Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Trausti]

How about the school kids who shoot people or commit suicide as a response to relentless bullying? Do the bullies bear no responsibility for provoking violence and self destruction through their campaigns of harassment and insult?

Do you not appreciate the distinction in your own analogy? You are giving examples of provocation of a particular person. A religion is not a person. It is a set of beliefs held by any number of people. Was Pam Gellar et al. seeking to provoke a particular follower of Islam? Say Said of Damascus? The everyone draw Said contest? Of course, not. General provocation is a feature, not a bug, of free speech. Come on, the Islamic tenant that there is only one God and his name is Allah and Mohammed is his messenger is quite provocative to followers of other faiths. For a start, Islam denies the divinity of Christ. To a believing Christian, that's extremely provocative and offensive. If we were to curtail general provocation lest we cause offense, then the world would be a very boring and miserable place. Trey and Matt would be ostracized, sued, or in jail. Look how they provoked this guy: http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm

 

[untermensche]

You start by kidding yourself. Those murderous Sanctions were killing Iraqi children long after Iraq was completely removed from Kuwait.

It takes a vivid imagination to think they had anything to do with Kuwait.

They were part of the US effort to effect political change in Iraq. And they killed innocents in the process. They were really a form of terrorism.

Any chance this will be the one time you'll actually back one of your statements up?

Here I'll even link you to the relevant docs: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

Again, this is what somebody who worked in the Sanction program said:

I was driven to resignation because I refused to continue to take Security Council orders, the same Security Council that had imposed and sustained genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. I did not want to be complicit. I wanted to be free to speak out publicly about this crime.

And above all, my innate sense of justice was and still is outraged by the violence that UN sanctions have brought upon, and continues to bring upon, the lives of children, families – the extended families, the loved ones of Iraq. There is no justification for killing the young people of Iraq, not the aged, not the sick, not the rich, not the poor.

Showing me the Resolutions is as helpful as showing a treaty the US made with the Native Americans right before it started killing them.

 

[Deepak]

Any chance this will be the one time you'll actually back one of your statements up?

Here I'll even link you to the relevant docs: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

Again, this is what somebody who worked in the Sanction program said:

I was driven to resignation because I refused to continue to take Security Council orders, the same Security Council that had imposed and sustained genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. I did not want to be complicit. I wanted to be free to speak out publicly about this crime.

And above all, my innate sense of justice was and still is outraged by the violence that UN sanctions have brought upon, and continues to bring upon, the lives of children, families – the extended families, the loved ones of Iraq. There is no justification for killing the young people of Iraq, not the aged, not the sick, not the rich, not the poor.

Showing me the Resolutions is as helpful as showing a treaty the US made with the Native Americans right before it started killing them.

You'll have to pardon me, since English isn't my first language. Where does your quote support this statement?

Those murderous Sanctions ... were part of the US effort to effect political change in Iraq

 

[untermensche]

You'll have to pardon me, since English isn't my first language. Where does your quote support this statement?

Those murderous Sanctions ... were part of the US effort to effect political change in Iraq

The US came right out and said that regime change was it's goal.

So it had the goal of political change and it was causing the death of innocents to try to effect that change.

That is normally called terrorism. In any language.

 

[Arctish]

How about the school kids who shoot people or commit suicide as a response to relentless bullying? Do the bullies bear no responsibility for provoking violence and self destruction through their campaigns of harassment and insult?

Do you not appreciate the distinction in your own analogy? You are giving examples of provocation of a particular person. A religion is not a person. It is a set of beliefs held by any number of people. Was Pam Gellar et al. seeking to provoke a particular follower of Islam? Say Said of Damascus? The everyone draw Said contest? Of course, not. General provocation is a feature, not a bug, of free speech. Come on, the Islamic tenant that there is only one God and his name is Allah and Mohammed is his messenger is quite provocative to followers of other faiths. For a start, Islam denies the divinity of Christ. To a believing Christian, that's extremely provocative and offensive. If we were to curtail general provocation lest we cause offense, then the world would be a very boring and miserable place. Trey and Matt would be ostracized, sued, or in jail. Look how they provoked this guy: http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm

I'm not saying we should curtail general provocation lest we cause offense. I fully support the right of every individual to express their opinions, even the offensive ones. I don't believe meeting non-violence with violence is ever justified. But I believe, if you're going to turn somebody's sacred cow into cheeseburgers and piss in the Sacred Stream of Holy Holiness, you don't get to play the innocent when there's a backlash.

You might get to play the hero. You might even be the hero. But I-was-just-minding-my-own-business innocent? Nah. You knew what you were doing. You knew it was going to hurt or anger or upset other people and you did it anyway. You are responsible for your choice and whatever purpose, however noble or petty, that motivated it.

 

[Deepak]

The US came right out and said that regime change was it's goal.

Cite?

 

[untermensche]

The US came right out and said that regime change was it's goal.

Cite?

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

I shouldn't have to cite what should be common knowledge for anyone arguing this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

On the face of it, drawing Mohammed cartoons for muslims to see is kind of an inconsiderate and rude thing to do, kind of like sending a spiced ham as a gift just because you know the person is a vegetarian.

But when people start killing over these cartoons it becomes a whole other issue. Now if you stop the cartoons you are handing the killers a win, especially if you do it specifically because of their violence. I dont mind seeming rude if the alternative is showing terrorists that their methods work.

 

[Deepak]

Cite?

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

I shouldn't have to cite what should be common knowledge for anyone arguing this.

That's a hard failure. The sanctions were levied by the UN in 1990 - and the act you cited came a full 8 years later as a result of Hussein not complying with the UN resolutions and for violations of international law.

 

[Juma]

On the face of it, drawing Mohammed cartoons for muslims to see is kind of an inconsiderate and rude thing to do, .

No it is not. Lets yhink this thorugh:

1) the ban against making images of mohammed is within islam only: muslims should not make pictures of mohammed but non-muslims may.

2) a picture of mohammed is not a picture of all muslims. There is no way to draw a caricature of how muslims look. Most muslims are not arabs. Lot of muslims are black, asian etc.

3) muslims does not identify with mohammed. Muslims sees theese pictures as an attack on religion, not an attack on themselves.

4) islam is a religion, not a ethnic group, like jews, or phenotype (as asians, afro, caucasian)

5) what a picture means to you is what you put there.

6) "offended" is many different things. There is no reason for anyone being offended because of a pictur in itself, they are offended by the alleged message and that message is their interpretation. There are messages that should not be allowed. (As in: "give me all your money or I shoot you")

 

[bilby]

On the face of it, drawing Mohammed cartoons for muslims to see is kind of an inconsiderate and rude thing to do, kind of like sending a spiced ham as a gift just because you know the person is a vegetarian.

Rather more like serving spiced ham at a party, despite knowing that several of the guests are vegetarians. It's not a slur directed at any particular individual, even though you know some people are more likely to find it distasteful than others; if some people get pissed off about it, then it's because they are arseholes who want to impose their choices on everyone else.

Eat the ham, or don't eat the ham; but don't declare that your vegetarianism gives you the right to demand that nobody eats ham. And don't try to kill the chef for cooking a ham in the first place, or expect him to apologise for insulting you by so doing.

If a given Muslim finds cartoons of Mohammed offensive, he has the right not to continue to look at such cartoons, and the right to avoid associating with people who draw such cartoons, and the right to cancel his subscription to publications that publish such cartoons. He does not have the right to demand any action on the part of other people; nor is it excusable for him to resort to violence as a result of some perceived offence.

Nobody has the right not to be offended.

 

[angelo]

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

Only the Arab ones, I suppose.

A butcher who hacks off a xtians head is a warrior now is he?

 

[untermensche]

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

I shouldn't have to cite what should be common knowledge for anyone arguing this.

That's a hard failure. The sanctions were levied by the UN in 1990 - and the act you cited came a full 8 years later as a result of Hussein not complying with the UN resolutions and for violations of international law.

Obviously there is nothing the government will say that you won't just swallow as the absolute truth without any consideration.

You are a good lap dog.

But the fact remains. It was US policy to effect regime change and they instituted a murderous Sanctions program to try to accomplish that. A program where many innocents died.

Killing innocents to effect political change.

Terrorism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

There were no gays in Iran until after the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Coincidence? I think not!

 

[dismal]

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.

There were no gays in Iran until after the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Coincidence? I think not!

If Ahmadinejad were here he'd say there are no gays there now. And if you disagree send him their names to prove it.

This, of course, is Bush's fault.

 

[Sarpedon]

A butcher who hacks off a xtians head is a warrior now is he?

Oh, are you going to call Charlemagne a terrorist for hacking off muslim heads?

Thought not.

I don't know what sort of fairies and unicorns world you imagine the dark ages were like before the Dark Lord Muhammed came along, but your ignorance and double standards are comical.

Did you know that, for example, King 'Saint' Olaf threatened to sail over to Iceland and kill every person there if they didn't convert to Christianity? (they talked it over and they decided to do what the man said) Is Saint Olaf a terrorist?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about the school kids who shoot people or commit suicide as a response to relentless bullying? Do the bullies bear no responsibility for provoking violence and self destruction through their campaigns of harassment and insult?

There's a big difference there--the bullies are deliberately seeking to speak to someone who doesn't want to hear their speech.

Speech to captive audiences should be treated very differently than audiences that are free to come and go. (And the victim of bullies is in effect a captive audience--while they can avoid any one thing there will just be more and more.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Did you know that, for example, King 'Saint' Olaf threatened to sail over to Iceland and kill every person there if they didn't convert to Christianity? (they talked it over and they decided to do what the man said) Is Saint Olaf a terrorist?

Sounds kind of like terrorism, in that it was the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce for political purposes and that's precisely what the word means. The fact that it was standard operating procedure for the time doesn't mean that the term is somehow less applicable when we talk about his actions today. It's like when the US Founding Fathers are derided because they owned slaves. The fact that slave ownership was common and accepted in that time doesn't mean it stops being a legitimate criticism for people who were waxing poetic about the value of freedom.

King Olaf and Mohammed used terrorist tactics as a political tool. If someone is going to hold them up as paragons of morality, as Christians and Muslims do, then their immoral use of these terrorist tactics is a reasonable rebuttal because they do not hold up as moral individuals by the standards of today, which is the context in which their morality is relevant to most any conversation where they're mentioned.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Oh, are you going to call Charlemagne a terrorist for hacking off muslim heads? Thought not. I don't know what sort of fairies and unicorns world you imagine the dark ages were like before the Dark Lord Muhammed came along, but your ignorance and double standards are comical. Did you know that, for example, King 'Saint' Olaf threatened to sail over to Iceland and kill every person there if they didn't convert to Christianity? (they talked it over and they decided to do what the man said) Is Saint Olaf a terrorist?

Yes!

 

[Sarpedon]

Right, fine as long as you are being consistent, though I wonder what precisely your point is in applying anachronistic labels to historic people is. To me it seems to be a barrier to thought and understanding, a flippant way to dismiss the realities of other people's lives, circumstances and upbringing, all with the underlying motive of making the self feel superior.