiots" who believe there is a God, and supposedly act in God's behalf.

The important thing here is that it's NEVER the fault of the elephant. That would be just -- well, uh -- just stupid.

TAISHAN

Friday, February 10, 2006 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by walkerhound:
that the editor of this publication (or any other for that matter) has at some other time in the past decided to not print something is not censorship. censorship is out side coercion, specifically by some sort of government (when the cops come and tell you not to do it or your going to get in trouble). further more how much dose that have to do with this? what were the pic's of Jesus like what did they say what could they be considered to say what was the objection to them what was the reason behind them in the first place.

from the Muslim side: the more fundamentalist section is outraged just by the fact that it is a depiction of Mohamed. doesn’t matter what the content is besides that (Jesus and Buda could be knelling at his feet and they would still be burning embassies and betting up suspected Christians).

ive' only seen two of these cartoon's one references terrorism the other oppression of woman. there pretty standard editorial cartoons (by the by the kind of thing i see all the time about Christianity /Catholicism.) now are these two cartoons that equate Islam with terrorism and oppression of woman offensive to Islam? yes, off course there meant to be.

if i called somebody a thief and a bully it's an offensive thing to do. now if that person has broadly speaking two chooses on how to respond. he could contest the accusation, in other words show proof that he is not a thief or a bully. or he could scream at me and start beating me about the head intille i took it back.

right now the Muslim world by and large (are all Muslims every ware moving in lock steep? agine no, it's not about good vs bad Muslims or even necessarily who has the majority in the community) scramming and spiting and beating and demanding that "we" take it back and admit that Islam is the bestist religion in the world.

the thing with these two cartoons (i have heard that some of them were in fact across the line from editorial to out right defamation /blaspheme. just word of mouth but i'm willing to believe it) is it's going to be hard for the Muslim world to answer them.

terrorism: well first explain all the bombs, beheadings (including Asian school girls for the crime of warring catholic school uniforms) and so on.

oppression of woman: well agine can you really say the shoe doesn’t fit?
i freely admit there are moderate Muslims in this world people that would never ever be involved in these types of excesses. further more people that may vary well be sickened by what these others are doing in the name of there religion. but should the anger be against the person pointing out the elephant in the room or agenst the persons that brought it inside in the first place?

sorry for the ramble i get cared away some times (also you know for the spelling
)

The problem with the cartoons is that in their religion it is blasphemous to have any depictions of Mohammed. Unlike Christians who go around displaying Christ and cross at every opportunity, you will not see the same with Muslims. So of course it is offensive to them to not only have depictions of their prophet, but how he was depicted as well...As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it alone. You are trying to mix logic with stereotypes and generalizations.

WALKERHOUND

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:53 PM

Quote:
The problem with the cartoons is that in their religion it is blasphemous to have any depictions of Mohammed

ya i know that. personally i first learned it in Sunday school, then when i was older and started reading blog's (of meddles eastern and Muslims) i was reminded of it agine. i've already said that i sport any Muslim that wishes to make a complaint to the editors of any publication reprinting these cartoons (agine individual or groups complain to the editor the advertisers or even better take out one of those page adds explaining your position and included the names off all the people in your musce that agree with you). but i'm not a Muslim and i don't think the people running that magazine were either, for that matter most of Denmark isn't. for that matter what dose it have to do with the government of Denmark in the first place? Thay have free press to my knowledge this was an impendent magazine right, not a officially sanctioned government statement published in some sort of government mouth pice was it?

in my religion abortion is a hanise sin, not just murder but....it is a true evil. well there are a lot of people that aren’t members of my religion and some of them have no problem with abortion. if somebody say kill's an abortionist or burns down a clinic, thay are condemned by the majority of the mainline Christians (yes there are individuals that don't and the wako sects applaud them but agine there are a lot of people in the world thay don't usually all agree).

aside form a certain amount of basic politeness i as a nonmuslum have no obligation to avoid producing or viewing or distributing images of the prophet.

if i saw a Hasidic jew or a Muslim with the full bead and scull cap (or anybody i knew to be Jewish or Muslim) i would not offer them a ham sandwich. it would be incentive and more importantly it would be rude. now if somebody form a religion with dietary restrictions was to ask me for something that i knew to be forbidden by his religion i would (probly first i would make sure he/she knew what the food contained) give it to them. RC out side of lent and some fast day's has vary little to say about what food's a person may eat so as far as i'm concerned it's a no harm no foul. and if the Hindu (let's say) is knowingly willing to eat beef then as far as i'm concerned that's between him and the god(s) he believes in.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 10, 2006 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by walkerhound:
that the editor of this publication (or any other for that matter) has at some other time in the past decided to not print something is not censorship. censorship is out side coercion, specifically by some sort of government (when the cops come and tell you not to do it or your going to get in trouble).

Not that it has anything to do with anything but you are wrong:
Censoring.
verb [vn] to remove the parts of a book, film/movie, etc. that are considered to be offensive, immoral or a political threat: The news reports had been heavily censored.
Where does that mention that it has to come from an outside source? To censor information is merely to prevent material from being released. If an editor of a newspaper refuses information that was too appear in it they are censoring it.

Quote:
further more how much dose that have to do with this? what were the pic's of Jesus like what did they say what could they be considered to say what was the objection to them what was the reason behind them in the first place.

A lot, actually. Everyone’s making a big thing of freedom of speech, but the same newspaper censors something pertaining to Christianity and you say “that has nothing to do with it”. Why? Because it’s about Christianity? What makes it okay to censor material potentially offensive to Christians, but an affront to freedom of speech to extend the same courtesy to Muslims? I believe the operative word here is hypocrisy.

Quote:
if i called somebody a thief and a bully it's an offensive thing to do. now if that person has broadly speaking two chooses on how to respond. he could contest the accusation, in other words show proof that he is not a thief or a bully. or he could scream at me and start beating me about the head intille i took it back.

That’s not actually analogous with this situation. How about if for months you called someone a thief and a bully, spread it around all over, and said it not just to them but anyone you could. When they asked you to stop you carried got other people to help you spread it even further and say it even louder. What then?

The cartoons were first printed in September, Muslims ASKED for them to not be reprinted, something done by Christians all the time and their wishes are, without exception in my experience, adhered too. What actually happened is every newspaper that could get their grubby little hands on them reprinted them. After that the media was going out of its way to insult any and all Muslims, not just the terrorists and fundamentalists. If similar insults were directed at Christians (which would never happen, because freedom of speech isn’t as important as not offending Christians) I promise you there would be riots in the streets, and in countries such as Pakistan it’s not beyond imagination that there would be all the things we see in the Middle East.

Before we get even more ‘holier than thou’ remember what happened when John Lennon made an off the cuff remark about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus.

Quote:
right now the Muslim world by and large (are all Muslims every ware moving in lock steep? agine no, it's not about good vs bad Muslims or even necessarily who has the majority in the community) scramming and spiting and beating and demanding that "we" take it back and admit that Islam is the bestist religion in the world.

It amuses me that you see a couple of hundred Muslims out of a population of over 1.6Billion and you say by and large. That’s like me saying by and large the Christian world supports bombing abortion centres and killing anyone inside. The rest is so ridiculous I don’t even know where to begin.

Quote:
terrorism: well first explain all the bombs, beheadings (including Asian school girls for the crime of warring catholic school uniforms) and so on.

This is a Muslim thing huh? Ever heard of the IRA, a group of predominantly Roman Catholic terrorists, since the IRA are terrorists and Roman catholic that means it l

CITIZEN

Friday, February 10, 2006 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by walkerhound:
if somebody say kill's an abortionist or burns down a clinic, thay are condemned by the majority of the mainline Christians (yes there are individuals that don't and the wako sects applaud them but agine there are a lot of people in the world thay don't usually all agree).

