Muslims to march in London

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

By half truths I was referring to wikipedia - an online encyclopedia "edited by anyone".

I think that's a little unfair. Some research last year found that Wikipedia stands up very well against Encyclopaedia Britannica for accuracy in its science entries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Yes, I know it was a study only of science categories , but I see no reason why if it so good in one area, it should suddenly vary so wildly as to deserve the accusation 'half truth', especially when you offer no evidence for the accusation.

The fact that it is editable by anyone is, potentially, a strength rather than a weakness. Especially since they have tightened up their editorial review process.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I find it bizarre that anyone would put the purported awarding of a "moral victory" ahead of peoples lives, truly bizarre.

I find it bizzare that lives are lost over such trivial matters, I think it's about time Islam dragged its way into modern times instead of acting like some barbaric bunch of heathens who kill, threat to kill or stamp their feet we dont agree.

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 ----------

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 ----------

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 ----------

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...

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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 ----------

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.

I keep thinking what would happen if I were to print a cartoon of a catholic priest raping a young boy!

The cartoon would certainly offend catholics, but as well as the offence I would think they would be embarassed because of the covering up and in latter days, charges being brought for such offences by members of the church. The big difference is that the majority of catholics would not dispute that it has happened, but would feel ashamed that it was unfortunately a part of the ccatholic church. I dont think somehow they would go on a rampage because someone had stated the obvious.

PS. I am not trying to offend any catholics, I just used it because its an example that is treated differently by its followers.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Denmark is the only Scandanavian country to throw it's full weight, both in the form of troops and diplomatic backing, behind the US led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hence, an obvious target for this action.

So not likely to come from within...

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Escapee

I keep thinking what would happen if I were to print a cartoon of a catholic priest raping a young boy!

Apart from it exceeding the bounds of public decency, I agree it would more likely cause extreme embarrasment.

The thing is, if you did get away with publishing a cartoon that hinted at that specific issue, you would actually be correctly voicing a concern about a real issue. So if kept within bound of decency, I would argue such a cartoon entirely valid.

Sure, there'd be those that would complain - but as has been said before, no death threats, no violent protest, no destruction of property, no world-wide mayhem. So, go ahead. Publish and be damned.

[Mr Angry]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Denmark is the only Scandanavian country to throw it's full weight, both in the form of troops and diplomatic backing, behind the US led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hence, an obvious target for this action.

So not likely to come from within..."

I'm sorry, but up until this moment there have been no attacks on Denmark as a result of their involvement with Iraq / Afghanistan. You'd have thought they'd be happy to leave good enough alone but apparently the freedom of speech is more important than the sanctity of the lives of their citizens.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I think it's worth noting that atrocities committed to date appear to have occured only in countries / sovereign states who have actively engaged in a war on Islam in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Sure, except of course: Bali, Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen. And that's just off the top of my head. I am sure there are probably more.

Are you sure, proof positive, that the same levels of vitriol couldn't be pointed at you and your nation / religion if someone was minded to do so?

Only incident I know of, of Christianity (2.1 billion followers, twice that of Islam) were a couple of abortion clinic bombings in the US in the 90's. Aside from that, you probably have to go back a couple of hundred years. Before you mention it, The Troubles wern't about religion, they were about politics.

[basa]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

............<snip>.......... apparently the freedom of speech is more important than the sanctity of the lives of their citizens.

Why on earth should it come to that ?? "Don't upset us or we'll kill you." (or at least threaten to).

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by punky

Sure, except of course: Bali, Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen. And that's just off the top of my head. I am sure there are probably more.

Ok Punky, against my better judgement, I'll bite.

Bali, Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen were, and still are, domestic disputes that were raging long before 9/11 and "the war on terror". Indeed some of those mentioned are internecine muslim feuds with nothing, whatsoever, to do with the west. There were bombs going off in all of these countries YEARS brfore 9/11 and the war on terror and no one gave a flying one about it.

Originally Posted by punky

Only incident I know of, of Christianity were a couple of abortion clinic bombings in the US in the 90's. Aside from that, you probably have to go back a couple of hundred years.

Had you grasped the context of my original post you'd have realized that was not what I was getting at. You either condone and accept the validity and results of war or you don't, there is no middle ground.

Originally Posted by punky

Before you mention it, The Troubles wern't about religion, they were about politics.

Yes, of couse, you would know. How silly of me!

"The Troubles", as you so eloquently put it, was a terminology used by the British Government to politicize the reality of what was going on on their doorstep. Interestingly two successive PM's announced that "The war is over" post ceasefires.

Understand this. What happened in Northern Ireland was a war. We have a population of over 1.5 million people who can attest to the fact and thousands of dead to prove it. We also have entire cities, towns and villages still divided, demographically, on the basis of religion. Our district councils and wards are, to this day, decided on religious make up and not political demographics.

We also have more integrity than to peddle some tabloid derived nonsense purporting to sell the myth that what happened here over the last thirty years was politically motivated.

Please, don't insult your own integrity by trying to insult mine, it serves no purpose.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Bali, Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen were, and still are, domestic disputes that were raging long before 9/11

Which disproves your point that all/most Islamic violence is in retailation to western invasions.

Had you grasped the context of my original post you'd have realized that was not what I was getting at. You either condone and accept the validity and results of war or you don't, there is no middle ground.

Hang on, we aren't talking about war, we are talking about terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. You brought up the theory that all terrorist attacks are in retaliation to western wars against Islam, which I am still waiting for you to prove.

Yes, of couse, you would know. How silly of me!

I don't claim to be an expert on the situation, certainly over a Northern Irish resident. I've never even been there. However I mentioned it because I thought it was a good chance you'd come back with <insert suitable description for the situation in Northern Island from the 1960s to 1998>, and I wanted to head off that by mentioning that I don't consider <insert suitable description for the situation in Northern Island from the 1960s to 1998> to be religiously motivated.

Please, don't insult your own integrity by trying to insult mine, it serves no purpose.

When have I tried to insult you? You seriously have one big chip on your shoulder. In addition, I consider:

Yes, of couse, you would know. How silly of me!

to be rather insulting, rude, immature and actually quite inflammatory.

[punky]

And you thought Freedom Fries was a stupid idea...

Linky

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by punky

Which disproves your point that all/most Islamic violence is in retailation to western invasions.



Hang on, we aren't talking about war, we are talking about terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. You brought up the theory that all terrorist attacks are in retaliation to western wars against Islam, which I am still waiting for you to prove.



I don't claim to be an expert on the situation, certainly over a Northern Irish resident. I've never even been there. However I mentioned it because I thought it was a good chance you'd come back with <insert suitable description for the situation in Northern Island from the 1960s to 1998>, and I wanted to head off that by mentioning that I don't consider <insert suitable description for the situation in Northern Island from the 1960s to 1998> to be religiously motivated.



When have I tried to insult you? You seriously have one big chip on your shoulder. In addition, I consider:



to be rather insulting, rude, immature and actually quite inflammatory.

Again you've chosen to misinterpret my points.

Let me be absolutely clear. I am stating that prior to 9/11 and the "war on terror" atrocitices carried out by muslims against others (including other muslims) was not meritorious of the attentions, and certainly not the military might, of the west. It was all well and good to let them carry on kill ing each other as long as it wasn't "us" who were suffering. This exact same methodology of "not in our back yard" was as much a contributory factor in the execution of the holocaust as it is in the modern xenophobic frenzy against muslims - get used to it.

Your interpretation of "war" is irrelevant, as indeed is mine. In order for a conflict to exist there needs to be a minimum of two sides, on that we have to agree - it is an inaliable fact. In the event that one of the parties to the conflict purports to be a democratic entity, or is percieved as such, that side, throughout history, will invariably call their opponents "Terrorists". A convenient moniker that conjures up all sorts of supposedly demonic and evil images in the minds of right thinking "democrats" and which clearly establishes the democracy as the "good guy". Now, consider this. At what point did Nelson Mandela make the transition from convicted "terrorist" to international statesman and champion of equal rights and freedom of speech? When did Osama Bin laden cease to be a mujahadeen freedom fighter funded by the CIA fighting the russian forces in Afghanistan and suddenly become an (unconvicted) terrorist?

You need to understand that there are those in the muslim communty who believe that they are at war and they see the west and its allies to be terrorists. Are they not entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of thought or should they simply cow tow to the propaganda that we are all fed day and daily like sheep? The murderous acts that they carry out are seen by them as acts of bravery in much the same way that the bombing of Dresden was seen as the actions of a war hero. There are still relatives of nazi officers who cherish the medals their fathers and grandfathers were awarded for manning the death camps. The fact is that if you want to sanitize genocide or terrorism you simply relabel it as war or freedom fighting. Lets be frank about this. If you glorify war you will pay the price because someone WILL put you to the test, of that you can be sure.

No one in this situation is right, no one. There can only be one winner in this scenario in its current context and that is hate. I'm not here to discuss the semantics of free speech, I'm here simply to state, based on my experience, that if this current situation of ignorance, intolerance and paranoia is not addressed then more needless blood will be spilt, families will be destroyed and loved ones lost. Believe me when I tell you, and I sincerely want you to reflect on this, it will not be easy for any advocate of free speech, on either side, to look the relatives of the next victim in the eye and say "you know what, I supported the right to publish those cartoons". With free speech comes responsibility, sadly we're not seeing much of that.

I hope I've made my point about war / terrorism. They are one and the same. Their end results are the same, their actions are differentiated, in the main, only by uniforms and mindsets. One mans war is another mans terror campaign. One mans freedom fighting is another mans terrorism, I'm sure you get where I'm coming from. As I said earlier its a matter of disarming the mindset. Working to achieve that will develop a greater understanding and mutual respect. Cases in point? Northern Ireland and South Africa, to name but two, where those previously denounced as "terrorists" have, and are, delivering a lasting peace.

With reference to your Northern Ireland comments. I appreciate what you are saying in relation to why you made the comment but, as I have clearly pointed out in my previous post, please don't try to preempt what you quite obviously didn't understand. I don't mean that to sound condescending in any fashion but I'm uneasy with the thought that this "political war" nonsense still permeates. The fact is that the end solution is political - but the reality for thirty years was a religious based sectarian war / terrorism.

Perhaps we should both stop feeling insulted by each others comments and set a precedent whilst we're on the subject of mutual respect and understanding?

From our pointed debates I understand that we both, essentially, are against war / terrorism in whatever guise. So, how do we bring about a broader realization of our consensus that killing other human beings "in the name of...." is wrong?

Peace out.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Let me be absolutely clear. I am stating that prior to 9/11 and the "war on terror" atrocitices carried out by muslims against others (including other muslims) was not meritorious of the attentions, and certainly not the military might, of the west.

You know, I could have sworn that the Clinton administration used it's military might against a certain "chemical factory" long before 9/11 after a terrorist attack.
In fact, wasn't the Clinton administration quite active in anti-al qaida actions?

A convenient moniker that conjures up all sorts of supposedly demonic and evil images in the minds of right thinking "democrats" and which clearly establishes the democracy as the "good guy".

Just so that we're not mistaken, are you saying that what most people consider to be terrorists are not evil? That the actions they take, blowing up civilians who just want to go about their business are not evil actions?

Now, consider this. At what point did Nelson Mandela make the transition from convicted "terrorist" to international statesman and champion of equal rights and freedom of speech?

February 11, 1990

When did Osama Bin laden cease to be a mujahadeen freedom fighter funded by the CIA fighting the russian forces in Afghanistan and suddenly become an (unconvicted) terrorist?

When was he considered a freedom fighter by the west? And I don't mean the media, I mean by the US goverment, as from what I know he was never seen as that, just as a tool to cause the Russians problems.

You need to understand that there are those in the muslim communty who believe that they are at war and they see the west and its allies to be terrorists. Are they not entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of thought or should they simply cow tow to the propaganda that we are all fed day and daily like sheep?

Are you saying they should cow tow to the anti-west propaganda, like the dossier the danish imams took to the middle east with the sole purpose of causing outrage?

The fact is that if you want to sanitize genocide or terrorism you simply relabel it as war or freedom fighting. Lets be frank about this. If you glorify war you will pay the price because someone WILL put you to the test, of that you can be sure.

Bovine excriment! A terrorist is not a freedome fighter! The only people who try that line are ones who try to justify what terrorists do!
Who the hell is trying to glorify war, oh hang on, the islamic extremists are with their calls for jihad, despite such calls being totally against the rules of jihad in the koran!

"you know what, I supported the right to publish those cartoons". With free speech comes responsibility, sadly we're not seeing much of that.

What comes after umpteenth?
Can anyone tell me?
Because last time I said for the umpteenth time, and no I have to say it again.
The images that were published by the newspapers are not the ones which caused the offence, the images of a man dressed up as a pig with the added caption "the true face of muhammad," a muslim praying while being humped by a dog, and muhammad portrayed as a demonic paedophile because of his 9 year old wife, in addition to the right wing anti-islamic propoganda are what caused the offence!
Other muslims who haven't even seen the cartoons, let alone the offensive images and documents, joined the objection because they were told as muslims they should object by other muslims, without really knowing what they're objecting to.

One mans freedom fighting is another mans terrorism, I'm sure you get where I'm coming from.

Justifying terrorism again?

[driver_problems]

I couldn't help noticing that Xaccers avatar looks a tad on the terroristy side

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by driver_problems

I couldn't help noticing that Xaccers avatar looks a tad on the terroristy side

Who me? *innocent look*

Terrorist:


Airsofters: