more unadulterated shit from ustwo:
here's the text from the second link:

I actually anticipated it would become more in-depth, not less. This doesn't even have as much as the first link. a student group asked the student newspaper to apologize for what they viewed as inflammatory content. whether the paper did is left unsaid. the group isn't even reported to have protested.

which element of censorship are you referring to in this article, ustwo?

the third link actually presented something I view as worthy of discussion and concern.

while not censorship in the way you and other conservatives have rendered the word in past discussions, I certainly don't agree with firing an editor over offensive content. that's unfortuant and dangerous trajectory, in my opinion. the irony is that he usual response is that people should protest and boycott, that's the consumer's right to do and appropriate. but the previous two examples you chose to use as censorship, whatever. anyway, I'd hope you be more consistent in the future with your stance. the last link would have supported your argument without making you appear to be a chump just trying to stir the pot. my two replies wouldn't have been so abrasive if you hadn't been looking like you were just doing the same old tired crap of the past.

Wow, what bullshit! You know what is festering and causing unsubsided pain? All the fucking extremists killing people over this shit. Apparently many in the Muslim community have not heard "sticks and stones". How about you get over yourselves for a minute and reflect on the fact that extremists within your religion are willing and able to KILL people over "the pain it caused". Man this shit frustrates me.

smooth I know I won't convince you, nor am I worried about it.

I will be willing to bet if it were christians doing this some people in this thread would be taking another tone.

i have to say that i am surprised to see this thread still twitching--i would have thought it's interest would have waned a bit, following on the trajectry of the posts, particularly those from the right.

but no.

from pastor tim's delightful post that reproduces the undifferentiated nonsense that underpins what i hope is not a reflection of the understanding of islam that operates in evangelical christian circles through ustwo's nonsensical posts concerning some hallucination of "special rights" being demanded my muslim groups on college campuses etc.--posts that sandwich a string from aladin sane reproducing news releases from various sources that presumably function to legitimate his particularly one-dimensional take on islam at the level of rhetoric----there seems to be no learning curve involved in this thread, no assimilation of critiques of stereotype-driven non-comprehensions of islam...nothing.

pretend no-one ever said anything, pretend that critiques, particularly those that link the foundation of conservative responses on this issue to conservative views of islam in general to racism never happened.

when smooth bothered to go through ustwo's "evidence" and demolished it point by point, ustwo simply said that he did not care if his "evidence" was found unpersuasive or not.

what is the point of this discussion then?

if it was made clear--repeatedly---that for many of us on this board, far right caricatures of islam were fundamentally racist, should there no be some kind of problem for the continuation of posts that recapitulate that same kind of thinking?

if there is not, then where does the requirement for civility find its basis?

it would seem to me that if there is a lack of civility to be found here, it comes from the folk on the right who persist in circulating really idiotic, quite offensive stereotypes of muslims. it would seem to me that if this is allowed, then any responses to it should be fair.

So, the caricatures were racist? I'm not sure I follow. Islam is not a race, but a religion. Not all Muslims are arabic... in fact, a large number are black (generally from Africa). Muslims stem from other "racial" groups as well. Making an argument for racism is ignorant, at best.

If it was religionist (?) then so what? Cartoons depict Jesus and Buddha in bad light sometimes. Being able to roll with the punches is part of there being more than one major religion in the world.

Killing people in the name of religion is ultimately ignorant, regardless of who is killing who. Cartoons or no cartoons, extremist Muslims are prone to fits of violence. This has been historically recorded (not JUST by Christians, but also by Hindus and people of other races/religions) throughout thousands of years of recorded history. This is not, however, to say alll Muslims should be condemned as murder-crazed villains. However, there is a certain level of stereotype that is hard to get over when it's people you know or people you love being killed (with no reason) because they happen to be white, or American, or European. Muslims even kill OTHER Muslims (Sunni vs. Shi'ite) in the name of Allah! WTF?! So yes, there are stereotype-driven views that are extremely difficult to overcome. I do not hold individual Muslims accountable for what was done by other Muslims... but as a whole, Islam is a much more violence laden religion than others (and yes, that includes Christianity, and yes, even during the Crusades). Please note that I am neither Christian nor Muslim, and my views do not stem from any sort of religious vantage point, but simply form historical evidence and modern day news.

not going back through arguments that were laredy run out earlier in the thread, and at considerable length. scroll back, xephyrx, and you'll see the position i outlined.

I can't believe it, you banned my husband on his birthday.
Well, at the risk of joining him in the ban camp, it looks from the comments above that it's safe to say:
I'm not present enough to get involved in a lot of these types of discussions so I'll leave it at that.

How many non-arabic charicatures of muslims do you see depicted in the cartoons?

Which is exactly why I think those cartoons are inappropriate, they allude to the idea that all muslims are murderous, misogynistic people.

So I want to know, if you hold that opinion, then what exactly do you believe reprinting these cartoons will achieve? The logical conclusion to what you said would be to reinterpert Islam in a more peaceful and less forceful manner for muslims prone to extremism. So then, what good do the cartoons do to that end?

ROTFLMAO.

Danes print cartoons. Muslims kill each other. TFPers get banned. When will the madness end?






(...and does anybody really give a damn?)

How many non-white charicatures of Christians do you see? I still don't consider them racist.

They don't allude to them ALL being murderous... but oddly enough, the ones that are, started killing because of the cartoon. It's like a self-fulfilled destiny for those cartoons.

Let's take a step back... they are CARTOONS. In the Arab world, cartoons are printed all the time depicting the US as being "murderous, misogynistic people"... we don't just start killing Arabs in our country over it. I don't think it should ACHIEVE anything. It's a cartoon. What should Snoopy achieve? What about Family Circus? Or the Boondocks? Maybe a chuckle? Maybe a snide remark for those that think they're bad? Certainly not blatent murder and riots. That's exactly what they should NOT achieve.

when it comes to the response of the cartoons, its just a way to blame others against all their problems. as someone who has muslim friends, i know everyone is not like this. these pictures were used to start a flurry of hate that was just breeding and festering within the muslim community. the violent protests were clearly illogical. and then iran's response is even more priceless.
a bit off topic but this "blaming others" even for the dumbest crap thing is what is very common in the middle east. this is the opinion of one muslim (probably from pakistan) about what the earthquakes in Pakistan.

"We all know that earthquakes are caused by shock waves rippling through unstable formations of massive gigaton rocks and tektonic plates on the earth's crust in "fault zones" where these plates are rubbing up against each other closely. It starts a chain reaction that ends in huge vibrations and shakings for miles, hundreds of miles around the epicenter where it started.

But did you realize that the process can be STARTED by a massive explosion? Either dynamite, or intersecting sound waves ie shock waves of immense power, or a specially created tactical nuke. In fact it woudlnt be that hard for a special forces crew to bury a micronuke or a few of them in a strategicly chosen spot in the himalayas, leave the area after setting a timer and voila...8.5 richter earthquake on demand.

But who would do such a thing? Well..who benefits in the short and long term? To answer that lets look at the results it had. Azad kashmir was depopulated somewhat. The paki govt lost a lot of money and couldnt buy shiny weapons that were about to be delivered very soon. The CIA had the means and the tools, but why would they do it? No short term benefit at this time. Maybe if they did it around Tehran it might make sense but not Kashmir. Russia has the tools but damn...if they did it 15 years ago it woulda made sense but maybe this could be a late act of revenge? Uhmm I dunno. Mossad has the tools and the will but why would they care about the back woods of central asia? Raw? Hmmm? RAW! This thins down the azad kashmiris and might even encourage a revolt from that area against the federal pakistan govt. Also it puts a big dent in the paki govt budget, diverting funds from defence purchases. Does raw have the tools? Yeah of course...and its nearby as well."

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that the US government is causing earthquakes in Southwest Asia?

:hmm:
:crazy:
:lol:

debaser... dude...

He was quoting someone else.

My most humble apologies. Not reading thoroughly really does make you look like an asshole, huh?

hey sorry debaser I guess I should have made my post less cramped. it's just these ignorant hate filled paranoid notions won't get us anywhere. imagine if everyone felt like that moron did? every natural disaster, occurence, etc in the muslim world would be blamed on the west.

Believe me, it's not too far off from that now...

what's even scarier is that the guy who came up with that little theory lives in the US and has for a long time.

When words are not enough
 

http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite...index.php&p=55

Click on each drawing to see the English version..

What just really makes me angry about the middle east is the high horse that many of these arab countries sit on. countries like Lebanon and Jordan support terrorism against israel due to "land", meanwhile Jordan controls a good chunk of what should be Palestinian territory. Then lebanon, Who "loves" (rolls eyes) the palestinians and wants what is best for them creates some very interesting laws in regards to their rights. this article was written be a Labanese-American about the situation.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24170

I will continue support for Israel because i beleive while yes at times it does have dirty hands, the arabs have shown nothing but two sided politics, deceit, hate, bigotry, you name it. these assholes sit behind the "we are doing it for the Palestinians" facade when it is clear that is not their intention at all.

Note: i am not speaking about every Lebanese or jornadian or whatever, but the leaders and civilians who do make these complaints while these hypocritical actions take place. While i cant be certain, i will assume that a good number of these two populations do want peace.

So, now that the Afghan who became a Christian has escaped beheading or stoning or whatever for his beliefs and appears to be safely ensconced in Italy, how long before someone in a Muslim country burns down an embassy or kills someone because of it?

How long before many more start converting to Christianity so they can get a sweet trip out of Kabul to Italy?

I think as long as the odds of people getting a free trip to the civilized world are countered by the threat of death by some gruesome, medieval means, converts will likely be few.

But it raises an interesting point - several people in the western world, notably women like the young lady who used to be on CITY TV and another lady who I heard speak the other day on Al Jazeera - who were born Muslim are giving up on Islam, and either becoming Christian or else agnostic or atheist.

I wonder if we may see a turning of the tide, as it were - historically Islam has had a lot of converts form other religions. Maybe that is starting to shift, at least in the West?

I think the woman that highthief is speaking about is Dr. Sultan. i saw that interview with her on tv. that was very interesting. she was being called a heretic by some cleric after she said out loud the points that many share. i didn't find it all too surpising that the best that the the cleric could say to counter what she said was "you are a heretic. i have no point to argue with you because you have blasphemed against islam, the prophet and the koran."

Yes, I believe that was her name. A very well spoken person, very eloquent in the translation. The cleric came across as a complete buffoon.

i really enjoyed that broadcast. it just solidified my thinking that in the middle east, any expression of personal ideology and thinking and even reform gets you branded as a "heretic" and not worthy of a debate. shocker!! (rolls eyes)