Are you trying to say that the majority of Muslims aren't condemning the current riots, or the terrorists?

As an aside, I don't wish to berate you for poor spelling, I find it the lowest thing someone can do on a forum, but I'm finding it hard to follow your posts. If it is possible for you to put it through a spell checker first it would be much appreciated.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

WALKERHOUND

Friday, February 10, 2006 10:03 PM

Quote:
I don't wish to berate you for poor spelling, I find it the lowest thing someone can do on a forum, If it is possible for you to put it through a spell checker first it would be much appreciated.

first let me thank you it's the sort of courtesy that is harder to find than you would think. second i hat to say it but all my posts have gone through a spell checker (scary isn't it)

Quote:
Are you trying to say that the majority of Muslims aren't condemning the current riots, or the terrorists?

No I’m not, but manly because this is a question (i.e the relative % of support amongst the group in question) that is vary hard to answer with anything like confidence.

but going by the evidence of my eyes I’m seeing… a massed riot (now actual demonstrations peaceful…well I’ve already said I got no problem with) here, here and here. embassies burned (or looted or stormed ect ect) here and here. chanted slogans (death to ect ect ect) and burned flags…you get the idea.

(As an aside one of the blog’s I read from biran(Mohamed’s den. A moderate Muslim that has condemd the excessive violent response by the way) had a pic of one of there MP burning one. And a long rant about all the things wrong or going wrong with in his country that the MP’s could be trying to deal with, If you know they weren’t so busy)

Now I think it is clear that a certain amount off this is the media feeding on it self. The reprints of the original cartoons I feel were nothing than an attempt to provoke. in a way the first were as well, it was an editorial that grew out of the refusal of several artist to produce a Mohamed (or should it be Muhammad out of curiosity) pic for a book. Were the stated reson in a few cases was fear (Theo van g(?) stile).

And I’ll be back a little later with a response to the other post (well I’ll try as I think it makes clear that we have a basic deference in how we view the world, so me may just have to call each other crazy and call it a night

)

WALKERHOUND

Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:43 AM

Censoring: i'm making a distinction between censorship (i have been prevented from saying something) and self censorship(i chose for one reason or another not to say something). it's a fine line i grant you and it's a distinction that doesn’t always have a real meaning (there are lot's of reasons somebody may chose not to say something).

i haven’t actually been talking about freedom of speech my self. i don't think it realy has a lot to do with the situation. honestly to sum it up the paper had a right to print what they did, if they were willing offend a group of people well they are free to do that. in return the group that was offended has the right to make it known that they are in fact offended. in short both sides are practicing there right to free speech, YAY. personally i do object to the way that one side is professing there right's (i think it's both in a moral way unacceptable and in a practical way counterproductive)

this is the part coming up ware are world views may just be to far apart.

Quote:
something done by Christians all the time and their wishes are, without exception in my experience, adhered too

i'm not calling you a lire here, matter of fact i'm hesitant to respond cause these is the part were it can realy get out of hand in a online forum such as this. but since when? art work, articles(and other wrightings) speeches and even cartoons that are anti Christian (or at the lest anti some specific Christian church) are not hard to find at all.

the IRA well i could make a big long list of all the terrorist groups that are or have been active that weren’t grounded in islmofacistam. but it's a numbers game, there are just not as many non Muslim as there are Muslim ones. there have been times in the past when this was not true, but at this time it is. to paraphrase not all Muslims are not terrorists but a lot of terrorists are Muslim. it is simply an acnolgement of a state of being. who should be more upset about this nonmuslams who only have to worry about being murdered? or Muslims who not only have to worry about being murdered (prapornatly Muslim terrorist’s and strong men kill far more Muslims than any body else) but about how the terrorists are dragging down the name of Islam it self.

women.... i don't know what to say, really. it's your stated stance (as i understand you, not trying to put words in your mouth) of non-derfince (similarity ? equal ness ? not sure of the right word) i honestly can not rap my head around it. it's like were looking at the same data but drawing deferent conclusns. so there we are?

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:02 AM

My stance can be summed up fairly simply. It's not Islam, its culture. Islam is different from Christianity only in some minor details; they're essentially offshoots from the same trunk. To blame Islam for Islamic terrorism these riots etc is no different to me blaming Christianity for the IRA, bombing of abortion clinics and many other things.

People calling for the destruction of Islam and its followers because they're evil savages are no better than the clerics calling for the destruction of Israel or the West because they're evil savages.

All the things being done by Muslims have been done and are being done by people of other religions and of no religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by walkerhound:
women.... i don't know what to say, really. it's your stated stance (as i understand you, not trying to put words in your mouth) of non-derfince (similarity ? equal ness ? not sure of the right word) i honestly can not rap my head around it. it's like were looking at the same data but drawing deferent conclusns.

I'm not sure what you’re asking? My attitude toward women? My opinion on Muslim or Christian attitudes toward women? The equality between the stances of Christianity and Islam toward women?

Quote:
i'm not calling you a lire here, matter of fact i'm hesitant to respond cause these is the part were it can realy get out of hand in a online forum such as this. but since when? art work, articles(and other wrightings) speeches and even cartoons that are anti Christian (or at the lest anti some specific Christian church) are not hard to find at all.

Maybe more on the whole rather than the rule. There are indeed news stories that are anti-Christian church in nature (though I've heard of little that is anti-Christian the religion). I however have no doubt in my mind that if the Cartoons had been offensive to Christians and Christians had spoken out against them, papers across Europe would not have reprinted them.

A lot of what is said about Muslims is propaganda. It's one sided (giving all the air time to the fundamentalists and none to the moderates) and in a very real way it's also being stirred up by the media.

The most disheartening thing is that so many supposedly intelligent people here have bought it hook line and sinker. Guys I have a sure fire bet, all you have to do is send me all your money and you'll all be millionaires

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

20THCENTFOXHATER

Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:04 AM

Quote:
Luckily, the protests in Canada have been peaceful in comparison with those in the Middle East, but they've had to cancel the protest in Montreal for fear that it could turn violent.

And also in regards to the protests in Halifax, I have not heard of ANY of these, and I typically read the paper in the morning, watch the local news, and the national news, and I have not seen any mention of this on any Canadian news programs.

Even my Middle Eastern friends and Muslim friends don't care about this. They say that if someone says something like this, who cares? They don't see a problem with it, because it has no influence over their life.

If all Muslims acted like this, the entire world would be a more peaceful place.

"I aim to misbehave."
"Can't do something smart, do something right".

HOMER: "Oh Lisa, you and your stories; Bart is a vampire, beer kills brain cells. Now lets go back to that... building thingy... where our beds and T.V.... is".

CARTOON

Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Islam is different from Christianity only in some minor details; they're essentially offshoots from the same trunk.

Pardon my indignation at this remark, but that's a load of nonsense. Christianity has nothing in common with Islam. But, don't take my word for it, take the word of two former Muslims.

Walid Shoebat and Ibrahim Abdullah -- both born & raised Muslims, both who were (by their own admission) former terrorists, who have since become Christians and have publically renounced Islam.

Walid Shoebat has his own webpage, which can be found here: http://www.shoebat.com/

Unfortunately, Ibrahim Abdullah doesn't have his own website (at least not one I could find).

I've seen Shoebat on TV many times over the past few years, but Abdullah (who I'd only seen for the first time this past week) floored me with his recent TV appearance (which is continued next week). I wish the transcript from his appearance was available now, but once it becomes available, I'll be sure to post it if anyone is interested.

Coming from their background, they're better able to repute this nonsense than I am.

Edit: I just found Abdullah's story at Shoebat's webpage here: http://www.shoebat.com/abdallah.php

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE