Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Somehow I think the catholic church, Dan Brown and Corgi's lawyers might disagree with that.
|
The Catholic church was very measured in it's opposition to the Da Vinci Code. In any case, the argument was more about inaccuracies in the book vs. reality, rather than anyone worrying about a conspiracy being exposed.
I don't recall any mass protests, let alone violent ones. I don't recall any calls for the book to be banned or the author to be killed. There were no attacks on embassies or innocent people in no way connected with the book.
---------- Post added at 15:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Incognitas
To do it once maybe punky.Twice perhaps.Three times plus seems like overkill to me and was a definite attempt to get precisely the reaction they got..
|
Not at all. The re-publications were to assert the freedom of speech in the face of Islamic opposition.
Yes, it got a predictable reaction, but only one that showed the failure of Muslims to understand what FoS means in free, liberal democratic societies.
---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
What the Islamic community should be doing right now is thinking long and hard as to why some non-muslims view Mohammad and Islam in such a negative way.
|
What they should be wondering is in whose interest it is to stir up this mess.
Is it the Danish right-wing, or someone else? Could there be a faction of Muslims who just saw an opportunity to sow hatred? Maybe start a global Jihad?
---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
The offensive images are not those of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban (why oh why would an arab muslim be wearing a turban anyway?) but images of a French pig squealing contentstant (dressed as a pig) with the caption "Here is the true face of Muhammad" another showing a muslim being mounted as he prays, and another image portraying Muhammad as a demonic paedophile (none of these images were published by the Danish newspaper).
|
No, the other cartoons were never published here, as they wouldn't have been. And they are designed to cause maximum offense to Muslims. As are all the other 'allegations' against Denmark.
To my way of thinking, to create maximum offense requires intimate knowledge of how to offend. Who would know better than a Muslim...