Danish Cartoon - Page 8 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

abaya · 02-22-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorTim

A friend of mine, another preacher, recently sent these musings around. I think they have some merit for consideration, and share them here now for that purpose.

Blessings,
Pastor Tim

Tim, this list has already been posted twice on this thread (on pages 1 and 6, I believe). I am curious as to whether you actually read all of the posts?

Also, when you say blessings, for whom do you mean them? I don't mean to raise your ire, but to sincerely ask who you are blessing... since it seems from your post that Muslims might not make the cut.

(I also ask because I was a hard-core evangelical for a good many years and used the word "blessings" for every sign-off, but it became as common as "Cheers," or some similar sign-off. I stopped thinking about how it might come across to people who didn't share my beliefs, at the time.)

Aladdin Sane · 02-22-2006, 03:18 PM

Chris Hitchens is organizing a protest in support of Denmark and its tradition of Free Speech. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues.

PastorTim · 02-22-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Tim, this list has already been posted twice on this thread (on pages 1 and 6, I believe). I am curious as to whether you actually read all of the posts?

No, I did not know that. I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I have read some. I wanted to express my sentiments, and this post seemed to do so better than I could. I think it's better not to re-invent the wheel.

So to posting it again: My bad. I sincerely apologize. Redundancy from ignorance [hopefully in the best sense of that word] is unnecessary. Had I known it, I would have simply referred to it, and stated I agreed with the gist of the post.

I guess it didn't occur to me to search all the postings for it. Perhaps it didn't originate with my friend? He didn't attribute it to someone else, so I guess I thought something about it that might not have been correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Also, when you say blessings, for whom do you mean them? I don't mean to raise your ire, but to sincerely ask who you are blessing... since it seems from your post that Muslims might not make the cut.

(I also ask because I was a hard-core evangelical for a good many years and used the word "blessings" for every sign-off, but it became as common as "Cheers," or some similar sign-off. I stopped thinking about how it might come across to people who didn't share my beliefs, at the time.)

When I say blessings, I am wishing that to those who read my post. I mean it sincerely, and I mean it to every individual who reads it. And, in point of fact, while I use it often to conclude a letter, I don't use it always. There are times when I different closing remark is more appropriate.

Is it insincere or illegitimate to wish personal blessings to someone, even if you disagree with them? I don't think so. I trust that's not what you are suggesting.

And, with regards to signing off my posts with my wish for my blessings to all, I hope I can be judged by my own merits, and not by the experience of another? I trust that makes sense.

Thanks for the opportunity to be corrected, and to offer a clarification.

"Blessings!"

Pastor Tim

abaya · 02-22-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorTim

Thanks for the opportunity to be corrected, and to offer a clarification.

Thank you for your candor, Tim. I have to say that I have a heightened sensitvity about usage of evangelical language, seeing as I used to inhabit that world and know it well. But I am thankful for your sincerity and desire for clarifying your words.

The "blessings" part also seemed a bit odd to me, given the statements you made (or posted) about Muslims... I wondered how a Muslim on the boards might view those two things together. But that's just me being curious.

PastorTim · 02-22-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Thank you for your candor, Tim. I have to say that I have a heightened sensitvity about usage of evangelical language, seeing as I used to inhabit that world and know it well. But I am thankful for your sincerity and desire for clarifying your words.

You're welcome.

I am curious about your past, but I will endeavor to discuss / address / and ask about it in response to your comments in my journal. Seems more appropriate there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

The "blessings" part also seemed a bit odd to me, given the statements you made (or posted) about Muslims... I wondered how a Muslim on the boards might view those two things together. But that's just me being curious.

It's very true that I have some strong concerns and opinions on some things, but don't we all? And again, even though I might strongly differ with someone, I would still hope I can agreeably disagree, and in the process, attempt to show while I might differ in thought and opinion, I wish them personally no ill will.

I hope the post I "re-posted" [ha] is not viewed as a personal attack, though I could see how it might be. But if it accurately states some historical facts, and then issues a conjecture about current events, is that truly attacking a person, or the ideas they are embracing, living for?

Can it be said that on these boards the Judeo-Christian "ethic" [world view, or call it what you will], and many aspects of it, are regularly attacked, and sometimes in less than nice ways?

I don't mean that to be a blanket statement, but it does seem that most people come from a non Christian view point, and some of those world views are strongly anti-thetical to Christianity? Is that a fair assessment? I hope so. And perhaps it is wholly true that I'm just "sensitive" [or even over-sensitive] to negative comments about the world view I have embraced.

I guess that's normal?

However, as long as it is not an ad hominem attacks, then well and good. If it is an attack on the ideas and thoughts and reasons underlying my faith, and not an attack on me, we can at least interact and have a discussion.

The truth is, as perhaps you are familiar with, the Bible exhorts believers to do all they can to live as exemplary as possible, so that if we are criticized, even if unfairly, those criticisms in the end won't stand against us.

I know there are plenty of bad examples of Christianity. And I know I'm not perfect! But I can still try.

I would also be loath to embrace a faith which can't be examined, and engaged with.

Well, just some thoughts in brief in response.

God bless,
Pastor Tim

Nirvana · 02-22-2006, 10:09 PM

this is in a way related and at the same time unrelated to the original purpose of the thread. these are just some of my own observations in the state of Muslims in the world today. you can take it for what it is.
From my own personal experience, a lot of Muslims see themselves as the unrepresented people. now i can't say that this is everywhere, but this is what i heard from my own personal accounts. they don't like it that other groups of people get more press or get heard about more in positive lights. many just spew out propoganda. in fact, i heard many say that jews are supressing textbooks to only say that jews were murdered in the Holocaust. last i remember, my textbook talked about not only jews. it seems like a whole inferiority complex that isn't going to get resolved for a long time or maybe even ever.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2006, 10:24 PM

I don't know what side you are coming down on Nirvana, tough to read over the internet, so I hope I'm reading you right here, but, there are a bunch of Muslims the world over ,(cough) Iran, that need to get past this whole zionist conspiracy bullshit. Shit is not only pathetic and false, but tired as all get up.

Aladdin Sane · 02-23-2006, 08:26 AM

In this article, rightwing Bill Bennett and leftwing Alan Dershowitz, agree on the meaning of the Cartoon wars. They are spot on.

A Failure of the Press

By William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A19

There was a time when the press was the strongest guardian of free expression in this democracy. Stories and celebrations of intrepid and courageous reporters are many within the press corps. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s were litigated so that the press could report on and examine public officials with the unfettered reporting a free people deserved. In the 1970s the Pentagon Papers case reaffirmed the proposition that issues of public importance were fully protected by the First Amendment.

The mass media that backed the plaintiffs in these cases understood that not only did a free press have a right to report on critical issues and people of the day but that citizens had a right to know about those issues and people. The mass media understood another thing: They had more than a right; they had a duty to report.

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These papers did their duty.

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.

The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.

In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.

But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."

But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it.

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.

Nirvana · 02-23-2006, 08:57 AM

"I don't know what side you are coming down on Nirvana, tough to read over the internet, so I hope I'm reading you right here, but, there are a bunch of Muslims the world over ,(cough) Iran, that need to get past this whole zionist conspiracy bullshit. Shit is not only pathetic and false, but tired as all get up."

ye thats exactly what i was saying. and it's not even all over the world. it's "educated" people that i meet in my everyday life that beleive in all this crap. some even told me that the zionists started the Holocaust and that the CIA was recently responsible for the destruction of that famous SHia mosque.

Aladdin Sane · 02-24-2006, 08:48 AM

DANISH EMBASSY REMINDER:

Please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues.

That's from Christopher Hitchens. He'll be there. If you're in the DC area, consider joining him. And if you take pictures, send me some!

UPDATE: there will be a similar demonstration in front of the Danish consulate in Minneapolis.

Aladdin Sane · 02-25-2006, 07:53 AM

The protest held in front of the Danish Embassy in Washington was a success!
See the photos here:
http://instapundit.com/

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=440297

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/200...ng_with_d.html

Nirvana · 02-25-2006, 01:48 PM

aladdin Sane, the support seems to have been very succesful. congratulations and i'm glad it went off without a hitch.

Aladdin Sane · 03-01-2006, 12:52 PM

This just in.
It's time to take notice.

BBC NEWS
Writers issue cartoon row warning
Salman Rushdie is among a dozen writers to have put their names to a statement in a French weekly paper warning against Islamic "totalitarianism".

The writers say the violence sparked by the publication of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad shows the need to fight for secular values and freedom.

The statement is published in Charlie Hebdo, one of several European papers to reprint the caricatures.

The images, first published in Denmark, have angered Muslims across the world.

One showed the Prophet Muhammad, whose depiction is banned in Islam, as a terrorist bomber.

Many newspapers defended their decision to reprint the cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression.

'Global threat'

Almost all of those who have signed the statement have experienced difficulties with Islamic militancy first-hand, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

They include Dutch MP and filmmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali and exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen.

STATEMENT SIGNATORIES
Salman Rushdie - Indian-born British writer with fatwa issued ordering his execution for The Satanic Verses
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Somali-born Dutch MP
Taslima Nasreen - exiled Bangladeshi writer, with fatwa issued ordering her execution
Bernard-Henri Levy - French philosopher
Chahla Chafiq - Iranian writer exiled in France
Caroline Fourest - French writer
Irshad Manji - Ugandan refugee and writer living in Canada
Mehdi Mozaffari - Iranian academic exiled in Denmark
Maryam Namazie - Iranian writer living in Britain
Antoine Sfeir - director of French review examining Middle East
Ibn Warraq - US academic of Indian/Pakistani origin
Philippe Val - director of Charlie Hebdo
"After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism," the manifesto says.

"We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all."

The clashes over the cartoons "revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values," the statement continues.

"It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats."

The writers said they refused to accept that Muslim men and women "should be deprived of their rights to equality, liberty or secularity in the name of respect for culture or tradition".

They also said they would not give up their critical spirit out of fear of being accused of Islamophobia.

"Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present," the writers added, saying it is nurtured by fears and frustrations.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/4763520.stm

Published: 2006/03/01 16:46:10 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Ustwo · 03-05-2006, 09:15 AM

I have to wonder if any of our lefty friends on TFP are disturbed about all of the college papers currently being censored on this issue.

I know my old schools paper ran the cartoons and the editor and writer were fired. Its been spreading.

Check out www.littlegreenfootballs.com for details, there have been several college papers who this sort of thing has happened to.

Charlatan · 03-05-2006, 01:16 PM

My position on it is that just because you have the right to print the articles doesn't mean you should.

That said we live in nations where there is freedom of press. While it may piss off the Administration (the University's) that the student paper ran the cartoons, they should be left alone to run them as they see fit.

Of course, some of those papers exist at the largess of the University's Administration. Sometimes the publisher can veto the editor.

Ustwo · 03-05-2006, 04:50 PM

Sums it up nicely.

smooth · 03-06-2006, 09:10 AM

I went to little green footballs and couldn't find any details about school papers being shut down over this. It'd be nice to post a link, since that's a blog of some sort and there's a lot of info unrelated to this issue on the front page.

I'm also confused how you turn this into a free press issue (except in the case of domestic censorship). At least, I don't know how many of the people arguing for freedom of speech/press in this thread believe our freedoms in that regard extend to the Dutch press, the middle east, and for that matter the right not to have people offended and responding.

It's always been many of these same people's argument that you have the right to say what you want, but be prepared if someone else doesn't like it and does something in return....but that shouldn't be considered censorship, etc. to those people (ustwo included). Some of them were chief supporters of the violence and intimidation demonstrated to the Dixie Chicks when they were speaking out against Bush as president.

The standard reply is that censorship is only done by the government (in context of our constitutional rights, anyway) and then only by our domestic government in relation to domestic affairs. There isn't any of these people who thought other rights extend beyond our nation's boundaries. At least, that was the argument against providing Afghanistan and Iraqi "enemy combatants" legal protections and speedy trials that are required for domestic criminals.

The hue and cry about violations of our domestic rights isn't being taken seriously by me. At least not when it's made by someone like Ustwo. I just don't see his argument consistent with other arguments he's made in the past. I imagine at least some of the cartoon authors hold similar views as he does, and would play an inconsistent martyr as the cartoon above this post does.

Ustwo · 03-06-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I went to little green footballs and couldn't find any details about school papers being shut down over this. It'd be nice to post a link, since that's a blog of some sort and there's a lot of info unrelated to this issue on the front page.
.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ws_at_OSU&only
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...try=19362&only
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6461532.story

flstf · 03-06-2006, 10:10 AM

When I first heard this story the first thing I wanted to do is see those cartoons to see what was causing all the commotion. It didn't take too long to find them on the web (in fact I first saw them on these forums) but the first place I looked was the main media outlets and found nothing.

It is not like these cartoons are not newsworthy since many people were/are probably just as curious as I was. The decision to not publish them seems to be made out of some sense of intimidation and that is just sad, especially when some editor's jobs seem to be in jeopardy when they do.

Just because some religious fanatics get upset over some cartoons is no reason to censure them. Instead it is a good reason to publish them so readers can see just what little it takes to cause some people to riot. I can't imagine being an editor and telling my people that we cannot publish the pictures responsible for the biggest news story of the day.

smooth · 03-06-2006, 10:11 AM

I read the first link, so far you're flat out full of shit.

Quote:

CORVALLIS, Ore. (AP) — A student’s column in the Oregon State University campus newspaper has prompted protests by Muslim students, who say it is offensive to their faith.

The piece headlined “The Islamic Double Standard” was written by OSU microbiology student Nathanael Blake and published in the Daily Barometer on Feb. 8.

The column accused Muslims of expecting special treatment after a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Riots over the cartoons amounted to “savagery,” Blake said. “Bluntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously,” his column said.

On Thursday, about a dozen students — including members of Muslim and Arab student groups — held a vigil on the campus to protest both Blake’s piece and the Danish cartoons. They handed out flyers that stated “While staying loyal to the main values of freedom of expression that founded this country, we also feel the need to reflect on the values of tolerance and acceptance on this campus.”

Among the students offended by the column was Nada Mohamed, a 20-year-old junior and the vice president of OSU’s Muslim Student Association.

“It was amazing to me that they (the campus newspaper) were allowed to publish this kind of stuff,” she told the Corvallis Gazette-Times. “Tears were flowing out of my eyes as I was reading,” she said. “I felt like somebody was ripping my heart out.”

At the Daily Barometer, editors said e-mail and phone calls poured in. Senior editors have met with the Muslim Student Association.

“The pain that it caused ... did not subside with time,” said DD Bixby, the Barometer’s editor-in-chief. “It kind of just festered.”

She said editors have been checking copy with Muslim students, and on Tuesday deleted one paragraph from a piece scheduled to be published the next day.

Bixby said her staffers are “all pretty much Oregon-type kids” who knew little about Islam and didn’t foresee how people would respond to the column.

there isn't one element of censorship in that article. It's exactly analogous to your position on the Dixie chicks and protest that occurred against them.

article on muslims expecting special treatment even though they're barbarous elicits protest from muslim and arab students, school paper now checks with a group of muslims to see if the content is offensive.

I'm going to read the other two links you posted, but where is the censorship you claimed in this article? where is the school dictating the content of the school paper? Where is the government involved?

smooth · 03-06-2006, 10:13 AM

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

Quote:

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — The Muslim Students Association at the University of North Carolina on Friday asked the campus’ student newspaper to apologize for publishing an original cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

“The intention of bigotry was clear,” the association wrote in a letter to The Daily Tar Heel. “One must question the DTH’s ethics in advancing a widely protested issue to cause a riot of their own. The MSA not only found this cartoon derogatory but is also shocked at the editor’s allowance of its publication — one that incites hate in the current political and social context.”

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?

smooth · 03-06-2006, 10:19 AM

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.

xepherys · 03-06-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

“The pain that it caused ... did not subside with time,” said DD Bixby, the Barometer’s editor-in-chief. “It kind of just festered.”

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.

Ustwo · 03-06-2006, 12:03 PM

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.

Charlatan · 03-06-2006, 12:04 PM

OK. Let's keep it civil.

Saying someone is "full of shit" is NOT an acceptable way of making a rebuttal. This is a blatant flame.

Time outs are being handed out.

roachboy · 03-06-2006, 12:48 PM

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.

xepherys · 03-06-2006, 01:40 PM

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.

roachboy · 03-06-2006, 01:44 PM

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.

lusciousmunkee · 03-06-2006, 01:48 PM

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Wow, what bullshit!

I'm not present enough to get involved in a lot of these types of discussions so I'll leave it at that.

analog · 03-06-2006, 02:00 PM

**MOD NOTE**

I'm sorry smooth got two days off (not a full ban, just two days) on his birthday, it's a shitty coincidence, but it doesn't change that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I read the first link, so far you're flat out full of shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

more unadulterated shit from ustwo:

...is totally inappropriate behavior- especially the first one. Cleaning up the politics board includes eliminating flaming like this. All of you know better.

Now, back to the topic- if there's anything further on this issue, please PM me directly.

rainheart · 03-07-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

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

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?

debaser · 03-07-2006, 10:57 PM

ROTFLMAO.

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

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

xepherys · 03-08-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainheart

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainheart

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainheart

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?

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.

Nirvana · 03-08-2006, 07:02 PM

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."

debaser · 03-10-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

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?

Charlatan · 03-10-2006, 06:20 PM

debaser... dude...

He was quoting someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

this is the opinion of one muslim (probably from pakistan) about what the earthquakes in Pakistan.

debaser · 03-10-2006, 08:08 PM

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

Nirvana · 03-10-2006, 08:41 PM

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.

debaser · 03-10-2006, 09:20 PM

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

Nirvana · 03-11-2006, 07:46 PM

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.

02-22-2006, 03:18 PM	#282 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Chris Hitchens is organizing a protest in support of Denmark and its tradition of Free Speech. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

02-22-2006, 10:24 PM	#287 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I don't know what side you are coming down on Nirvana, tough to read over the internet, so I hope I'm reading you right here, but, there are a bunch of Muslims the world over ,(cough) Iran, that need to get past this whole zionist conspiracy bullshit. Shit is not only pathetic and false, but tired as all get up. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-23-2006, 08:26 AM	#288 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	A Failure of the Press In this article, rightwing Bill Bennett and leftwing Alan Dershowitz, agree on the meaning of the Cartoon wars. They are spot on. A Failure of the Press By William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz Thursday, February 23, 2006; A19 There was a time when the press was the strongest guardian of free expression in this democracy. Stories and celebrations of intrepid and courageous reporters are many within the press corps. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s were litigated so that the press could report on and examine public officials with the unfettered reporting a free people deserved. In the 1970s the Pentagon Papers case reaffirmed the proposition that issues of public importance were fully protected by the First Amendment. The mass media that backed the plaintiffs in these cases understood that not only did a free press have a right to report on critical issues and people of the day but that citizens had a right to know about those issues and people. The mass media understood another thing: They had more than a right; they had a duty to report. We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These papers did their duty. Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military. The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it. In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind. But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage. The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance." But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it. What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus. So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims. While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest. When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender. William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

02-24-2006, 08:48 AM	#290 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	DANISH EMBASSY REMINDER: In Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis DANISH EMBASSY REMINDER: Please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues. That's from Christopher Hitchens. He'll be there. If you're in the DC area, consider joining him. And if you take pictures, send me some! UPDATE: there will be a similar demonstration in front of the Danish consulate in Minneapolis. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

02-25-2006, 07:53 AM	#291 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Photos of Danish Embassy Protest The protest held in front of the Danish Embassy in Washington was a success! See the photos here: http://instapundit.com/ http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=440297 http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/200...ng_with_d.html __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

02-22-2006, 10:09 PM	#286 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	this is in a way related and at the same time unrelated to the original purpose of the thread. these are just some of my own observations in the state of Muslims in the world today. you can take it for what it is. From my own personal experience, a lot of Muslims see themselves as the unrepresented people. now i can't say that this is everywhere, but this is what i heard from my own personal accounts. they don't like it that other groups of people get more press or get heard about more in positive lights. many just spew out propoganda. in fact, i heard many say that jews are supressing textbooks to only say that jews were murdered in the Holocaust. last i remember, my textbook talked about not only jews. it seems like a whole inferiority complex that isn't going to get resolved for a long time or maybe even ever.

02-23-2006, 08:57 AM	#289 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	"I don't know what side you are coming down on Nirvana, tough to read over the internet, so I hope I'm reading you right here, but, there are a bunch of Muslims the world over ,(cough) Iran, that need to get past this whole zionist conspiracy bullshit. Shit is not only pathetic and false, but tired as all get up." ye thats exactly what i was saying. and it's not even all over the world. it's "educated" people that i meet in my everyday life that beleive in all this crap. some even told me that the zionists started the Holocaust and that the CIA was recently responsible for the destruction of that famous SHia mosque.

02-25-2006, 01:48 PM	#292 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	aladdin Sane, the support seems to have been very succesful. congratulations and i'm glad it went off without a hitch.

03-01-2006, 12:52 PM	#293 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	This just in. It's time to take notice. BBC NEWS Writers issue cartoon row warning Salman Rushdie is among a dozen writers to have put their names to a statement in a French weekly paper warning against Islamic "totalitarianism". The writers say the violence sparked by the publication of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad shows the need to fight for secular values and freedom. The statement is published in Charlie Hebdo, one of several European papers to reprint the caricatures. The images, first published in Denmark, have angered Muslims across the world. One showed the Prophet Muhammad, whose depiction is banned in Islam, as a terrorist bomber. Many newspapers defended their decision to reprint the cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression. 'Global threat' Almost all of those who have signed the statement have experienced difficulties with Islamic militancy first-hand, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris. They include Dutch MP and filmmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali and exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen. STATEMENT SIGNATORIES Salman Rushdie - Indian-born British writer with fatwa issued ordering his execution for The Satanic Verses Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Somali-born Dutch MP Taslima Nasreen - exiled Bangladeshi writer, with fatwa issued ordering her execution Bernard-Henri Levy - French philosopher Chahla Chafiq - Iranian writer exiled in France Caroline Fourest - French writer Irshad Manji - Ugandan refugee and writer living in Canada Mehdi Mozaffari - Iranian academic exiled in Denmark Maryam Namazie - Iranian writer living in Britain Antoine Sfeir - director of French review examining Middle East Ibn Warraq - US academic of Indian/Pakistani origin Philippe Val - director of Charlie Hebdo "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism," the manifesto says. "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all." The clashes over the cartoons "revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values," the statement continues. "It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats." The writers said they refused to accept that Muslim men and women "should be deprived of their rights to equality, liberty or secularity in the name of respect for culture or tradition". They also said they would not give up their critical spirit out of fear of being accused of Islamophobia. "Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present," the writers added, saying it is nurtured by fears and frustrations. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/4763520.stm Published: 2006/03/01 16:46:10 GMT © BBC MMVI __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

