Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Bomb#20]

Not forgetting that their founder Mo was a terrorist. The islamic extremists are following the purest form of the death cult of islam.

A terrorist? Oh please. Is every warrior called a terrorist these days?

Only the Arab ones, I suppose.

You're both wrong. Where is his terrorism? I'm not aware of any.

However, warrior isn't the right term, either. Bandit is more like it.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Mohammed had a poetess and all her children murdered because she wrote insulting poems about him. After he won the Battle of the Trench he wiped out the Qurayza tribe of Medina. The women and children were enslaved; the men were executed. His procedure for deciding who would live and who would die was inspection of the genitals -- if a boy had pubic hair he was beheaded. What possible grounds are there for claiming Mohammed wasn't a terrorist?

 

[Sarpedon]

Because the world changes and with it standards of behavior. To apply modern labels on people living in the dark ages is ignorant and not at all informative. He is called a terrorist not because of his acts, but because the speaker doesn't like him. If I found someone else the speaker did like who did the same thing, there'd be another word and excuses.

That's what this all is. Slapping labels on people and moving along. It is much easier than thinking. Lazy.

Do we really want to discuss what war was like in the 7th century? Nothing he did was out of line of the standards of war in his time and place. "Warrior" is correct in that context. Call him a brute, as what he did was brutal even by his times standards. But don't call him a 'terrorist' because back then EVERYONE ruled by fear. If someone today were to do what he did, sure we could call him a terrorist. Calling someone in the 7th century a terrorist is about as intelligent and useful as calling a dog that shits in the street a litterbug.

 

[untermensche]

If an artist is a racist then how do we separate his ignorance from his political expression in the form of art?

You're still focusing on the artist.

Take the cartoon, remove his name from it. Focus just on the cartoon. It's not racist, it is brilliant.

What's so good about it?

There is nobody who is harmed because they can't draw a representation of Mohammed. Next to nobody wants to. It is a complete non-issue.

Except to anti-Muslim racists.

 

[Metaphor]

There is nobody who is harmed because they can't draw a representation of Mohammed.

Of course they're fucking harmed. Arbitrary restrictions on behaviour because the delusional believe their god demands it is always harmful.

 

[untermensche]

There is nobody who is harmed because they can't draw a representation of Mohammed.

Of course they're fucking harmed. Arbitrary restrictions on behaviour because the delusional believe their god demands it is always harmful.

What is the harm? Actual harm, not imaginary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A terrorist? Oh please. Is every warrior called a terrorist these days?

Only the Arab ones, I suppose.

You're both wrong. Where is his terrorism? I'm not aware of any.

However, warrior isn't the right term, either. Bandit is more like it.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Mohammed had a poetess and all her children murdered because she wrote insulting poems about him. After he won the Battle of the Trench he wiped out the Qurayza tribe of Medina. The women and children were enslaved; the men were executed. His procedure for deciding who would live and who would die was inspection of the genitals -- if a boy had pubic hair he was beheaded. What possible grounds are there for claiming Mohammed wasn't a terrorist?

You are describing vile acts. I don't see that you are describing terrorism, though. Terrorism requires an intent to modify the behavior of others as the objective of the violence.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still focusing on the artist.

Take the cartoon, remove his name from it. Focus just on the cartoon. It's not racist, it is brilliant.

What's so good about it?

There is nobody who is harmed because they can't draw a representation of Mohammed. Next to nobody wants to. It is a complete non-issue.

Except to anti-Muslim racists.

Plenty of people have died because of this. I don't consider that a non-issue.

 

[bilby]

Of course they're fucking harmed. Arbitrary restrictions on behaviour because the delusional believe their god demands it is always harmful.

What is the harm? Actual harm, not imaginary.

It's the same harm that befalls you if you are placed under house arrest. If you have a comfortable place to live, with plenty of food supplied to you, but you are never allowed to leave, then you are being harmed. Not harmed physiologically, but harmed none the less.

Just because you are not bruised or bleeding does not mean you are unharmed. Being told that you may not do something harms you. Only when that harm is offset by a corresponding benefit is it reasonable.

What is the corresponding benefit of not drawing Mohammed, that renders a ban on doing so reasonable?

 

[untermensche]

What is the harm? Actual harm, not imaginary.

It's the same harm that befalls you if you are placed under house arrest. If you have a comfortable place to live, with plenty of food supplied to you, but you are never allowed to leave, then you are being harmed. Not harmed physiologically, but harmed none the less.

Just because you are not bruised or bleeding does not mean you are unharmed. Being told that you may not do something harms you. Only when that harm is offset by a corresponding benefit is it reasonable.

What is the corresponding benefit of not drawing Mohammed, that renders a ban on doing so reasonable?

This is a rhetorical smoke screen.

In reality anybody who wants to can draw Mohammed from sunrise to sunset.

But that doesn't upset anyone.

What people want is for Muslims to be upset.

That is the great fight here. The right of bigots to upset Muslims and potentially put people in danger as a result.

 

[bilby]

It's the same harm that befalls you if you are placed under house arrest. If you have a comfortable place to live, with plenty of food supplied to you, but you are never allowed to leave, then you are being harmed. Not harmed physiologically, but harmed none the less.

Just because you are not bruised or bleeding does not mean you are unharmed. Being told that you may not do something harms you. Only when that harm is offset by a corresponding benefit is it reasonable.

What is the corresponding benefit of not drawing Mohammed, that renders a ban on doing so reasonable?

This is a rhetorical smoke screen.

In reality anybody who wants to can draw Mohammed from sunrise to sunset.

But that doesn't upset anyone.

What people want is for Muslims to be upset.

That is the great fight here. The right of bigots to upset Muslims and potentially put people in danger as a result.

Not quite. The great fight here is for the right of anyone to upset anyone, regardless of the threats that the offended people might make.

This is the old schoolyard principle of 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' writ large.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Nobody has the right to become violent as a result of being offended. If people do become violent, simply because someone has offended them, then ALL of the blame for the violence attaches to the person who commits the violence.

 

[untermensche]

This is a rhetorical smoke screen.

In reality anybody who wants to can draw Mohammed from sunrise to sunset.

But that doesn't upset anyone.

What people want is for Muslims to be upset.

That is the great fight here. The right of bigots to upset Muslims and potentially put people in danger as a result.

Not quite. The great fight here is for the right of anyone to upset anyone, regardless of the threats that the offended people might make.

That is the ultimate goal but it ignores the reality of recent history.

It is the US that has gone half way around the world to attack and kill Muslims by the thousands.

And in doing it groups like ISIS have formed.

The ME is a gaping wound thanks to US aggression.

This is not the time to bring up how disastrous Islam is because you can't draw Mohammed. It puts people in danger and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It changes absolutely nothing.

This problem with caricatures of Mohammed will not be solved in the US. It is something that Muslims have to work out in Muslim nations.

But of course they need peace first.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not quite. The great fight here is for the right of anyone to upset anyone, regardless of the threats that the offended people might make.

That is the ultimate goal but it ignores the reality of recent history.

It is the US that has gone half way around the world to attack and kill Muslims by the thousands.

And in doing it groups like ISIS have formed.

The ME is a gaping wound thanks to US aggression.

This is not the time to bring up how disastrous Islam is because you can't draw Mohammed. It puts people in danger and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It changes absolutely nothing.

This problem with caricatures of Mohammed will not be solved in the US. It is something that Muslims have to work out in Muslim nations.

But of course they need peace first.

Is it your view that people who draw Mohammed should be prosecuted?

 

[untermensche]

Is it your view that people who draw Mohammed should be prosecuted?

How would I or anyone know if somebody drew something they called Mohammed?

 

[bilby]

Not quite. The great fight here is for the right of anyone to upset anyone, regardless of the threats that the offended people might make.

That is the ultimate goal but it ignores the reality of recent history.

It is the US that has gone half way around the world to attack and kill Muslims by the thousands.

And in doing it groups like ISIS have formed.

The ME is a gaping wound thanks to US aggression.

This is not the time to bring up how disastrous Islam is because you can't draw Mohammed. It puts people in danger and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It changes absolutely nothing.

This problem with caricatures of Mohammed will not be solved in the US. It is something that Muslims have to work out in Muslim nations.

But of course they need peace first.

I am not in the US; and I don't see how US relations with various Middle Eastern nations and/or organisations has thing one to do with whether or not I should be allowed to draw a picture of whomever the fuck I please.

There can be no peace while people are making completely unreasonable demands. I am struggling to come up with a better example of an unreasonable demand than someone I have never met demanding that I do not draw an historical character on pain of death.

 

[dismal]

This is a rhetorical smoke screen.

In reality anybody who wants to can draw Mohammed from sunrise to sunset.

But that doesn't upset anyone.

What people want is for Muslims to be upset.

That is the great fight here. The right of bigots to upset Muslims and potentially put people in danger as a result.

Not quite. The great fight here is for the right of anyone to upset anyone, regardless of the threats that the offended people might make.

This is the old schoolyard principle of 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' writ large.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Nobody has the right to become violent as a result of being offended. If people do become violent, simply because someone has offended them, then ALL of the blame for the violence attaches to the person who commits the violence.

Well said.

 

[Bomb#20]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Mohammed had a poetess and all her children murdered because she wrote insulting poems about him. After he won the Battle of the Trench he wiped out the Qurayza tribe of Medina. The women and children were enslaved; the men were executed. His procedure for deciding who would live and who would die was inspection of the genitals -- if a boy had pubic hair he was beheaded. What possible grounds are there for claiming Mohammed wasn't a terrorist?

You are describing vile acts. I don't see that you are describing terrorism, though.

I'm describing violence deliberately targeted at noncombatants for political goals. That's the definition of terrorism.

Terrorism requires an intent to modify the behavior of others as the objective of the violence.

I'm pretty sure killing a child modifies his behavior. By "others" you mean people other than the ones you're killing? Not sure why that would be a requirement. It's a counterintuitive rule -- it would mean if you try to kill half the Muslims in Kosovo you're a terrorist but if you try to kill them all you're not.

Be that as it may, you think when he murdered that poetess it never occurred to Mohammed what effect that might have on the next person tempted to write an insulting poem about him?

 

[Metaphor]

Of course they're fucking harmed. Arbitrary restrictions on behaviour because the delusional believe their god demands it is always harmful.

What is the harm? Actual harm, not imaginary.

What's the harm in banning homosexuality? After all, most people don't want to do it.

 

[Axulus]

Ananta Bijoy Das: Yet another Bangladeshi blogger hacked to death

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/asia/bangladesh-blogger-killed/

His words were highly offensive to the religious fundamentalists in the country. Once could say he was trying to provoke. He should've left well enough alone, right? Speech should never be provocative.

 

[untermensche]

What is the harm? Actual harm, not imaginary.

What's the harm in banning homosexuality? After all, most people don't want to do it.

You compare the sex drive with the drive to draw something and call it Mohammed?

Very amusing.

 

[Metaphor]

What's the harm in banning homosexuality? After all, most people don't want to do it.

You compare the sex drive with the drive to draw something and call it Mohammed?

Very amusing.

Is it?

You've determined that the insane impulse of delusional Islamists to murder people who draw Mohammed is more important than the right of people to draw Mohammed.

I'd like to say it's amusing, but it isn't.

 

[untermensche]

I am not in the US; and I don't see how US relations with various Middle Eastern nations and/or organisations has thing one to do with whether or not I should be allowed to draw a picture of whomever the fuck I please.

There can be no peace while people are making completely unreasonable demands. I am struggling to come up with a better example of an unreasonable demand than someone I have never met demanding that I do not draw an historical character on pain of death.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with retaliation.

I know you want the US to be able to destroy the lives of millions, destroy entire nations, and then have no cost to pay for this monstrous inhumanity.

You don't even have the slightest glimpse of what justice means.

Yet you want to cry about the injustice of others.

Your position is a joke.