Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[untermensche]

None of this justifies an unprovoked invasion that resulted in the deaths of about one million people.

Apparently you don't know how to round. If you are going to round to the nearest million, you actually need to round down to zero.

I never said the invasion was justified. But your virulent anti-Americanism is blinding you full of logical fallacies and crazy conspiratorial thinking, and giving you confidence that you have psychic powers that you just somehow know that Saddam wouldn't have committed more "tiny actions" to kill many more people and that somehow ISIS or some other Caliphate wanna-be would've never formed in the ME without US invasion.

Everything bad that happens in the world, the US is some how behind it in your view. Not rational at all. You are blinded by a fanatic ideology.

Again it is only less than a million if we ignore Nuremberg principles as you for some reason desire.

 

[Axulus]

Apparently you don't know how to round. If you are going to round to the nearest million, you actually need to round down to zero.

I never said the invasion was justified. But your virulent anti-Americanism is blinding you full of logical fallacies and crazy conspiratorial thinking, and giving you confidence that you have psychic powers that you just somehow know that Saddam wouldn't have committed more "tiny actions" to kill many more people and that somehow ISIS or some other Caliphate wanna-be would've never formed in the ME without US invasion.

Everything bad that happens in the world, the US is some how behind it in your view. Not rational at all. You are blinded by a fanatic ideology.

Again it is only less than a million if we ignore Nuremberg principles as you for some reason desire.

I already posted the iraq body count. You have an ideological need to exaggerate and use flimsy sources that make the US seem even more evil, for your whole world view relies on the US being as evil as possible. The more evil it is, the more you think your world view is justified.

 

[untermensche]

Again it is only less than a million if we ignore Nuremberg principles as you for some reason desire.

I already posted the iraq body count. You have an ideological need to exaggerate and use flimsy sources that make the US seem even more evil, for your whole world view relies on the US being as evil as possible. The more evil it is, the more you think your world view is justified.

That's not the Iraqi body count.

It is the counting of civilian deaths directly caused by US forces.

The US is responsible for ALL deaths, even the deaths being carried out by ISIS, which wouldn't exist without US aggression.

You simply want to ignore Nuremberg principles for some reason.

 

[Axulus]

I already posted the iraq body count. You have an ideological need to exaggerate and use flimsy sources that make the US seem even more evil, for your whole world view relies on the US being as evil as possible. The more evil it is, the more you think your world view is justified.

That's not the Iraqi body count.

It is the counting of civilian deaths directly caused by US forces.

The US is responsible for ALL deaths, even the deaths being carried out by ISIS, which wouldn't exist without US aggression.

You simply want to ignore Nuremberg principles for some reason.

False. The US forces did not cause the vast majority of those deaths. Most of those deaths are Iraqis killing other Iraqis in the sectarian violence that erupted after the invasion (which was possible because the US isn't as brutal as Saddam in stopping it). That Iraq body count data includes _all_ of those deaths. Where are you getting your information from? Stay away from your biased and false ideological sources and go to the sites that have credible information.

 

[PyramidHead]

Can we please get back on topic? This has nothing to with the OP.

untermensche, I will ask again: do you believe that the people who drew the specific cartoons should be legally punished?

 

[Malintent]

I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me, I have a problem with people who make shitty arguments built on bad logic, refuse to acknowledge problems with said arguments even when given clear explanations, and just generally shit up threads with nonsense. Which is why I said it'd be better for everyone if you just stopped talking.

I imagine others have figured out that reading posts is a voluntary act. You can adequately protect yourself without requiring me to shut up.

.. as is looking at cartoons that are just going to get you mad. No one forced anyone to look at these drawings. two people went out of there way to go looking for trouble over there (and found it).

 

[Axulus]

The speech you're defending is the right to scream fire anywhere you want under any circumstances.

It is a child's version of free speech.

Getting back on topic, this comparison is laughable.

If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, and I am in that theater, I have _no_ ability to avoid that speech. A theater fire is direct threat to my physical well being. I have to immediately respond to the warning or risk damage to my physical well being.

Vs. a Muhammad cartoon, which is not a threat to anyone's physical well being, and which anyone can avoid looking at if they so desire.

 

[PyramidHead]

I am curious about untermensche's answer to my question because the "yelling fire in a movie theater" is generally understood to be an example of speech that should not (necessarily) be protected by the First Amendment. I am simply asking if he thinks the same thing is true about the act of drawing and publishing the cartoons in the OP, and what should be the legal ramifications for the offenders. Did they commit a felony? A misdemeanor?

 

[Deepak]

Just to put it out there, the yelling fire example is often cited but has never actually been tested in court.

 

[PyramidHead]

Just to put it out there, the yelling fire example is often cited but has never actually been tested in court.

Where similar cases have occurred, WikiPedia says there hasn't really be a conclusive ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

 

[untermensche]

Can we please get back on topic? This has nothing to with the OP.

untermensche, I will ask again: do you believe that the people who drew the specific cartoons should be legally punished?

I'm not a big believer in the idea of punishment.

They should be strongly discouraged by reasonable people and their actions should be called what they are, incitement to violence.

If only people believed Muslims have as much right to live free from US violence as they believe American bigots have the right to endanger others.

 

[PyramidHead]

Can we please get back on topic? This has nothing to with the OP.

untermensche, I will ask again: do you believe that the people who drew the specific cartoons should be legally punished?

I'm not a big believer in the idea of punishment.

They should be strongly discouraged by reasonable people and their actions should be called what they are, incitement to violence.

If only people believed Muslims have as much right to live free from US violence as they believe American bigots have the right to endanger others.

Then what do you think should be done in this case that hasn't already been done? If the cartoonists are 'discouraged by reasonable people' and still want to draw Mohammed and poke fun at Muslims, what then?

 

[Cycad]

 

[Cycad]

some of posters would benefit watching this clip. IMO.

Salaam.

 

[bilby]

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.

Oh, well in that case it's probably a good thing I never for a second suggested that it did.

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.

No you don't.

I don't want the US to do anything. I don't care much for the US. I only visited once, very briefly in transit between French Polynesia and the UK. Where you get this idea I do not know; but I suspect it has to do with poor reading skills on your part.

You mis-read 'US relations with [the Middle East]' as 'US retaliation against [the Middle East]', and then went off on an ill informed rant, didn't you?

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

I am pretty sure I have some idea. And I suspect it includes (but is not limited to) not accusing people of things that they didn't do.

Yet you want to cry about the injustice of others.

Your position is a joke.

No. My position is reasonable and well thought out. It might be wrong, but if so, I have yet to see any evidence of that.

"Two peanuts were walking down the street. And one was assaulted", is a joke.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Only the Arab ones, I suppose.

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?

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.

Lazy? Lazy?!? No, that is not lazy. Lazy is imputing made-up-from-whole-cloth base motivations to people who disagree with you in order to give yourself permission to dismiss their arguments without refuting them. There are all sorts of people who no doubt think of themselves as warriors that I'd call terrorists even though they are not Arabs. There are all sorts of people I do not like whom I do not call terrorists. Your hypothetical is an unfalsifiable ad hominem, since there is no person I like who murdered children because he had an issue with their parents. I call Mohammed a terrorist because his acts satisfy the definition of terrorism, not because of any of those other reasons you choose to mind-read into your caricature of people who call him that. Lazy??? You are permanently disqualified from accusing another person of laziness.

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.

So what's the time frame on when words start applying to people based on the words' definitions instead of on whether you feel they're anachronistic? Is it okay if I call Alexander a megalomaniac? Is it okay if I call Torquemada a totalitarian? Is it okay if I call Jefferson Davis a racist? Is it okay if I call Teddy Roosevelt an imperialist?

If you think I'm being unfair to Mohammed because standards of behavior change, why do you feel that circumstance should be described as "Mohammed wasn't a terrorist" rather than as "It's not shameful to have been a terrorist at that time"?

"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.

Back then did everyone rule by the fear that he'd murder your children?

 

[untermensche]

I'm not a big believer in the idea of punishment.

They should be strongly discouraged by reasonable people and their actions should be called what they are, incitement to violence.

If only people believed Muslims have as much right to live free from US violence as they believe American bigots have the right to endanger others.

Then what do you think should be done in this case that hasn't already been done? If the cartoonists are 'discouraged by reasonable people' and still want to draw Mohammed and poke fun at Muslims, what then?

There is no need to outline what should be done to people to condemn their actions.

These bigots are not heroes of free speech. They are dangerous idiots who should be condemned as such.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is no need to outline what should be done to people to condemn their actions. These bigots are not heroes of free speech. They are dangerous idiots who should be condemned as such.

Shouldn't there at least be a "cartoonist" minimum security prison to deter these cartoonist hooligans?

 

[Metaphor]

They should be strongly discouraged by reasonable people and their actions should be called what they are, incitement to violence.

Being gay in Iran should be called what it is: incitement to violence.

What else can the State do except hang these men by the neck until they are dead? They know being gay will provoke the State into murder, yet they do it anyway.

 

[Sarpedon]

Back then did everyone rule by the fear that he'd murder your children?

That was my impression. I read books much later than that era where destroying a family is a prescribed punishment, in much more 'civilized' areas. For example, T'ang China would probably be considered the most civilized nation existing in the period, and yes, wiping out a family 'to the third generation' was a punishment for treason on the books.

In the Byzantine Empire, another of the more civilized nations to exist, after the 'Nika' revolt, 30,000 were put to death. This was a century before the death of Muhammed. Ever hear of Justinian? In my high school history class we learned about his progressive for the time legal code. This was a piece of his work we didn't learn about.

I have read medieval manuscripts where various lords threaten all sorts of acts against those who displeased them, like destroying everything that they even liked, for example, a church, "I will stable my horses upon your altar, and give the nuns over to my squires.'

Have you any idea what happened when a town was sacked? The Song of Roland, for example, speaks of Charlemagne's revenge upon the muslim spanish, after the battle of Roncevalles. Charlemagne is considered by many to be admirable, but the Song speaks of barbaric cruelty.

How do you think governance functioned in the 7th Century? Have you read anything about the period? They don't call them the 'Dark Ages' for nothing.