twibbles 0 #101 February 4, 2006 Just my two cents.. if we remove religion from this, what we get is a group of people / cultural entity who burnt down an embassy and threatened violence because they don't like what the Danish newspapers published... I have to say i have issues with people using religion as an excuse and reason to commit violence, and i have issues with people who think that everyone have to live by their rules and values. Eugene . "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #102 February 4, 2006 I find it intersting how the ususal suspects here - who always bash anybody (e.g. the French and Germans) who do not support the US on every issue - are gone quiet, now that the US administration has put the tail between its legs. This is very disappointing in a case about freedom of speech and the principles of a free press. How the US and the UK can stand on the sidelines when an allie is bullied, its products boycotted, its flag burned, it embassies burned to the ground. Maybe the Danes should withdraw their troops from Iraq. Being a friend is not a one way street.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #103 February 4, 2006 QuoteHow the US and the UK can stand on the sidelines when an allie is bullied, its products boycotted, its flag burned, it embassies burned to the ground. I agree, Bush should make a very direct statement regarding the need for muslims to be tolerant, they shouldn't expect their religion to be treated with kid gloves by the world press.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #104 February 4, 2006 I agree with the UK US stance and am glad that they haven't jumped on the 'freedom of press' bandwagon. For every action there is a opposite and not always equal reaction. If papers want to publish this rubbish then they shouldn't be supprised when people take extreme offence. I don't support the violent demonstrations but I do understand why people are so angery.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #105 February 5, 2006 QuoteIf papers want to publish this rubbish then they shouldn't be supprised when people take extreme offence. Let the offended refuse to behold what offends them! But they must not take matters into their own hands. Or impinge on the inalienable rights of people to offend them. Being offended is a small price to pay for living in a free society. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #106 February 5, 2006 QuoteI agree with the UK US stance and am glad that they haven't jumped on the 'freedom of press' bandwagon. For every action there is a opposite and not always equal reaction. If papers want to publish this rubbish then they shouldn't be supprised when people take extreme offence. I don't support the violent demonstrations but I do understand why people are so angery. One of the issues is that nobody seems to know the context in which the drawings were published. The whole issue was about self censorship. Can you explain to me why it is OK to publish cartoons about priests, Jesus and the Pope that are deeply offensive (and I have seen these over the years) or very blasphemous films (e.g. Monty Python) but it is not OK to do the same when it offends Muslims? The key issue is - which the newspaper was trying to highlight when publishing - that we in the west treat Muslims differently from the rest in order not to upset them (because they react so violently). This goes all the way back to Salman Rushdie. So the danger is that we obey by Muslim "law" even if it conflicts with our basic principles - and we do it in our own countries. This is wrong. In Holland a film maker was murdered because he was doing a film about violence against Muslim women. There is a pattern here which is disturbing. I am always been in favour of tolerance and against racism - but it cuts both ways. With US and UK putting they economic interest above principle - it is clear that anything that does not suit fundamental Muslims can now be suppressed. This is an issue of principals and democratic, secular societies need to make a stand. This not about offending Muslims - this is about not being dominated. What is the next step? In Denmark it is legal to be at the beach naked. So if Muslims are offended by this, the Danish government has to change the law or else its products are boycotted, it's threatened, it's embassies burned down?--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #107 February 5, 2006 QuoteWhat is the next step? In Denmark it is legal to be at the beach naked. So if Muslims are offended by this, the Danish government has to change the law or else its products are boycotted, it's threatened, it's embassies burned down? Quite possibly that step would eventually follow any first step onto the slippery slope of censorship based on offense to religious values. At which point it would not be a Danish Denmark anymore, would it? So much for Scandanavian liberality and openess ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #108 February 5, 2006 QuoteThis is very disappointing in a case about freedom of speech and the principles of a free press. How the US and the UK can stand on the sidelines when an allie is bullied, its products boycotted, its flag burned, it embassies burned to the ground. To the credit of the US and UK, most of our "allies" denigrate us or stand quietly when we are boycotted, threatened, and have our flags burned. While I don't think it's right that we stand idly in this issue, I think it's no worse than what many countries have done to the US and UK on many occasions. I just expected that the US would make a more emphatic statement that we, nor any free country, can let any religion dictate what our press gets to say. For that, I am sorry and saddened. There will come a time when we will all come to the conclusion that this widespread intolerance of free democratic ideals is unacceptable. I thought this issue would be one step towards that day of understanding that there are people (seemingly a lot more than people thought) who hate us (the civilized world) because we are not like them. Time will tell I guess.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #109 February 5, 2006 Not all muslims agree with the violent behaviour: QuoteOn Saturday, Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the demonstration in London on Friday should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence. He said the protesters "did not represent British Muslims". Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way. "I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people." He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was "outrageous" for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence. "We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. "It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #110 February 5, 2006 QuoteFor every action there is a opposite and not always equal reaction. If papers want to publish this rubbish then they shouldn't be supprised when people take extreme offence. I don't support the violent demonstrations but I do understand why people are so angery. Oh you gotta be kidding. You're making this embarrassingly easy. Offense is one thing. Fine, take all the offense you want. Threatening (or engaging in) violence is another thing. Your "understanding why they're so 'angery' " comes across as being an apologist for them taking themselves so fucking seriously that they threaten LIVES because they don't like what FREE PEOPLE SAY. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 February 5, 2006 QuoteNow the Syrians have burned our embassy there (and that of Chile and Sweden as a byproduct). and Norway so the count is, how many?, 4 embassies (that's attacking the land of 4 countries people) over the actions of a private newspaper? who's the radicals? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #112 February 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteNow the Syrians have burned our embassy there (and that of Chile and Sweden as a byproduct). and Norway so the count is, how many?, 4 embassies (that's attacking the land of 4 countries people) over the actions of a private newspaper? who's the radicals? Now, now. Remember Islam is the Religion of Peace and it is only a very small percentage that supports violence. The majority condemn these acts. Haven't you heard the protests from them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #113 February 5, 2006 Watching a lot of news, a lot of reporting, but not much on who is or is not protesting. the US posted a statement about Syria not protecting the embassies. they said it wasn't a good thing.... Here's in Singapore, there's quite a bit about the Thai people trying to oust their PM. I suspect it's a bit touchier in the news here as there's some fundamentalist nations next door. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #114 February 5, 2006 QuoteWatching a lot of news, a lot of reporting, but not much on who is or is not protesting. the US posted a statement about Syria not protecting the embassies. they said it wasn't a good thing.... Here's in Singapore, there's quite a bit about the Thai people trying to oust their PM. I suspect it's a bit touchier in the news here as there's some fundamentalist nations next door. Yes, but the important thing is to not make them mad. You know what happens when they get stirred up. I think the world needs to learn to just abide by their demands even if it means giving up some of our freedoms, because if we don't we aren't going to get any oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #115 February 5, 2006 QuoteCan you explain to me why it is OK to publish cartoons about priests, Jesus and the Pope that are deeply offensive (and I have seen these over the years) I don't belive that it is acceptable, I find it equaly offensive. Just because Cristians have let their religion be abused and the Lord insulted I don't think that should set a precedent for the Muslims to do the same. In the UK blasphamy is still a crime but only whenit relates to Christianity.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #116 February 5, 2006 Try reading the post again. When Al Jeezera broadcasts what Americans feel is pro 'AL Q ' propergander I can understand why Americans get angery, but if GW had bombed Al Jeezera I would have been totaly against that. Your President considered bombing a news outlet because he didn't like what they were saying, if he thought he could have got away with it he would have, just like the Serbian TV station was bombed by the US killing only civillian journalists because the US didn't like what the were saying. So don't give me that USA stands for freedom of speech crap, history shows otherwise. At least the US and UK aren't adding hypocracy to the list accusations that can be leveled against them by not pretending that freedom of speech is more important than forigen policy.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twibbles 0 #117 February 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteNow the Syrians have burned our embassy there (and that of Chile and Sweden as a byproduct). and Norway so the count is, how many?, 4 embassies (that's attacking the land of 4 countries people) over the actions of a private newspaper? who's the radicals? I think it's a mob that used a religion as a reason to stroke their ego and make themselves feel big. Eugene . "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #118 February 5, 2006 QuoteThe boycott of Danish goods is, I think, fair enough Sure it is.. But the burning of embassies and missions is barbaric. The muslims involved in this behavior are making "good" muslims look bad. They need to police their own. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #119 February 5, 2006 Here is a good article showing many offensive (to jews) cartoons from the arab world. Bush should have the guts to point this kind of shit out in public. http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Offensive_Cartoons.aspPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #120 February 5, 2006 QuoteI find it intersting how the ususal suspects here - who always bash anybody (e.g. the French and Germans) who do not support the US on every issue - are gone quiet, now that the US administration has put the tail between its legs. hear hear hear QuoteThis is very disappointing in a case about freedom of speech and the principles of a free press. How the US and the UK can stand on the sidelines when an allie is bullied, its products boycotted, its flag burned, it embassies burned to the ground. guess thats the modern way of loyality.. QuoteMaybe the Danes should withdraw their troops from Iraq. we wont,were in Iraqe to help the Iraqes not to help UK and US egos I find it disturbing what both US and UK are doing at this point,that their goverments dont agree in the cartoons,its all about fredom of speach,the DK primeminister said he dont like em.. however stepping back when its a matter of freedom of speach then i expected the allied to stand together,i thourght it were "the cause" not to make mony... I hope the allied will rethink and step up in the fight of democracy,if not i hope the danish goverment will make a note and dont forget next time a allied might need some help from their allied.. Im happy to know that other allied step up in this case,they dont need to agree in the cartoons(even as i think theyre way funny) but for the right to say what we want to.. I hope the DK special force will do a mission to Jordan to save the jurnalist that went to prisson for showing theese cartoons in a news paper down there.I dont expect help from US or UK in such a mission.. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #121 February 5, 2006 QuoteHere is a good article showing many offensive (to jews) cartoons from the arab world. although these (and a lot of others) make me really mad, i don't see myself burning down an embassy. i think that more than mad, it makes me sad that people still resort to these poor stereotypes. i don't know, maybe after 2000 years of similar publications, you learn to take things in proportions... O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #122 February 5, 2006 See my post above... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2061170#2061170 While I don't agree that the US (since I'm American and can't speak for the UK) doesn't take a more solid stance on telling the muslim world that what they're angry about is WRONG and the free world will never let their delicate sensibilities govern our press or our laws, I DON'T think bashing the US for being moderate is right either. How many times have we stood alone with the criticism of the world while our "allies" slinked off into their corners or joined the world in berating us? Again, that's not justifying the US stance here, but it isn't the first time it's happened to someone who is ostensibly trying to stand up for what they think is right. I still think it'd be nice to have the leaders of the free world get into a conference room to take a group photo of all of them flipping the bird. Publish that in the papers.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #123 February 5, 2006 Trent i think i already said thanks for your support,also i said that im bashing goverments not people of UK or USQuoteHow many times have we stood alone with the criticism of the world while our "allies" slinked off into their corners or joined the world in berating us? I cant tell.. actualy i think Denmark has been just right behind helping all allied if the cause were democrachy.. In cases that allied hasnt yelled up might be in cases were it wasnt about democrachy.Meaning in cases were there has been a statement that we éither: didnt agree fully to or somthing that wasnt somthing we could do a difference in.. I do belive that Denmark neve has spoken in a bad way about US or UK in a matter of democrachy.. It aint about if the cartoons should have been publiched,its about that we has the right to say and have our own oppinion on different subjects.. as soon as we cant that democrachy will brake down.. QuoteI still think it'd be nice to have the leaders of the free world get into a conference room to take a group photo of all of them flipping the bird. Publish that in the papers. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #124 February 5, 2006 QuoteTrent i think i already said thanks for your support,also i said that im bashing goverments not people of UK or US Noted. I know that you're bashing the governments and not the people, however I was pointing out that even on a government level... the US has had its allies turn their backs when our flags are burned and we are scorned for simply being the US. Has Denmark done this? I dunno, but judging from what the people there told me... probably not. QuoteIt aint about if the cartoons should have been publiched,its about that we has the right to say and have our own oppinion on different subjects.. as soon as we cant that democrachy will brake down.. Has the US issued any statements that said we SHOULD censor our media? Has GWB said anything about the incident? (not being sarcastic, I'm asking because I haven't heard) All I've heard is that the state department thinks papers shouldn't print inciteful things like the cartoons. "Shouldn't" and "can't" are pretty different. Like I've said though, what the US SHOULD HAVE said was, "Denmark is a free country. Their papers can print whatever they want. Don't like it? Don't read it." ... but very few politicians have the balls to do that, unfortunately.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #125 February 5, 2006 Couple of questions. These cartoons were first published in (early) fall - why did it take so long for the outburst to occur? ... Who "organized" it and why now? Who would benefit from this? (Most probably more than one organization/state/company...) And now that there is such an outburst, who will benefit from throwing more gasoline on the flames? ....[switching to creepy-voiced conspiracy theorist]... Three theories (non of them real, of course, unless you suffer from paranoia - at least I hope so... ) * Hamas could wait for a proper moment to engage as a conciliatory party/group and try to calm down the extreme types. Result: the UN etc. would recognize them as new bridge builder (or something like that) and the EU/US would not cut down the development funds for the Palestinian administration. ** Who would benefit from extremist concentrating in a such stupid thing as cartoons (rather than some other, real, nasty stuff happening around middle-east and elsewhere)? *** and the last and the most probable one: Arla (a Danish (or should I type, THE) dairy group) has a major foothold in the Middle-East area. Who is their biggest rivalry? Name that and you'll find "the man" behind the hose of gasoline! ...[switching OFF the creepy-voiced conspiracy theorist]... OK. I admit - a stupid joke. To be honest, I don't know what to say about all of this. I used to think that since I live in a Nordic country, I would not have to worry about terrorism etc. I guess that's not a valid statement anymore... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites