|
Post by nymos on Feb 6, 2006 18:31:07 GMT -5
Hey mofo, you think Muslim anti-Jewish offensive cartoons are something new? Where was your outrage then? Oh, that's right, no one rioted or burned any embassies over them, so they didn't catch your attention.
|
|
|
Post by annienormanna on Feb 6, 2006 19:42:15 GMT -5
The Imam’s voice rose to an angry pitch as he denounced the war. “Anyone who kills a believer will go straight to hell. Those thieves have come to steal our oil and kill our children. Please, Allah,” he implored, “send them home losers—killed and wounded. Send them home in coffins.” He was screaming, his voice hoarse in the loudspeakers that relayed his words and sent them echoing off nearby buildings. “Why is Israel allowed to have chemical and nuclear weapons and not us?” he roared. “George Bush thinks he is the new pharaoh, he thinks he’s a god. But, no matter how weak you are, if you truly believe and are willing to sacrifice yourself, you will win.” There were low murmurs of assent from the crowd as he asked the Almighty to destroy the Jews—eternally guilty, he said, of the betrayal of the Muslims in Medina—and to destroy America and Britain.www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030407fa_fact3Would he change his mind about Jews if he could get his hands on chemical or nuclear weapons? Whom does this Imam speak for?
|
|
|
Post by jam on Feb 7, 2006 4:30:22 GMT -5
Its a bit of both IMO, I cannot see Danish Muslims seeking an apology from your Queen of all people for example, but governments from Muslim countries really do operate that way...and the thing is Europeans and Americans know this. For example if an Egyptian reporter, or writer wrote or sermoned an incite against any anti-American/Jewish/[insert non Muslim entity here] its within protocol and not unimaginable for the US state department to convey a message to President Hosni Mubarak to get a grip... or else the US wont import their bumper crop of falafels. Me too, but I also consider the Prophet Muhammad one with the turban bomb on his head as crude and low brow. Yes, that particular cartoon was stupid, mostly because it equates all Muslim with terrorists, and that's unfair. That's why I think they should have tried it out in court, because it's bordering illegal, according to our anti racism rule (Racisme paragraffen.)
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Feb 7, 2006 9:42:42 GMT -5
For example if an Egyptian reporter, or writer wrote or sermoned an incite against any anti-American/Jewish/[insert non Muslim entity here] its within protocol and not unimaginable for the US state department to convey a message to President Hosni Mubarak to get a grip... or else the US wont import their bumper crop of falafels. Maybe because in Egypt and the major part of the Arab/Muslim World the government really has a control over what gets printed and what doesn't ?
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Feb 7, 2006 11:30:18 GMT -5
Hey mofo, you think Muslim anti-Jewish offensive cartoons are something new? Where was your outrage then? Oh, that's right, no one rioted or burned any embassies over them, so they didn't catch your attention. the anti-"jewish" cartoons are actually anti-zionism, not the religion per see
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Feb 7, 2006 12:12:56 GMT -5
First, the cartoons were anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli, period. (The very definition of zionism as used in muslim countries is anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli, so don't give me this antiZionism bs). And they were offenisive. Yet no one rioted or burned down embassies over them, like feral oafs.
Second, why do you single out religion? What makes religion so special and unassailable? This is not about religion but about being offensive. And Posten cartoons weren't even about religion. Mohammed with a bomb on his head is not anti-religion, but anti-islamofascism (how do you like that?).
Now these pathetic morons at AEL are drawing cartoons (not religious mind you) thinking they are making a point, all the time forgetting that Muslims have been drawing such cartoons for years, and no one did anything about it. And then even bigger morons like Wadad are gloating about it. Truly pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Feb 7, 2006 13:20:26 GMT -5
First, the cartoons were anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli, period. (The very definition of zionism as used in muslim countries is anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli, so don't give me this antiZionism bs). And they were offenisive. Yet no one rioted or burned down embassies over them, like feral oafs. Tell me, how is a cartoon of Hitler and Anne frank in bed together against Judaism or Israel? Muslims are anti-zionist more than anti-Jewish, but since almost every Jew is a zionist, you go figure. LOL, you serious? The thing is, religion is ALWAYS put on a podium in Islam, if Western nations really want to start an armageddon all they have to do is caricturize ALLAH in a cartoon and see the reaction Muslims make, faith and his creed are dear to Muslims, much like holocaust memorials are to you guys. The reason you dont know this is because you lack intercultural awareness; different cultures have different sensitivities and taboos. Is this so hard to figure out? Pathetic? I guess you'd rather have them burn down more embassies or something...or do you want them to sit around and submit like docile sheep while the core of their being (Islam) is insulted. ... The AEL is a European organization, it doesnt represent whats published in Muslim countries, they are a voice for Arabs in Europe. I wasnt gloating...whats really pathetic is your selective disgust
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Feb 7, 2006 13:38:36 GMT -5
I like how the muslim guy looks so ugly and evil while the Dane is so cute and gentle. Also Prophet Mohammed has no bomb in place of the turban.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Feb 7, 2006 14:04:26 GMT -5
if Western nations really want to start an armageddon all they have to do is caricturize ALLAH in a cartoon and see the reaction Muslims make, Pathetic? I guess you'd rather have them burn down more embassies or something...or do you want them to sit around and submit like docile sheep while the core of their being (Islam) is insulted.quote} Gee, I guess insulting Islam is comparable to destroying the WTC and killing 3,000. How about we round up a bunch of Islamic terrorists, wipe our asses with the Koran and then introduce them to Mr H- Bomb. Would that insult Muslims enough to start Armageddon, Wadad? ...
|
|
|
Post by Tony Starks on Feb 7, 2006 15:08:55 GMT -5
if Western nations really want to start an armageddon all they have to do is caricturize ALLAH in a cartoon and see the reaction Muslims make, Pathetic? I guess you'd rather have them burn down more embassies or something...or do you want them to sit around and submit like docile sheep while the core of their being (Islam) is insulted.quote} Gee, I guess insulting Islam is comparable to destroying the WTC and killing 3,000. How about we round up a bunch of Islamic terrorists, wipe our asses with the Koran and then introduce them to Mr H- Bomb. Would that insult Muslims enough to start Armageddon, Wadad? ... Nonsensical statement thats far off the mark and not central to the discussion. No, the cartoons don't compare to 3,000 people getting killed at the WTC, no one has said any such thing, but that comparison does not excuse the offensiveness of those cartoons. Those were not Muslims who crashed the WTC, they were nonbelievers who acted contra to the Words of Allah as given to the Messenger. People like you need to learn to separate the actions of extremists from the religion of Islam itself. If Muslims worldwide wiped their asses with the Torah and Bible and broadcasted it live on Al-Jazeera the world would be outraged in much the same manner Muslims are outraged over these cartoons. There is nothing that justifies that despicable act of intolerance.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Feb 7, 2006 15:22:44 GMT -5
if Western nations really want to start an armageddon all they have to do is caricturize ALLAH in a cartoon and see the reaction Muslims make, Pathetic? I guess you'd rather have them burn down more embassies or something...or do you want them to sit around and submit like docile sheep while the core of their being (Islam) is insulted.quote} Gee, I guess insulting Islam is comparable to destroying the WTC and killing 3,000. How about we round up a bunch of Islamic terrorists, wipe our asses with the Koran and then introduce them to Mr H- Bomb. Would that insult Muslims enough to start Armageddon, Wadad? ... Nonsensical statement thats far off the mark and not central to the discussion. No, the cartoons don't compare to 3,000 people getting killed at the WTC, no one has said any such thing, but that comparison does not excuse the offensiveness of those cartoons. Those were not Muslims who crashed the WTC, they were nonbelievers who acted contra to the Words of Allah as given to the Messenger. People like you need to learn to separate the actions of extremists from the religion of Islam itself. If Muslims worldwide wiped their asses with the Torah and Bible and broadcasted it live on Al-Jazeera the world would be outraged in much the same manner Muslims are outraged over these cartoons. There is nothing that justifies that despicable act of intolerance. / Oh, really, the fanatics and killers are non-believers in Allah? However perverted their Islam, there are enough of these "non-believers" to take over whole countries, to influence others, and to channel billions of dollars into operations whose aim is solely to kill innocent people. Now that is what I call "offensive", and to compare these actions with the offensiveness of some stupid caricature is morally twisted. Furthermore, however many Bibles and Torahs were ass-wiped by Muslims, I doubt that Christians and Jews would contemplate Armageddon. Don't tell me that there's some kind of moral equivalence here. And, as far as "tolerance" goes, in Western nations no Muslim is forbidden to practice his faith. But apparently that's not enough. Some Moslems in Britain have claimed that Christian symbols displayed during Christmas season are "offensive" to them. Imagine a Christian going to Iran and claiming that symbols of Islam are offensive to him, and claiming "intolerance! There ARE essential differences between the two sides.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Starks on Feb 7, 2006 15:47:56 GMT -5
>>>>Oh, really, the fanatics and killers are non-believers in Allah?
No, they are not true Muslims. Anyone who does thing contra to the Word of God, be he Muslim, jew or Christian are nonbelievers no matter how much they proclaim themselves to be followers of their religion
>>>>However perverted their Islam, there are enough of these "non-believers" to take over whole countries, to influence others, and to channel billions of dollars into operations whose aim is solely to kill innocent people.
Muslims feel the same way about the Western world nations, chief among them the United States, who use their money and influence to blackball any nation who doesn't follow suit with what they like, not to mention using the world's strongest military to bully people.
>>>>Now that is what I call "offensive", and to compare these actions with the offensiveness of some stupid caricature is morally twisted.
You're comparing two separate things and trying the say the seriousness of one overrides the other, your logic twisted. The majority of the people who are outraged had nothing to do with the WTC being bombed so their outrage should not be something to be pissed upon. The WTC bombing is not whats being discussed here, its the offensive cartoons that are. just because 3,000 aren't being killed in this case doesn't mean the offensive cartoons should be excused.
Your comprison of the WTC bombing and the offensive cartoons has no moral equivalence.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Feb 7, 2006 16:14:58 GMT -5
>>>>Oh, really, the fanatics and killers are non-believers in Allah? No, they are not true Muslims. Anyone who does thing contra to the Word of God, be he Muslim, jew or Christian are nonbelievers no matter how much they proclaim themselves to be followers of their religion >>>>However perverted their Islam, there are enough of these "non-believers" to take over whole countries, to influence others, and to channel billions of dollars into operations whose aim is solely to kill innocent people. Muslims feel the same way about the Western world nations, chief among them the United States, who use their money and influence to blackball any nation who doesn't follow suit with what they like, not to mention using the world's strongest military to bully people. >>>>Now that is what I call "offensive", and to compare these actions with the offensiveness of some stupid caricature is morally twisted. You're comparing two separate things and trying the say the seriousness of one overrides the other, your logic twisted. The majority of the people who are outraged had nothing to do with the WTC being bombed so their outrage should not be something to be pissed upon. The WTC bombing is not whats being discussed here, its the offensive cartoons that are. just because 3,000 aren't being killed in this case doesn't mean the offensive cartoons should be excused. Your comprison of the WTC bombing and the offensive cartoons has no moral equivalence. / I'll say there's no moral equivalence. One is trivial by comparison with the monstrousness of the other, and it's not only WTC. Another word about "tolerance": Despite the outrages committed in the name of Allah (and dont tell me that a significant number of Muslims dont sympathise with the killers) there has not been widespread oppression of Muslims in Western countries. In fact, surprisingly little. And don't compare the actions of the US govt (most of the time the left hand doesnt know what the right is doing, and vice versa). It's like a big clumsy elephant, turning this way and that, impelled by a virtual infinity of reasons, many of them contradictory. To call the US a bully is disingenuous; often it doesnt realize its own strength, so to outsiders it appears sinister. But I dont want this to become a lengthy and contentious argument over global policy. I have a more personal axe to grind: one of my old college friends was killed on 9/11. Since then I've been mighty pissed off, and I hate hearing excuses for what happened; and I have little patience with the sensitivities of extremists. See ya.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Feb 7, 2006 17:35:23 GMT -5
First of all, you're off-track. Anne Frank cartoons were printed by AEL after the controversy. I was talking about cartoons that have been printed in the muslim world all these years before, and no one burned down any embassies over them. So what the AEL is doing is nothing new. Yet you were gloating about as in 'take that Europe, whachu gonna do about this'.
And yea if you want to talk about it, the Anne Frank cartoon is anti-Jewish. First of all they it's directed against Jews. Some Jews may even find them offensive. I find them so stupid and childish that it's as if they don't exist. And AEL is just using this whole thing as an excuse "to stick it to" the Jews.
Is it so hard for you to keep track of the posts? Syriano was talking about anti-Jewish cartoons not being anti-religion, implying that it's not the same. I say what makes religion so special. Why do anti-Jewish cartoons have to be about religion to have the same impact? They are offensive nonetheless.
So what you say here is not relevant to me, because you misinterpreted what I said. In fact, you only vaildated my point. Next time you post, try to read carefully so you don't make such mistakes and put at least an iota of thought into what you write.
Submit to what? Don't worry, Muslims have it good in Europe. Don't turn 12 cartoons into some sort of attempt at subjugation. Pretty soon it will blow over and the Euros will start kowtowing and ask for "make-up sex."
I don't give a f*ck what they do as long as it's non-violent. If I call it pathetic, it doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have done it. I just call it what it is. Frankly, I didn't expect them to act otherwise.
Just in case you have any more assumptions about me let me stress once more that, the only thing I disapproved of in Muslim reactions is the violence. I've made that perfectly clear. They have all the right to get offended, but they have to react civilly. This violence just turned more Euros against them and only validated the cartoons. For ex., the bomb cartoon implied the Muslim propensity to violence, and how did the Muslim community react to show their outrage? With violence. Tell me was that an appropriate response?
Even despite all this, Euros will (and already are) bend over for the Muslims.
It doesn't matter where they are. The point is all the same. They are trying to act like such cartoons are something new.
Or look at what Iran is doing with the cartoon contest. Also pathetic.
Sure you weren't. I guess this sarcastic remark isn't gloating: "My point is the Euro advocates of "freedom of expression" better admire this cartoon too, otherwise they can go to hell. You know, Tit for Tat, just like in the bible "
What selective disgust?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Reed on Feb 8, 2006 0:31:13 GMT -5
A cartoon is worth a thousand words. That sums it up perfectly! The guy on the left is gonna enter Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest. I don't know if Ahmadinejad is Bozo or Hitler.
|
|