Draw Mohammed - My Personal Opinion and Involvement

KrAzY3

KrAzY3

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
The whole "Draw Mohammed" thing has kind of picked up lately. An axe wielding Islamist breaks into Kurt Westergaard's house, South Park does the whole Mohammed in a bear suit thing and Pakistan ha another round of web site bannings and a big Facebook page magically vanishes... It's 2006 all over again.

Well, I ended up a bit more involved in things last time around than I realized I would be. All I did was draw a stick figure and write a editorial to show my support, but dissenting voices such as myself were in the minority to the point that we were easy to single out. Hackers targeted our sites, the government of Pakistan banned 12 of our sites and basically they were able to silence the issue in short order. It wasn't until South Park took a stand again that people got motivated at all (including myself).

I took a look at those banned sites, and to my dismay I saw only 4 (including mine) that were still active. This is pathetic and a sign of, even on the internet, how easily we allow ourselves to be silenced.

Here's a blog post I made on the issue (too much to repost here):
http://asylum.rydas.com/draw-mohammed-free-speech-a-war-the-west-is-losing/
 
I thought I should post the awesomely dissident stick figure you drew, just to give people an idea of what you're talking about.

camel.jpg
 
"Draw Mohammad Day" only works as a protest if the depictions of the prophet are inoffensive. Your drawing gives them a reason to be offended.
 
[quote name='Quillion']"Draw Mohammad Day" only works as a protest if the depictions of the prophet are inoffensive. Your drawing gives them a reason to be offended.[/QUOTE]

I disagree... at least for my part. And I actually spent part of my morning discussing things with two moderate Muslims.

I was intentionally trying to be offensive. Not to offend moderate Muslims, but given the general interpretation of the hadiths that's almost unavoidable with depictions of Mohammed. My goal was to say, you want to kill the cartoonists? Well, here I am and I am being offensive. If I had any actual talent I might have been able to do something more innovative like Molly did (and I would have gladly taken her responsibility if I could).

Being offended is fine, that's wonderful. I have absolutely no problem with merely taking offense. I have a serious problem with resorting to violence and in that respect I wish I could do more to stand alongside the people who have been targeted because of this. To my knowledge all I got was my site banned, Kurt Westergaard had someone with a axe breaking into his house...

Having said that, I completely respect people that are trying to make depictions of Mohammed that are respectful and I personally have not tried to be adversarial to Muslims in general. Ironically, this might actually be a bigger violation of Islamic teachings. Part of the reason Mohammed can't be depicted is because he's not supposed to be put before God. Along those lines of logic, negative depictions wouldn't be a violation. That doesn't matter to Islamists looking for a fight. They'll be up in arms no matter what, my position is let them be up in arms but do not let them succeed in silencing us, our media, our networks, and our sites. They have come dangerously close to doing just that.
 
[quote name='Quillion']"Draw Mohammad Day" only works as a protest if the depictions of the prophet are inoffensive. Your drawing gives them a reason to be offended.[/QUOTE]

should it say fucks his 9 year old wife instead?
 
Glad it is losing. If people had an issue with South Park they should take it to Comedy Central, they are the one who is doing the censoring
 
[quote name='62t']Glad it is losing. If people had an issue with South Park they should take it to Comedy Central, they are the one who is doing the censoring[/QUOTE]

This issue is not about South Park or Comedy Central and never was...

Really, if you want to bring it into recent years, Theo van Gogh's 10 minute movie Submission and his near beheading was really the start of this modern movement by Islamists to attempt to silence the West's freedom of speech. If you paid attention, it was Theo van Gogh's name that was evoked when Trey Parker and Matt Stone were threatened. They thought they won by killing him...

We have to show that they can't win this fight.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']This issue is not about South Park or Comedy Central and never was...

Really, if you want to bring it into recent years, Theo van Gogh's 10 minute movie Submission and his near beheading was really the start of this modern movement by Islamists to attempt to silence the West's freedom of speech. If you paid attention, it was Theo van Gogh's name that was evoked when Trey Parker and Matt Stone were threatened. They thought they won by killing him...

We have to show that they can't win this fight.[/QUOTE]

fuck you.

I'm sick of people making borderline (or outright) racist jokes under the guise of standing up for free speech. Theo van Gogh was murdered by an extremist. The one looney who threatened Trey Parker and Matt Stone and brought up Theo van Gogh lives in New York City. This whole "draw Mohammed day" is only going to alienate any liberal/moderate Muslims who may have agreed with you.

No wait, I'm sure they will appreciate your magnificent piece of art depicting stick-figure Mohammed having sex with a camel and you grouping them all together as if they are apart of some type of hive-mind :roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KrAzY3']This issue is not about South Park or Comedy Central and never was...

Really, if you want to bring it into recent years, Theo van Gogh's 10 minute movie Submission and his near beheading was really the start of this modern movement by Islamists to attempt to silence the West's freedom of speech. If you paid attention, it was Theo van Gogh's name that was evoked when Trey Parker and Matt Stone were threatened. They thought they won by killing him...

We have to show that they can't win this fight.[/QUOTE]

Theo van Gogh's work is about violence against women in some Islamic societies which is a real problem. Please dont compare his work to your drawing.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']fuck you.

I'm sick of people making borderline (or outright) racist jokes under the guise of standing up for free speech. Theo van Gogh was murdered by an extremist. The one looney who threatened Trey Parker and Matt Stone and brought up Theo van Gogh lives in New York City. This whole "draw Mohammed day" is only going to alienate any liberal/moderate Muslims who may have agreed with you.

No wait, I'm sure they will appreciate your magnificent piece of art depicting stick-figure Mohammed having sex with a camel and you grouping them all together as if they are apart of some type of hive-mind :roll:[/QUOTE]

:applause::applause::applause::applause:
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I'm sick of people making borderline (or outright) racist jokes under the guise of standing up for free speech.[/QUOTE]

Islam is a race?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']fuck you.

I'm sick of people making borderline (or outright) racist jokes under the guise of standing up for free speech. Theo van Gogh was murdered by an extremist. The one looney who threatened Trey Parker and Matt Stone and brought up Theo van Gogh lives in New York City. This whole "draw Mohammed day" is only going to alienate any liberal/moderate Muslims who may have agreed with you.

No wait, I'm sure they will appreciate your magnificent piece of art depicting stick-figure Mohammed having sex with a camel and you grouping them all together as if they are apart of some type of hive-mind :roll:[/QUOTE]

A: I'm not a racist, I abhor racism and Islam is certainly not a race.
B: I have never grouped Muslims together. As I stated, I have been debating the issue with moderate Muslims and they are actually more open minded than you appear to be.

[quote name='62t']Theo van Gogh's work is about violence against women in some Islamic societies which is a real problem. Please dont compare his work to your drawing.[/QUOTE]
I was actually comparing his work to the work of Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks. My pathetic piece of art, was a intentionally offensive image as a show of solidarity.

[quote name='Sporadic']No, but alot of these "jokes" degenerate into Islam = Arabs[/QUOTE]
Mind you, my image was intentionally stereotypical. I wanted to offend because as I said I wanted to show solidarity. However, overtly racist depictions, calling for the death and destruction of Muslims, overtly racist statements, condemning the entire religion, etc... are not things that I condone.

Certainly part of the movement has been hijacked by racists or people that hate and condemn the entire religion of Islam. I do not agree with these people. However, I will continue to take a stand until Kurt Westergaard no longer needs to have a panic room in his house.
 
Yeah, you guys sure showed them. Made most of the west look like a bunch of ignorant, stereotyping morons, but hey you got your point across.
What exactly was the point again? Also, exactly who are you standing "in solidarity" with?

You know what, if Muhammad had been shown on South Park, that probably would have been less offensive than half the pictures I've seen come from this "protest".
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporadic
fuck you.

I'm sick of people making borderline (or outright) racist jokes under the guise of standing up for free speech. Theo van Gogh was murdered by an extremist. The one looney who threatened Trey Parker and Matt Stone and brought up Theo van Gogh lives in New York City. This whole "draw Mohammed day" is only going to alienate any liberal/moderate Muslims who may have agreed with you.

No wait, I'm sure they will appreciate your magnificent piece of art depicting stick-figure Mohammed having sex with a camel and you grouping them all together as if they are apart of some type of hive-mind :roll:
:applause::applause::applause::applause:
Click to expand...
:applause::applause::applause::applause:
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Wasn't Muhammad depicted in the Blaineology episode of South Park years before 9/11? Didn't he have fire powers?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and he wasn't depicted intentionally offensively or anything either. I dunno how many death threats they got for that one. I'm going to assume it was equal to the entire Muslim population.
 
Is there an explanation on why it is so bad to depict Mohammad? I know there was some info from Wikipedia posted in the previous thread, but that got nuked in its entirety (which is a shame, they could have easily just deleted that post with all of the offensive pictures instead of killing the entire thread)
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Yeah, you guys sure showed them. Made most of the west look like a bunch of ignorant, stereotyping morons, but hey you got your point across.
What exactly was the point again? Also, exactly who are you standing "in solidarity" with?

You know what, if Muhammad had been shown on South Park, that probably would have been less offensive than half the pictures I've seen come from this "protest".[/QUOTE]

Let's be clear here. South Park depicted Mohammed in a bear suit and got death threats for it. It isn't a matter of being offensive or not, that's not the issue.

Let's break it down to the basics...
On one hand you have extremists killing and trying to kill people.
On the other hand you have offensive images, which is a long held right in the West.

Supposedly, the offensive images are going to push moderates towards the extremists killing people? Is that logical? It's a easy choice, a damn cartoon or killing people. Which side are you on? If you choose neither then it's easy to stay out of it and leave it between us and the violent extremists. Sure, you can play both sides and condemn us while condemning the violent extremists, but my resistance is peaceful and peaceful resistance is a perfectly acceptable form of resistance.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Let's be clear here. South Park depicted Mohammed in a bear suit and got death threats for it. It isn't a matter of being offensive or not, that's not the issue.

Let's break it down to the basics...
On one hand you have extremists killing and trying to kill people.
On the other hand you have offensive images, which is a long held right in the West.

Supposedly, the offensive images are going to push moderates towards the extremists killing people? Is that logical? It's a easy choice, a damn cartoon or killing people. Which side are you on? If you choose neither then it's easy to stay out of it and leave it between us and the violent extremists. Sure, you can play both sides and condemn us while condemning the violent extremists, but my resistance is peaceful and peaceful resistance is a perfectly acceptable form of resistance.[/QUOTE]

Your resistance is inflammatory.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Your resistance is inflammatory.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's much better to degrade individuals of other political thought by describing them with sexual terminology and such.

I mean, geesh... you're making fun of someone else's religion! That's sacred and shit, man. How could you do that? We would *never* tolerate someone making negative comments about religion around here. That's low class.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Your resistance is inflammatory.[/QUOTE]
So? A inflammatory response to violence... sounds pretty mild to me.

Once again it is all about context. Where was the uproar when Theo van Gogh was killed? Where was the uproar when Kurt Westergaard had a man try to attack him with a axe because of a picture he drew? That's truly offensive to me. A picture? That's what people got worked up about? Not the guy with the axe trying to kill the person that drew the picture?

Sure, it's inflammatory and it's my right to draw it. It's not my right to try and kill others though. It's not my right to force my beliefs on others through censorship or threats of violence. I have no problem with people who are offended with what I do. I do have a problem with people who are offended by what I do but are not more upset by the violence against the artists.

It should not matter if the subject matter if inflammatory or not. Free speech is not there to protect popular speech. It should never come down to a choice between violence or censorship. It should come down to our willingness to respect the rights of others. This includes the right to practice their religion, but their right to practice their religion does not trample on the rights of other individuals, like the rights of Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard (who drew the bomb head). As I told one Muslim this morning, I would fight for her right to wear her hair down (as she does) just as I would fight for the right of the artists. It is not about offending people, it is about the core rights we have as individuals, which include the right to live our lives as we see fit (whether it be drawing pictures or shaving our faces) without threats of violence.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, it's much better to degrade individuals of other political thought by describing them with sexual terminology and such.[/QUOTE]

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

Very offtopic, thanks Bob. But this should be the last post in relation to this. They gave themselves this name, completely ignorant of its other meanings.

This will be the last post related to this, since it is very off-topic. Don't even bother responding Bob, theres nothing more to add here.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can't we just admit that there are Jerks and Asshats on both sides of this and move on?[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think we can. Until we see the bounties taken off of people like Salman Rushdie and Lars Vliks, the rest of us can't just abandon them. As I said, Kurt Westergaard still has to have a panic room in his house. I'm supposed to just walk away and go my bad now because why exactly?

Jerks and asshats? We're talking about murderers and would be murderers! We're talking about newspapers willing to publish government secrets and dead soldiers being afraid to publish even respectful depictions of Mohammed. This is way, way beyond some just jerks on the internet. People are dead! People live under the threat of death over this. Our freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of press is in jeopardy. Asshats? Really?
 
lets stop with this bullshit hyperbole. how is this an assault on our 'freedom of speech, religion, and press'. Really?
 
[quote name='IRHari']They gave themselves this name[...][/QUOTE]

Yeah, and the Koran talks about how Muhammad diddled a nine year old girl. Sure, we can take small details, use them out of context and blow them out of proportion. Great plan.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']No, I don't think we can. Until we see the bounties taken off of people like Salman Rushdie and Lars Vliks, the rest of us can't just abandon them. As I said, Kurt Westergaard still has to have a panic room in his house. I'm supposed to just walk away and go my bad now because why exactly?

Jerks and asshats? We're talking about murderers and would be murderers! We're talking about newspapers willing to publish government secrets and dead soldiers being afraid to publish even respectful depictions of Mohammed. This is way, way beyond some just jerks on the internet. People are dead! People live under the threat of death over this. Our freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of press is in jeopardy. Asshats? Really?[/QUOTE]

Look, dude. Your little stick figure drawing isn't going to change the mind of any of the crazies (note: crazies is defined, in this case, as those who would actually harm others over drawings - not all of those who follow the Islamic religion). Your stick figure isn't going to do anything to free Westergard from his prison-home and it's not going to bring van-Gogh back to life. It's just going to make you look like a jerk.

This is something that so many people here need to learn - you don't open a dialogue by degrading and attacking the other guy's beliefs. Your stick figure isn't going to change the mind of the crazies. And it's just going to piss off those who aren't crazy and turn them off of the idea of any kind of open line of communications with you.

You're damn right you're free to make these little drawings.
Just as those who follow Islam are free to be pissed off by them.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Wow, thats some defense.[/QUOTE]

By your same logic, someone could go into a meeting hosted by the UNCF and say "Wow, y'all are a bunch of Negros!" and it's all good, because that's what they call themselves, right?

Or, could it be that tone plays a large role in the message?
 
N!gger was a derogatory term, and it was turned into something positive.
Teabagger was something positive, that was always a derogatory term, but people didn't realize that it was.

I think someone said this before, but you must have a large bag of apples and oranges near your computer.
 
A.) Great Job with your last post.
B.) Yay for calling people derogatory names when IRHari is okay with it. Boo, otherwise.
C.) I used "Negro", not the word you chose.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']So? A inflammatory response to violence... sounds pretty mild to me.

Once again it is all about context. Where was the uproar when Theo van Gogh was killed? Where was the uproar when Kurt Westergaard had a man try to attack him with a axe because of a picture he drew? That's truly offensive to me. A picture? That's what people got worked up about? Not the guy with the axe trying to kill the person that drew the picture?

Sure, it's inflammatory and it's my right to draw it. It's not my right to try and kill others though. It's not my right to force my beliefs on others through censorship or threats of violence. I have no problem with people who are offended with what I do. I do have a problem with people who are offended by what I do but are not more upset by the violence against the artists.

It should not matter if the subject matter if inflammatory or not. Free speech is not there to protect popular speech. It should never come down to a choice between violence or censorship. It should come down to our willingness to respect the rights of others. This includes the right to practice their religion, but their right to practice their religion does not trample on the rights of other individuals, like the rights of Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard (who drew the bomb head). As I told one Muslim this morning, I would fight for her right to wear her hair down (as she does) just as I would fight for the right of the artists. It is not about offending people, it is about the core rights we have as individuals, which include the right to live our lives as we see fit (whether it be drawing pictures or shaving our faces) without threats of violence.[/QUOTE]

I have a caricature of my daughter on her bedroom wall. An artist drew it at the zoo last Halloween. If the artist had chosen to incorporate a penis into the drawing, it would have gotten real ugly real fast for that artist.

Your drawing is meant to piss off Muslims.

Tonight, go draw a picture of Jesus shitting on the Virgin Mary's face with her having a proverbial shit-eating grin. Do a good job. Make several copies. Tomorrow morning, distribute as many as possible to churchgoers on the step of a Christian church.

Assuming you're still in one piece, go to the poorest and blackest part of your nearest city with a bullhorn. Walk around the area until midnight. With each step, shout the word "$$$$er" with every step through the bullhorn.

Assuming you get home OK, get a good night's rest. Monday morning, follow cops around and use the word "pig" with every step.

If you want certain people to knock the chip off of your shoulder, you just have to engage them the right way.

To double back on "Draw Muhammad", try to draw the Prophet in a dignified manner. Then, moderate and liberal Muslims can publicly or privately lament any violent reaction.

EDIT: I've never seen those tags on threads made by other people.
 
[quote name='IRHari']lets stop with this bullshit hyperbole. how is this an assault on our 'freedom of speech, religion, and press'. Really?[/QUOTE]

The Politiken was forced to publish a apology for printing the Mohammed cartoons. A number newspapers during the original "cartoon jihad" were either afraid to publish the cartoons or refused to cover the story at all. That sounds like a freedom of press issue to me.

Freedom of religion? When one set of religious beliefs trumps our basic rights (such as free speech) it is a great danger to us all. Radical Islamic beliefs have led to people dying, for, amongst other things, shaving their beards, not covering their hair and making a ten minute film. It has also led to people being murdered for following a religion other than Islam. If we kill people for blasphemy, all religions would constantly be out to kill each other since by definition they blaspheme against each other.

Freedom of speech? When even respectful depictions of Mohammed lead to violence and more importantly people and governments cave in, then yes our free speech is in jeopardy. If you have to live in constant fear because you drew a picture, yes your freedom of speech is in jeopardy. If you are sentenced to death for writing a book, yes your freedom of speech is in jeopardy. These clashes will only become more frequent. The choice is do we embolden the violent radicals? Do we cave? Or do we take a stand. I for one desperately hope South Park can go ahead with depictions of Mohammed. That the Politiken is free to publish pictures of Mohammed. That our newspapers are no longer afraid to do the same and that artists can draw Mohammed without fearing for our life. Until that is the case, our freedom of speech is threatened. It's not a freedom if I can't exercise it. If enough of us take a big enough stand, the radicals will learn they can't target us all and they can't silence us all.

[quote name='UncleBob']This is something that so many people here need to learn - you don't open a dialogue by degrading and attacking the other guy's beliefs. Your stick figure isn't going to change the mind of the crazies. And it's just going to piss off those who aren't crazy and turn them off of the idea of any kind of open line of communications with you..[/QUOTE]
Once again, I will reiterate that my resistance is a show a solidarity. Secondly, I have made it clear I am resisting the violence. I would never have done any depiction or had any involvement had the violence not taken place. If the ones who aren't crazy have trouble deciding which point of view is more valid, those who want to kill cartoonists or the cartoonists then they are crazier than you make them out to be. I for one do believe moderate Muslims can be engaged on this issue, but I will not submit then come cowering to beg for their acceptance. It is incumbent on them to condemn the atrocities done in the name of Islam, if they would prefer to take exception to me instead that is their problem, not mine. My drawing was resistance to violent thugs, however I can't control who sees it but I never tried to force it into the face of moderate Muslims.

As I said, I've actually had better conversations with actual moderate Muslims on the issue than I'm having here... Heck, one said he liked me a lot, heh... perhaps you guys just won't give them enough credit. Do you think they all really are these violent madmen, is that it? I don't... I think they can tell the difference between what I'm doing and what the people trying to kill the cartoonists are doing.

Edit:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have a caricature of my daughter on her bedroom wall. An artist drew it at the zoo last Halloween. If the artist had chosen to incorporate a penis into the drawing, it would have gotten real ugly real fast for that artist.

Your drawing is meant to piss off Muslims.

Tonight, go draw a picture of Jesus shitting on the Virgin Mary's face with her having a proverbial shit-eating grin. Do a good job. Make several copies. Tomorrow morning, distribute as many as possible to churchgoers on the step of a Christian church..[/QUOTE]

Let's be clear. I never, not once went to a place primarily inhabited by Muslims and showed my depiction. Not once, it was meant to show resistance to a violent minority and I never tried to rub it in the face of Muslims in general. Just as I have said and posted many things offensive to Christians, including a Jesus Christ dildo. I never once went to Christian websites and displayed that either. I recognize my right to free speech, but that does not mean I can go into private message boards or locations and force it on them against their will. My resistance is peaceful and passive. It's on my site, it's always been on my site and I've only discussed it on select message boards (even then I don't post my image directly, I link to it as I did now) with a specific area intended for this type of conversation. My site was linked to and visited by people who chose to visit it. I did not contact the government of Pakistan and say hey look at my site! They chose to ban it based on their own findings.

Secondly, a artist depicting something you paid him for that deliberately offended you has no relation whatsoever to this topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That sounds like cowardly press to me. Nothing is preventing them from printing that shit.
Nothing is trumping our free speech. I can say whatever I want about anything.

There was uproar when Van Gogh was killed. There was uproar when they issued a fatwa on Rushdie. Don't imply that people let those events pass. Don't imply that you are the only one outraged by this. You're just taking it a step further and being a dick about it and taking a shit on the prophet of a specific religion.

I'm sure you thought Christians shouldn't have been all bent out of shape when Larry David pissed on Jesus...though to be fair, it was just backsplash.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OP, have you considered getting a job?[/QUOTE]
To be frank I have seriously regretted spending as little time on this issue as I have. At a point in which there was some publicity and people like Daryl Cagle and Michelle Malkin were linking to my pathetic excuse for a site, and Pakistan was circulated a government memo banning it, I was not spending any time on the issue at all. I regret this. Kurt Westergaard has someone breaking into his house with a axe and I couldn't be bothered to update a damn site or even do a better job keeping up with the issue..

[quote name='IRHari']That sounds like cowardly press to me. Nothing is preventing them from printing that shit.
Nothing is trumping our free speech. I can say whatever I want about anything.

I'm sure you thought Christians shouldn't have been all bent out of shape when Larry David pissed on Jesus...though to be fair, it was just backsplash.[/QUOTE]

Let me be more clear. The Politiken was faced with legal action for publishing cartoons of Mohammed. That was their "crime". Keep in mind that not all of the Western countries have such a emphasis on freedom of the press and freedom speech. For instance, Bridgette Bardot was convicted of a crime for saying "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts". This was a actual crime! So, sure many in the press are cowards but it does go beyond just that. Besides, what is a right if you exercise it under threat of violence? Sure, you can do it but we'll try to kill you if you do! That sure doesn't sound like being free to do it, to me... If the problem is simply cowardice, I'm trying in my own pathetic way to not be a coward and I believe if enough people do that then our media outlets will no longer cower in fear, heck may be the artists can even resume a normal life. Imagine that... The violence is only a effective tool as long as it effectively silences people.

As far as Christianity, I've honestly said more things Christians would find offensive than things Muslims would find offensive. I'm a agnostic, I respect freedom of religion but I respect religions equally. All have a right to practice their beliefs, none have a right to force them on anyone else.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Let's be clear here. South Park depicted Mohammed in a bear suit and got death threats for it. It isn't a matter of being offensive or not, that's not the issue.

Let's break it down to the basics...
On one hand you have extremists killing and trying to kill people.
On the other hand you have offensive images, which is a long held right in the West.

Supposedly, the offensive images are going to push moderates towards the extremists killing people? Is that logical? It's a easy choice, a damn cartoon or killing people. Which side are you on? If you choose neither then it's easy to stay out of it and leave it between us and the violent extremists. Sure, you can play both sides and condemn us while condemning the violent extremists, but my resistance is peaceful and peaceful resistance is a perfectly acceptable form of resistance.[/QUOTE]

Let me put it this way. Those Christians who go to military funerals and spread their homophobic message are peaceful. Yet, do you think I agree with them doing that?

Of course I don't, because you won't get your point across by being intentionally offensive. You seem to think fighting fire with fire is a good way to protest something, but when you sink to their level you've already lost your fight.
 
To be clear, when i first heard about this i was expecting things similar to this, maybe without being as artistic, but no less dignified.

mohammed.JPG
edit- Spoilered for big pic.

Instead we get...well you can find it for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']To be clear, when i first heard about this i was expecting things similar to this, maybe without being as artistic, but no less dignified.[/QUOTE]

Am I the only one on Earth who was pretty much expecting what we got?

The majority of people who would be interested in taking part in this were only in it to try to offend people. Are you really surprised that they took it in the direction they did?
 
