TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by InterMilan31 tranceaholic your a great source for contribution to this thread...helps me out alot as I would like to know whats going on in Denmark as for your points Im completly agreeing on them so far. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z trancaholic: One thing, when you're arguing about points in an article I posted, please try not to include since it's the article you're quoting and not me  . Even I got confused for a sec while reading your post. I was like,  "did I say that" and then I realize "oh, it's the article!"  |
So they burned a couple of croatian flags in Bosnia too. Aside from the danish ones, of course. Although the interesting thing is that the pictures were published in Bosnia about a month before they were published here.
Anyway, there's also an interesting story I've read in the newspapers today. It seems that a 16th century monastery in Split, Croatia had a picture of Muhammed drawn on the wall, alongside with some saints and philosophers. When the turks invaded there, the only monastery that they spared was that one, primarily because of the fact that Muhammed was drawn on the wall.
Oh and another thing, does anyone remember when South Park had that super best friends episode where they were making fun of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tse, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Sea Man? Hm, yeah, no big protests back then too. And I hate to be a conspiracy theorists, but did anyone notice that Tehran wanted to switch to euro around this time?
Well, you know they had to find a way to blame America eventually...
| quote: |
| Cartoon Protesters Direct Anger at U.S. Feb 9, 5:19 AM (ET) By NOOR KHAN QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - Police killed four people Wednesday as Afghans enraged over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad marched on a U.S. military base in a volatile southern province, directing their anger not against Europe but America. The U.S. base was targeted because the United States "is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat. "They are all the enemy of Islam. They are occupiers in our country and must be driven out," Mohammed said. Wednesday's violence began when hundreds of protesters tried to storm the U.S. base, said Ghulam Nabi Malakhail, a provincial police chief. When warning shots failed to deter them, police shot into the crowd, killing four and wounding 11, he said. Flying rocks injured eight police and one Afghan soldier, he said. Two Pakistanis arrested for allegedly firing at police were being questioned to see whether they were linked to al-Qaida, Malakhail said. Some officials accuse al-Qaida of inciting three days of bloody riots across Afghanistan that have left 11 dead. Protesters also burned three fuel tankers waiting to deliver gasoline to the base, said Malakhail. He said U.S. troops fired warning shots into the air. U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts said the American forces fired flares above the crowd, but he said it was not clear whether they fired their weapons. Muslims around the world have demonstrated over the images - including one depicting the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb - printed in Western media. Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of the prophet. In Baghdad, Iraq's top Shiite political leader criticized attacks on foreign embassies by Muslims. "We value and appreciate peaceful Islamic protests," said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. "But we are against the idea of attacking embassies and other official sites." In the West Bank, about 300 Palestinians overpowered a Palestinian police detail and attacked an international observer mission in the city of Hebron. Sixty members of the mission were inside, said Gunhild Forselv, spokeswoman for the Temporary International Presence in Hebron. A few protesters forced their way in, where unarmed observers waved clubs in an attempt to drive them off. Police reinforcements eventually restored order. Muslims also demonstrated in Indian-controlled Kashmir, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in Turkey. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of instigating protests in their countries, and President Bush called upon governments to stop the violence and protect the lives of diplomats overseas. The United States and other countries were looking into whether extremist groups may be inciting protesters to riot, said Yonts, the U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan. Iranian vice president Isfandiar Rahim Mashaee rejected Rice's assertion that Iran was inflaming Muslim anger over the cartoons. "That is 100 percent a lie," Mashaee said in Jakarta, Indonesia. "It is without attribution." Zahor Afghan, editor for Erada, Afghanistan's most respected newspaper, said the riots in his country have surprised him. "No media in Afghanistan has published or broadcast pictures of these cartoons. The radio has been reporting on it, but there are definitely people using this to incite violence against the presence of foreigners in Afghanistan," he said. Afghans who rioted Wednesday said they heard about the cartoons on the radio but none questioned had seen printed versions. "The radio is talking about them all the time. Everybody heard about them this way," said 28-year-old shopkeeper Ramatullah, who uses only name. Wednesday's riot erupted despite an appeal from Afghanistan's top Islamic organization, the Ulama Council, for an end to the violence. "Islam says it's all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop," senior cleric Mohammed Usman told The Associated Press. "We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam." In France, President Jacques Chirac asked media to avoid offending religious beliefs as another French newspaper reprinted the caricatures. The satirical French weekly Charlie-Hebdo also printed a new drawing under the headline "Muhammad Overwhelmed by the Fundamentalists" that showed the prophet with his head in his hands, remarking, "It's hard to be loved by idiots." |
| quote: |
| "Muhammad Overwhelmed by the Fundamentalists" that showed the prophet with his head in his hands, remarking, "It's hard to be loved by idiots." |
"Nuk 'em all, let satan sort 'em out"
When you have a rally with 20,00 people all chanting Ill do anything for Mohammad you know we got a problem especially if your in europe....Friday Opening Ceremonies wonder if Las Vegas is taking bets on which day is gonna have an attack
do you really think that muslims will attack europe? i don't think so.
