Friends of AM23's Set Fire to Danish Embassy: The Furor Coninues

Three Dollar Hooker

CAGiversary!
Cartoon row: Danish embassy ablaze

Saturday, February 4, 2006; Posted: 10:19 a.m. EST (15:19 GMT)

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building, witnesses said.

The demonstrators were protesting offensive caricatures of Islam's Prophet Mohammed that were first published in a Danish newspaper several months ago.

Witnesses said the demonstrators set fire to the entire building, which also houses the embassies of Chile and Sweden.

Protesters have been staging sit-ins outside the Danish Embassy in downtown Damascus almost daily since the furor over the drawings broke out last week.

Saturday's protest started out peacefully but as anger escalated, protesters broke through police barriers and torched the building, the witnesses said.

The cartoons, first printed in Denmark and then published elsewhere in Europe, have touched a raw nerve in the Arab and Islamic world, in part because Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, favorable or otherwise.

Aggravating the affront was one caricature of Mohammed wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.

The Danish government has expressed regret for the furor, but refused to become involved, citing freedom of expression.

Rage against caricatures of Islam's revered prophet poured out across the Muslim world on Saturday, with aggrieved believers calling for the execution of those involved, storming European buildings, and setting European flags afire.

In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican, while deploring violent protests, said certain forms of criticism represent an "unacceptable provocation."

"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement.

The cartoons, first printed in Denmark, and then published elsewhere in Europe, have touched a raw nerve, in part because Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. Aggravating the affront was one caricature of Mohammed wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.

Muslims in Europe have reacted less passionately than their counterparts in the Mideast and Southeast Asia, but on Saturday, anger in Europe swelled, too, with demonstrators clashing with police in Copenhagen and gathering outside the Danish Embassy in London.

In Munich, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she understood Muslims' hurt, but denounced violent reactions.

"I can understand that religious feelings of Muslims have been injured and violated," Merkel said at an international security conference, " but I also have to make clear that I feel it is unacceptable to see this as legitimizing the use of violence."

But incensed faithful in some parts of the Muslim world had no use for such words.

A leader of the Islamic militant Hamas group, which recently swept Palestinian parliamentary elections, told an Italian newspaper on Saturday that the cartoons were an "unforgivable insult" that should be punished by death.

"We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Mahmoud Zahar, a top leader of the militant Islamic group that won the January 25 Palestinian elections, told Italian daily Il Giornale.

"We should have killed them, we should have required just punishment for those who respect neither religion nor its holiest symbols," Zahar was quoted as saying.

Hundreds of Palestinians turned out for protests on Saturday. In Gaza City, demonstrators hurled stones at a European Commission building and stormed a German cultural center, smashing windows and doors. Protesters also burned German and Danish flags, and called for a boycott of Danish products.

"Insulting the prophet means insulting every Muslim," blared a loudspeaker car accompanying some 400 demonstrators who marched to the European Commission building.

In the West Bank town of Hebron, about 50 Palestinians marched to the headquarters of the international observer mission there, burned a Danish flag, and demanded a boycott of Danish goods. "We will redeem our prophet, Mohammed, with our blood,' they chanted.

Masked gunmen affiliated with the Fatah Party called on the Palestinian Authority and Muslim nations to recall their diplomatic missions from Denmark until it apologizes.

At least 500 Israeli Arabs gathered peacefully in Nazareth for the first protest against the caricatures on Israeli soil. A procession set off from the As-Salam mosque toward the Basilica of the Annunciation, where Christian tradition says Mary was informed of Jesus' impending birth. Sheik Raed Salah, a radical leader of the Islamic Movement, was to address the crowd later.

"Allah is the only God, and Mohammed is his prophet," loudspeakers blared as the march began.

Leaders of Muslim nations in Asia denounced the caricatures, The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, said the publication of the cartoons showed a "blatant disregard for Islamic sensitivities over the use of such images, which are particularly insulting and forbidden by Islam." But in a written statement, he urged Malaysians to stay calm.

"Let the perpetrators of the insult see the gravity of their own mistakes which only they themselves can and should correct," he said, without elaborating.

In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono denounced the cartoons as insensitive.

But "as religious people, we should accept the apology extended by the Danish government," he added.

About 500 people rallied Saturday south of Baghdad, some carrying banners urging "honest people all over the world to condemn this act," and demanding an EU apology. The protest was organized by followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has been among the most outspoken Iraqi clerics on the issue.

Angry demonstrators took to the streets in Denmark and Britain on Saturday, signaling a ratcheting up of tensions among European Muslims.

In Copenhagen, young Muslims clashed briefly with police after they were stopped from boarding a train to go to a demonstration north of the Danish capital. Some of the roughly 300 demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at police but no one was injured, officials said.

At the demonstration later Saturday outside Copenhagen, right-wing extremists plan to protest the recent burning of Danish flags -- a gathering that could inflame tensions with the Muslims.

Although many of Denmark's 200,000 Muslims were deeply offended by the cartoons, mass demonstrations have not broken out.

In London, several hundred demonstrators gathered under heavy police security outside Denmark's embassy, shouting slogans to protest the publication of the drawings.

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect (Correction: Surrendering to) for Islam.
CNN
 
Well, that took longer then I thought.

PS - CNN doesn't want to get bombed. Not showing the pictures allows them access to Muslim leaders for news, interviews, etc. At the same time, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz haven't reprinted them either, are they surrendering to Islam? As far as I've read the Israeli gov't hasn't made a comment at all, even though these things are going on within their boarders. Are they surrendering to Islam?
 
Showing the pictures is wrong in my opinion and I would not have allowed my newspaper to engage in such behavior regardless of what else was going on. It would be the same as banning my paper from posting cartoons mocking slavery, or humiliating civil rights leaders.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Showing the pictures is wrong in my opinion and I would not have allowed my newspaper to engage in such behavior regardless of what else was going on. It would be the same as banning my paper from posting cartoons mocking slavery, or humiliating civil rights leaders.[/QUOTE]

Once again, there is a massive different between racism and mocking religious practices. Religion IS A CHOICE. So equating it to racism is not a fair comparison because race is no more your choice than how tall you are. While religion is a choice, much like being a vegan. People that want to tie religion to race as being rather close minded. I was raised strict protestant, if I still followed what I was taught I wouldn't even be here. However, my race isn't friggin' changing.

I will say this though, I don't have a problem with individual newspapers not covering it, I have a problem with almost ALL not covering it. I have trouble believing all of them see the way you do, which leads me to believe that many are in fact just intimidated and in fear of this barbaric Islamic minority that professes to want to cut their heads off and will burn the embassies down of their home country if they get the chance.

Fear and intimidation should not dicate how the free press handles itself.
 
And again, you cannot force yourself to believe something you don't believe. Believe me, I tried it with christianity and I couldn't do it. You either believe or you don't. Displaying or admitting to your religion is a choice, believing in it is not.

I'd like you to try to convert to hinduism and see how well you can convince yourself to truly believe in it.

Though I think a lot of people are putting up these images because it's an easy way to act out bigotry without being labeled as a bigot outright. Some do it in protest, some do it out of bigotry, and some do it for both reasons. That's how I see this anyway. It seems like they are trying to offend muslims.
 
I for one am trying to offend Muslims. The peaceful Muslims will react with anger, but with reason. I am calling out the violent thugs, the ones that defame Islam along with trying to bully other religions.

Let there be no doubt, the Islamic reaction was to pick a fight. They did not merely have peaceful protests and the like, they reacted by chanting "Death to Denmark", kidnapping people, burning down embassies, etc.. Even the peaceful protests contain signs that are as offensive as possible to the Western world (you can not get more insulting than cheering the 9/11 attackers, after all the attacks killed people from all over the world). So, what is my reaction?

A: I have no problem with trading barbs with the "peaceful" protestors. Let them cheer their terrorists on, let them show their true colors and I in turn will do my best to insult them back. After all, I am not chanting "death to Muslims" or any silly pathetic bigoted shit like that.

B: I want these violent thugs to know they can't tell the rest of the world how to live. I want to offend them, I want to remind them that this is what freedom is all about. You have a right to be offended, you have a right to be offensive and in this case I'm tired of this violent minority of Muslims speaking for a billion people and using them like a sledgehammer. They have to learn tolerance and they have to learn that the "free world" is not going to be intimidated by them no matter how many heads they chop off and no matter how many horrible acts they partake in.

I made a little page here: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/
On that page I explain my actions a bit but here are the statements I directed towards Muslims:
"To any Muslims that are viewing this. You no doubt are offended, and you have a right to be. I beg you to stop being the silent majority. Stand up to the violent minority which disgrace your entire religion. Teach your brothers tolerance and to respect freedom of expression. The same freedoms afford you the right to practice your religion and your beliefs in our countries. "
 
This whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion. They are just fucking cartoons. How much of a tightass do you have to be to be offended by cartoons? Grow a damn sense of humor [yes you.. Muslims, rioting in the streets over a cartoon] you're just making the world look down on you and your religion even more.
 