I guess I shouldn't have been, call me naive for believing at least someone would do the sensible thing. I can't say for certain, but this stuff seems more offensive than that episode of South Park would have been had they actually shown him.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I guess I shouldn't have been, call me naive for believing at least someone would do the sensible thing. I can't say for certain, but this stuff seems more offensive than that episode of South Park would have been had they actually shown him.[/QUOTE]

The point of the South Park episode was to show the hypocrisy in the entire situation. That's why Buddha was doing cocaine and stuff while Muhammad was just *there*. Muhammad, in the case of this episode, wasn't supposed to be offensive in any way, except that he was *there*.
 
I know, but it would have been anyway just because they showed him. What i was saying is that it would probably had been less offensive than most of these pictures.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Let me put it this way. Those Christians who go to military funerals and spread their homophobic message are peaceful. Yet, do you think I agree with them doing that?

Of course I don't, because you won't get your point across by being intentionally offensive. You seem to think fighting fire with fire is a good way to protest something, but when you sink to their level you've already lost your fight.[/QUOTE]

Fire with fire? Are you comparing drawing pictures or holding signs to killing and trying to kill people? I thought I made it clear I planned on being peaceful...
If all that was done is people carried signs with offensive messages, I would never have had any involvement at all with this. Protest all you want, be offended or offensive all you want that's fine, that's your right.

It's the violence part that prompted me to do something. Also, for the record the whole Draw Mohammed thing goes back to 2006, this isn't some recent thing or about South Park...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']To double back on "Draw Muhammad", try to draw the Prophet in a dignified manner. Then, moderate and liberal Muslims can publicly or privately lament any violent reaction.[/QUOTE]

I think this is the thing that has really gone over people's heads in regards to "Draw Muhammad Day" and South Park. The creators of South Park, to my knowledge, never actually depicted Mohammad in an inflammatory or derogatory way. The reason for this is it makes any threats received look overblown and ridiculous. In fact, this is pretty much the plot to the Cartoon Wars episodes. Had South Park decided to depict Muhammad as, say, screwing a camel, it would've made people being offended look expected and reasonable.

In summary, South Park was essentially saying, "We depicted Muhammad in a completely innocuous and harmless way, and look at how crazy of a response we're getting."

The people behind "Draw Muhammad" day seem to completely miss the point of the satire and have gone off on this internet tough guy approach that really does nothing to make a point beyond, "Look how much of a jackass I can be!" Had it been a collection of artwork showing Muhammad in ways Jesus is typically depicted, it would've been carrying on what South Park started. Perhaps it might've had the affect of showing Muslims that it's not such a bad thing if Muhammad is depicted, but instead this has likely had the opposite affect.
 
Just to be clear, the "Draw Mohammed" thing did not start with South Park. For instance, drawmohammed.com was created on February 2006 (and linked to my site which I'm pretty sure is why mine got banned in Pakistan as well).

This is what got that started: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...f-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

As anyone can see, the images were mostly respectful but some were offensive, including Kurt Westergaarden's, the individual who had a man with a axe break into his house.

Lars Vilks drew this offensive image in 2007: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG
He since has had a $100,000 bounty placed on his head.

Early this year was when a man broke into Kurt's house and tried to kill him. South Park's depiction was merely their own show of solidarity, a tasteful one yes, but this is not and was never about South Park.

One can not retroactively change the reality of what has gone on. People have already died over this (or at least been killed and had the act blamed on this). People have been fired, people have had attempts made on their life, people have been kidnapped, governments have apologized... this is a heck of a lot bigger than South Park. I drew that stick figure in 2006, how in the hell could it have been done for May 20, 2010 anyway? EDMD was just a extension of what has already gone on long ago. To explain what a fictitious event since disowned by it's creators is really about is kind off base. If you want to know what it's all about, start with Jyllands-Posten and most famously the "bomb head" Mohammed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with Cantatus, I think the idea of South Park getting threats for showing a non-offensive pic of Mohammed is kinda ridiculous. I guess its offensive to even show a picture of him?

It's another thing entirely to show the religions prophet engaging in beastiality. It's guaranteed that people would get offended by your pic, and they should be. It definitely doesn't warrant violence. It does warrant getting on a message board and raging about it.

You're drew your pic to show those crazy Muslims that their violence won't silence you. You end up offending every Muslim who sees your racist cartoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top