by the way italian minister said that they will start a crusade on Turkey and muslims lol.
did you hear the accident in Rome? There was a metting of all Ford dealers generally from Turkey. There were 8 buses but only 1 of them didn't have any foreigners. There were just Turkish people in that bus. And that bus didn't go with the other 7 buses, instead the bus driver chose his own route and they die. One my friends' father,mother and uncle died in that accident.
everybody say that it is a response from europeans. You know a few days ago a priest killed in eastern part of the Turkey. So there is a concpiracy that this bus accident was a response to the subject.
i don't believe that, actually i don't want to believe that. i just wanted to learn your opinions about this subject. Do you think that a religion war is going to start?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by djdarren do you really think that muslims will attack europe? i don't think so. by the way italian minister said that they will start a crusade on Turkey and muslims lol. did you hear the accident in Rome? There was a metting of all Ford dealers generally from Turkey. There were 8 buses but only 1 of them didn't have any foreigners. There were just Turkish people in that bus. And that bus didn't go with the other 7 buses, instead the bus driver chose his own route and they die. One my friends' father,mother and uncle died in that accident. everybody say that it is a response from europeans. You know a few days ago a priest killed in eastern part of the Turkey. So there is a concpiracy that this bus accident was a response to the subject. i don't believe that, actually i don't want to believe that. i just wanted to learn your opinions about this subject. Do you think that a religion war is going to start? |
It's hard to argue with idiots that are in a total darkness and love it that way.
I remember from the days of growing up in former Soviet Union - you'd have people still thinking that Stalin was the greatest leader of all. It is hard to understand someone else's thinking from your own point of view. You have to consider that on a certain level - they think you are crazy.
It's like trying to convince "westerner" to eat a dog - most will gag at the thought, yet, in Korea (and some other asian countries) some people eat dogs. It may be revolting to a foreigner but totally ok for local. It all depends on what you grew up with.
Now, take someone who has spent the last 30-60 years in a remote village in Afganistan or somewhere else, in deep and uneducated part of Asia. What you have is someone who cannot think differently.
It reminds me of the Matrix - where Morpheus says something like "we don't usually retreive a person after certain age - their mind just can't handle it." Same here - once you spend better part of your life living in certain specific order, even if someone "liberates" you - it would become impossible for that person to become different.
If your life was spent learning that West is evil and wants to kill you, your family, your friends, take away your land - you would be very hard pressed to accept the "new and friendly west", even if it were so. Obviously, the recent incident does not help with it either and you have to understand that politicians on both sides are the ones reaping all the benefits and pouring oil into fire.