Has anyone noticed that PAD has been relatively absent from the vs. forum recently? And that Three Dollar Hooker registered very recently?
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I for one am trying to offend Muslims. The peaceful Muslims will react with anger, but with reason. I am calling out the violent thugs, the ones that defame Islam along with trying to bully other religions.

Let there be no doubt, the Islamic reaction was to pick a fight. They did not merely have peaceful protests and the like, they reacted by chanting "Death to Denmark", kidnapping people, burning down embassies, etc.. Even the peaceful protests contain signs that are as offensive as possible to the Western world (you can not get more insulting than cheering the 9/11 attackers, after all the attacks killed people from all over the world). So, what is my reaction?[/quote]

One embassy was burned, not embassies. Kidnappings were threatened, they have not kidnapped people. And considering terrorist groups do kidnap people in Iraq and afghanistan any (they do in palestine too, but it's humiliate the government and the victims are almost always released quickly and unharmed), you have to take with a grain of salt any future kidnappings blamed on this incident, as they are likely to have occured anyway.

But you obviously have never been to a protest. There is a wide range of people and the most radical are the ones you get to see on the news. I remember one protest I was at and someone said "hey, someone gave me this sign but I don't want it anymore, you want it?" I said sure, why not. Looked at the sign and it was calling for soldiers to revolt and attack their commanding officers. I didn't agree with it so I then passed it on to someone else, all I know is I saw them later without the sign so I assume they passed it along too.

And just because there's a protest doesn't mean the large amount of supporters of that cause take it to that extreme. If you've ever been to a pro life rally you'd understand that. Most pro life people would disagree with the tactics and extreme message of many of those rallies, even if they can attract large numbers sometimes. The same goes for anti-war rallies, they attract the moderates and extremists of that cause, but the extremists get all the publicity. Most moderates though don't even bother to show up, furthering increasing the percent of extremists there.

Most protests, excluding a few large ones, have been in the hundreds, some not even. Most have been peaceful. The ones that are not are the ones that gain attention. Also most have been organized by conservative religious organizations. But I think a group that is often depicted as violent and terrorist has a right to be offended (and should be offended) when they start drawing their most important religious figure as a terrorist. One that was organized by a far right muslim group in indonesia was actually ended when the danish ambassador sat down with the protestors and explained his position, apologized for the offense, and discussed issues they had. The protestors then left, satisfied with the response.


A: I have no problem with trading barbs with the "peaceful" protestors. Let them cheer their terrorists on, let them show their true colors and I in turn will do my best to insult them back. After all, I am not chanting "death to Muslims" or any silly pathetic bigoted shit like that.

And most of the protestors (and protests) are not

B: I want these violent thugs to know they can't tell the rest of the world how to live. I want to offend them, I want to remind them that this is what freedom is all about. You have a right to be offended, you have a right to be offensive and in this case I'm tired of this violent minority of Muslims speaking for a billion people and using them like a sledgehammer. They have to learn tolerance and they have to learn that the "free world" is not going to be intimidated by them no matter how many heads they chop off and no matter how many horrible acts they partake in.

The conservatives of all cultures tend to oppose tolerance when such acts offend them.

I made a little page here: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/
On that page I explain my actions a bit but here are the statements I directed towards Muslims:
"To any Muslims that are viewing this. You no doubt are offended, and you have a right to be. I beg you to stop being the silent majority. Stand up to the violent minority which disgrace your entire religion. Teach your brothers tolerance and to respect freedom of expression. The same freedoms afford you the right to practice your religion and your beliefs in our countries. "

How many americans stand up to people who think all muslims are terrorists? How many conservatives speak up when another conservative calls on the u.s. to invade and conquer all muslim countries and convert them to christianity? Or to just nuke em?

The voices of dissent, the ones who don't agree, are ignored as usual. This happens in any case, because they're not newsworthy. Depictions of protests int he media often differ dramatically from the perspectives of those who were actually there. And there have been muslims, including high ranking ones, denouncing the violence (even though they find the drawings offensive). Just like they were denouncing 9/11. But the thing is, no one cares about a peaceful condemnation of violence. It's not interesting. In fact, taking the protests as a whole, the vast majority seem peaceful, the ones that turn violent is the exception. But protests, in most countries, always have the potential for violence some violence no matter the issue.

But I wonder what would have happened if the new york times posted a cartoon of jesus having anal sex with little children, then when challenged the nyt supported the decision and many other papers stated their support and start printing the cartoon as well. I don't think you'd get much "respect for freedom of expression" from christians. Now if this was seen as confirming the people that america hates christians the result would be worse. And I bet the difference among christians would be how they deal with the offense, as I assume practically all would be offended.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676524.stm

Muslim leader condemns protesters

A march in which protesters chanted violent anti-Western slogans such as "7/7 is on its way" should have been banned, a leading British Muslim said.

The chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said the protesters "did not represent British Muslims".

Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way.

"I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP [British National Party] are of the British people."

He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was "outrageous" for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence.

*******
Well spoken, Mr. Bukhari. When you think of yourself, you (most likely) tend to identify yourself with people you consider to be sensible and rational. You probably would not associate yourself with a radical group or an extremist group.

Oddy enough, however, many people seem very quick to accept extremist groups as the appropriate representatives for "other people." Why is, that, I wonder?

"We" are sane and only resort to violence when absolutely necessary, but "They" are violent nut cases who would just as soon kill you as look at you. "We" are friends and neighbors and need to look out for one another, but "They" are the Enemy and can only understand brute force.
:whistle2:s

..and I don't limit this narrow-minded way of thinking to people here. I'm sure "the average fellow" in the Middle East, or Asia, or South America, or anywhere is just as prone to this weird predisposition.
 
Mr. Bukhari has my respect. I wish more Muslims were speaking out in the manner he is. As I've said, they have a right to be offended but I think needless violence and threats in the name of Islam defames the religion much more than any cartoon ever could.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682560.stm

Danish embassy in Beirut torched

Lebanese demonstrators have set the Danish embassy in Beirut on fire in protest at the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Thousands of people attended a rally and clashes broke out with security forces sent to protect the building.

The protest started out peacefully, but turned violent after Islamic extremists tried to break though security barriers protecting the building.
"We have a right to defend our prophet," one protester told the BBC.

"They should have respected our religion," said another.

Some Muslim clerics helped to persuade the crowd to disperse as the violence died down, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from the scene.

Lebanon's most prominent Sunni leader, Saad al-Hariri, vowed to track down and prosecute those involved in the attacks.
"We tell our Christian brothers that any stone thrown against a house or a car was an insult to Muslims," he said from Paris.
*******
There you have it, once more. The muttonheads who champion their religion through violence and arson, and their more reasonable bretheren who try to curb this mob mentality and actually live according to the edicts of their religious beliefs.
 
Rana, 22-year-old Lebanese Muslim
Rana, a sports teacher, says she was protesting peacefully with her friends in front of the embassy when trouble broke out.

"There were two protests. The first one, that we were on, was peaceful. Then the others came.

"They started to throw tear gas. We were all crying like babies and choking. Boys started throwing rocks - we ran," she said.

"I went to protest in support of my religion, I was surprised that this happened.

"If I was a Christian I would be very upset with Muslims [about the damage to cars and a church], but they have to believe it was not us," she continued.

"I am not afraid about the future, I have faith in my country. We have to have confidence in each other."

Bilal Daibo, Muslim, English teacher
Bilal Daibo was out for lunch in the centre of Beirut soon after the protests.

"Whether what was done was by Lebanese Muslims or outsiders, those who did it were hooligans," he said.

"I would say I speak for 95% of the Sunni Muslim population when I say we are against any sort of destruction in Lebanon, against Muslims or Christians.

"It was an uncivilised act by a small group of people," he added.

"On the other hand, I think I speak for 95% of the Muslim population when I say we are against what the newspaper did - not only against Muhammad - if it was against Jesus it would be the same.