03-05-2006, 09:15 AM	#294 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I have to wonder if any of our lefty friends on TFP are disturbed about all of the college papers currently being censored on this issue. I know my old schools paper ran the cartoons and the editor and writer were fired. Its been spreading. Check out www.littlegreenfootballs.com for details, there have been several college papers who this sort of thing has happened to. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-05-2006, 01:16 PM	#295 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	My position on it is that just because you have the right to print the articles doesn't mean you should. That said we live in nations where there is freedom of press. While it may piss off the Administration (the University's) that the student paper ran the cartoons, they should be left alone to run them as they see fit. Of course, some of those papers exist at the largess of the University's Administration. Sometimes the publisher can veto the editor. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-05-2006, 04:50 PM	#296 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Sums it up nicely. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-06-2006, 09:10 AM	#297 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I went to little green footballs and couldn't find any details about school papers being shut down over this. It'd be nice to post a link, since that's a blog of some sort and there's a lot of info unrelated to this issue on the front page. I'm also confused how you turn this into a free press issue (except in the case of domestic censorship). At least, I don't know how many of the people arguing for freedom of speech/press in this thread believe our freedoms in that regard extend to the Dutch press, the middle east, and for that matter the right not to have people offended and responding. It's always been many of these same people's argument that you have the right to say what you want, but be prepared if someone else doesn't like it and does something in return....but that shouldn't be considered censorship, etc. to those people (ustwo included). Some of them were chief supporters of the violence and intimidation demonstrated to the Dixie Chicks when they were speaking out against Bush as president. The standard reply is that censorship is only done by the government (in context of our constitutional rights, anyway) and then only by our domestic government in relation to domestic affairs. There isn't any of these people who thought other rights extend beyond our nation's boundaries. At least, that was the argument against providing Afghanistan and Iraqi "enemy combatants" legal protections and speedy trials that are required for domestic criminals. The hue and cry about violations of our domestic rights isn't being taken seriously by me. At least not when it's made by someone like Ustwo. I just don't see his argument consistent with other arguments he's made in the past. I imagine at least some of the cartoon authors hold similar views as he does, and would play an inconsistent martyr as the cartoon above this post does. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-06-2006, 10:10 AM	#299 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	When I first heard this story the first thing I wanted to do is see those cartoons to see what was causing all the commotion. It didn't take too long to find them on the web (in fact I first saw them on these forums) but the first place I looked was the main media outlets and found nothing. It is not like these cartoons are not newsworthy since many people were/are probably just as curious as I was. The decision to not publish them seems to be made out of some sense of intimidation and that is just sad, especially when some editor's jobs seem to be in jeopardy when they do. Just because some religious fanatics get upset over some cartoons is no reason to censure them. Instead it is a good reason to publish them so readers can see just what little it takes to cause some people to riot. I can't imagine being an editor and telling my people that we cannot publish the pictures responsible for the biggest news story of the day.

03-06-2006, 10:19 AM	#302 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	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. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-06-2006, 12:03 PM	#304 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 03-06-2006 at 12:05 PM..

03-06-2006, 12:04 PM	#305 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	OK. Let's keep it civil. Saying someone is "full of shit" is NOT an acceptable way of making a rebuttal. This is a blatant flame. Time outs are being handed out. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 03-06-2006 at 12:21 PM..

03-06-2006, 12:48 PM	#306 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-06-2006, 01:40 PM	#307 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	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.

03-06-2006, 01:44 PM	#308 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-07-2006, 10:57 PM	#312 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	ROTFLMAO. Danes print cartoons. Muslims kill each other. TFPers get banned. When will the madness end? (...and does anybody really give a damn?) __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

03-08-2006, 07:02 PM	#314 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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."

03-10-2006, 08:08 PM	#317 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	My most humble apologies. Not reading thoroughly really does make you look like an asshole, huh? __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

03-10-2006, 08:41 PM	#318 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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.

03-10-2006, 09:20 PM	#319 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Believe me, it's not too far off from that now... __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

03-11-2006, 07:46 PM	#320 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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.