"I don't think there is much point in going on protests, but I am boycotting Danish products."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4683894.stm
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Showing the pictures is wrong in my opinion and I would not have allowed my newspaper to engage in such behavior regardless of what else was going on. It would be the same as banning my paper from posting cartoons mocking slavery, or humiliating civil rights leaders.[/QUOTE]
I would print the cartoons simply because I would want people to see what comics sparked whatever controversey. Anyways, tons of cartoons are printed mocking other religions (especially christianity). Might as well print them in the interests of equal treatment. That being said, I would rather my viewers see the cartoons and base their decisions on the cartoons, rather than basing their decisions on the furor that was created. After seeing the cartoons, myself, I can easily come to the conclusion that the uproar created is way out of control and uncalled for. However, without seeing the cartoons myself, I could just as easily get the impression that all the cartoons are extremely bad (which, they really aren't). It's like forming your opinions on events by utilizing other people's opinions.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']One embassy was burned, not embassies.[/QUOTE]

I said embassies because they destroyed the embassies of three different countries. But, in either case armed gunmen have stormed others so it isn't like only one was attacked no matter how you look at it.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Kidnappings were threatened, they have not kidnapped people.[/QUOTE]

That is not true, I know of at least two incidents of people being kidnapped (in regards to this incident). A German once and three other people at another time (saw that reported this morning). Both have been released though but both incidents were still kidnappings.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']But I wonder what would have happened if the new york times posted a cartoon of jesus having anal sex with little children... as I assume practically all would be offended.[/QUOTE]

Look, no matter how you cut it, you can't compare the image of Mr. PBUH as a terrorist to Jesus anal sex with children. You could compare PBUH having anal sex with children to Jesus having anal sex with children though since then you would actually be comparing the same thing. The fact is that Christians consider Jesus sacred/part of the trinity so any images mocking him (like the one on the cover of Rolling Stone) is highly offensive. I see Jesus made fun of on a almost daily basis, handicapping Christians because they are more tolerant is a joke. The whole point is that Muslims should be more tolerant.

The problem however, is not being offended. Muslims should be offended, Christians are usually offended when they make fun of Jesus. That is all well and good. The problem is that some Muslims have used violence and intimidation to try to assert their will. If we conceed to them, they'll think they won and believe me you don't want that to happen.

Anyway, what is your point here? You seem to be halfheartedly sticking up for people who reacted violently, like you just have to do your duty as a leftist to take up for certain groups of people no matter how they act.
 
I would print the cartoons simply because I would want people to see what comics sparked whatever controversey. Anyways, tons of cartoons are printed mocking other religions (especially christianity). Might as well print them in the interests of equal treatment. That being said, I would rather my viewers see the cartoons and base their decisions on the cartoons, rather than basing their decisions on the furor that was created. After seeing the cartoons, myself, I can easily come to the conclusion that the uproar created is way out of control and uncalled for. However, without seeing the cartoons myself, I could just as easily get the impression that all the cartoons are extremely bad (which, they really aren't). It's like forming your opinions on events by utilizing other people's opinions.

That's fine. I wouldn't do it, but I have no problem with that reasoning. Though I don't think all the papers that printed them have that line of thinking.

[quote name='KrAzY3']
Look, no matter how you cut it, you can't compare the image of Mr. PBUH as a terrorist to Jesus anal sex with children. You could compare PBUH having anal sex with children to Jesus having anal sex with children though since then you would actually be comparing the same thing.[/quote]

Two extremely offensive things are comparable. There is no 100% identical comparison since muslims are depicted as terrorists. The closest thing is christians, catholic priests specifically, are depicted as child molesters. The whole feeling of worldwide persecution (which most would agree has at least some basis in reality) by muslims make it worse. So the jesus thing isn't as bad, but the closest I can think of.


I see Jesus made fun of on a almost daily basis, handicapping Christians because they are more tolerant is a joke. The whole point is that Muslims should be more tolerant.

Well christians are the dominant ones here, and its generally more acceptable to target the dominant group. Though the majority of people protesting have been peaceful and haven't incited violence. If you look at places like africa christians can have a very reactionary streak.

The problem however, is not being offended. Muslims should be offended, Christians are usually offended when they make fun of Jesus. That is all well and good. The problem is that some Muslims have used violence and intimidation to try to assert their will. If we conceed to them, they'll think they won and believe me you don't want that to happen.

Anyway, what is your point here? You seem to be halfheartedly sticking up for people who reacted violently, like you just have to do your duty as a leftist to take up for certain groups of people no matter how they act.

The vast majority have not. This is an excuse by non muslims to shout prejudices that otherwise would be condemned.

I've defended the vast majority of muslims who have acted peacefully. People always complain about the media sensationalizing and ignoring nuances until it happens to say something that plays to their opinions or, in this case, fears and prejudices. It's so easy to make generalizations about the "other", especially when situations like this arise.

Some people are going out of their way to insult all muslims because of the actions of the minority. Most protests have been peaceful, most protesters have been peaceful, and most muslims haven't protested.

But here's an example from lebanon:

"But things got out of hand when elements that had infiltrated into the ranks of the demonstrators broke through security shields," Mr Sabeh said.

"The one remaining option was an order to shoot, but I was not prepared to order the troops to shoot Lebanese citizens," he added.
The violence has been condemned by political leaders across the country, says the BBC's correspondent Jim Muir.

Some politicians claimed the violence could have been promoted by Syrian Muslim groups.
......
The protest started out peacefully, but turned violent after Islamic extremists tried to break though security barriers protecting the building....



Some Muslim clerics helped to persuade the crowd to disperse as the violence died down, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from the scene.

Lebanon's most prominent Sunni leader, Saad al-Hariri, vowed to track down and prosecute those involved in the attacks.
"We tell our Christian brothers that any stone thrown against a house or a car was an insult to Muslims," he said from Paris.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684250.stm
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
The vast majority have not. This is an excuse by non muslims to shout prejudices that otherwise would be condemned.

I've defended the vast majority of muslims who have acted peacefully[/QUOTE]

I have made it clear several times that I have no problem, with (and even respect) the Muslims that are not advocating violence and the ones that are being peacefull.

My fight is with the people that want to use violence to stifle freedom of expression. You keep arguing wich makes me think you disagree with that, which I find odd because I doubt you really think that freedom of expression (even expression you disagree with) should be silenced by force. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, we have to respect their right. I respect the right of those Islamists to praise 9/11 no matter how much it pisses me off.

You keep pointing fingers and making comparisons. This is not a issue of comparison, this is a issue of whether or not you believe the papers should have the freedom to express themselves as THEY see fit (I do) and the other main issue which is simply do you want to give into what has no become a violent reaction on the part of some (I do not).

You can keep trying to sink back into arguing over petty shit, but it has been done. The matter is which side you take. Did they have a right? And should they bow to intimidation? What is your answer?
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I have made it clear several times that I have no problem, with (and even respect) the Muslims that are not advocating violence and the ones that are being peacefull.

My fight is with the people that want to use violence to stifle freedom of expression. You keep arguing wich makes me think you disagree with that, which I find odd because I doubt you really think that freedom of expression (even expression you disagree with) should be silenced by force. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, we have to respect their right. I respect the right of those Islamists to praise 9/11 no matter how much it pisses me off.

You keep pointing fingers and making comparisons. This is not a issue of comparison, this is a issue of whether or not you believe the papers should have the freedom to express themselves as THEY see fit (I do) and the other main issue which is simply do you want to give into what has no become a violent reaction on the part of some (I do not).

You can keep trying to sink back into arguing over petty shit, but it has been done. The matter is which side you take. Did they have a right? And should they bow to intimidation? What is your answer?[/QUOTE]

My opinions are never that simple, and the issues that have been brought up require looking at the bigger picture.

But the problem people and groups on both sides are repugnant, I've already made that clear multiple times. The moderate views of both sides, that the people who published it should not face legal punishment and that the clear majority of protestors have a valid viewpoint are both points I agree with.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']My opinions are never that simple, and the issues that have been brought up require looking at the bigger picture.

But the problem people and groups on both sides are repugnant, I've already made that clear multiple times. The moderate views of both sides, that the people who published it should not face legal punishment and that the clear majority of protestors have a valid viewpoint are both points I agree with.[/QUOTE]

I agree with both the peacefull protestors and the publishers. It is the violent thugs I take issue with. I suppose I'm repeating myself, but as I said my fight is with them. It is a complex issue, but the fact is that they will consider it a victory if they silence others. I'm sounding like a broken record now...
 
06.01.31.ImageProblem-X.gif
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.31.ImageProblem-X.gif[/QUOTE]

I uploaded that as well as "Islam the Tolerant" to http://www.drawmohammed.com/. The resident backup center on the board will also be pleased to hear that I've taken to voting down images I see as just inflammatory without making a real point.

Stuff like that? That's great political satire, no more, no less.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I agree with both the peacefull protestors[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with the peaceful protesters at all. They must REALLY have a stick shoved extremely far up their ass to get all bent out of shape on a comic, even if they aren't blowing shit up and settings stuff on fire. How many people would take a group of christian women protesting some comic because he had a reference of picture of satan in his picture? My guess would be very few.
 
bread's done
Back
Top