So, until critical point is reached - it wont stop. Nostradamus was predicting 100 year war - well, we're in year 6 of the war so far. Only 94 years to go...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dopey Yet when Hitler marched his toy soldiers to the banks of the Rhine, and France called older brother to ask what to do, Churchill did nothing. |
| quote: |
...[H]is attention was drawn to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the dangers of Germany's rearmament. For a time he was a lone voice calling on Britain to strengthen itself to counter the belligerence of Germany. Churchill was a fierce critic of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. He was also an outspoken supporter of King Edward VIII during the Abdication Crisis, leading to some speculation that he might be appointed Prime Minister if the King refused to take Baldwin's advice and consequently the government resigned. However, this did not happen, and Churchill found himself politically isolated and bruised for some time after this. Role as wartime Prime Minister At the outbreak of the Second World War Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. In this job he proved to be one of the highest-profile ministers during the so-called "Phoney War", when the only noticeable action was at sea. Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the War. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed, and the operation was delayed until the German invasion of Norway, which was successful despite British efforts. In May 1940, directly upon the German invasion of France by a surprising lightning advance through the Low Countries, it became clear that the country had no confidence in Chamberlain's prosecution of the war. Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill was appointed Prime Minister and formed an all-party government. In response to previous criticisms that there had been no clear single minister in charge of the prosecution of the war, he created and took the additional position of Minister of Defence. He immediately put his friend and confidant, the industrialist and newspaper baron Lord Beaverbrook, in charge of aircraft production. It was Beaverbrook's astounding business acumen that allowed Britain to quickly gear up aircraft production and engineering that eventually made the difference in the war... |
| quote: |
I believe if Hamas or Iran march to any border they will be shot at. |
wow,
i think they should just deport all these extremist back to their countries. if they don't like european society, well get the feck out, it's not that hard. i think the eurpoean nations, should stand up for the safety of their citizens.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by daydreamer wow, i think they should just deport all these extremist back to their countries. if they don't like european society, well get the feck out, it's not that hard. i think the eurpoean nations, should stand up for the safety of their citizens. |
I know for one that their are atleast 2 radical islamic clerics in the UK(circa end of 2004)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic Great. You could do me a great favour by letting me know how everyday people outside of Denmark think about this, too. I can sort of extrapolate from your skirmish with your Muslim friend, and a few other comments in this thread, but can't get a clear picture. |
Read this the other day.
Drug Tito, you will like it as it extends that story you read in your local paper.
Tranaholic, you will like this article as it makes the hipocracy of this cartoon uprising all that more bitter:
Read: http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007934
Or:
| quote: |
Bonfire of the Pieties Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion. BY AMIR TAHERI Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST "The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged. But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false. There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One. The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous: A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century). Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind. There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God. Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers. The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh. Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy. Mr. Taheri is the author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by InterMilan31 they have been trying to I believe not sure the exact details but I know in the Netherlands after the killing of the guy who did the film about the quran they tried to do this and also in Britian but both seem to have stopped the proposals.. I know for one that their are atleast 2 radical islamic clerics in the UK(circa end of 2004) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by emc^2 idiots that are in a total darkness and love it that way |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by HardTranceProd When you call them idiots, remember that 85-90% of Americans strongly reject evolution and 60-70% regularly attend church. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by HardTranceProd When you call them idiots, remember that 85-90% of Americans strongly reject evolution and 60-70% regularly attend church. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. |
In response to the above two posters:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ion-cover_x.htm
"In the USA, only 16% say they rarely go to church."
Translation: 84% OFTEN attend church. "Often" does not mean "just during holidays."
| quote: |
| Originally posted by HardTranceProd In response to the above two posters: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ion-cover_x.htm "In the USA, only 16% say they rarely go to church." Translation: 84% OFTEN attend church. "Often" does not mean "just during holidays." |
Well this is getting off-topic but I'll just let Occrider or MisterOpus back me up with references to formal studies indicating just how religious most Americans are. If you don't live in America it's unlikely you get it.
So the point is that the "idiots who choose to remain in darkness" can also be applied to the vast majority of Americans who reject evolution, and then also half of whom (a sizable number) argue that gay marriage will destroy society and who are against comprehensive sex education in schools. It's all the same darkness.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Read this the other day. Drug Tito, you will like it as it extends that story you read in your local paper. Tranaholic, you will like this article as it makes the hipocracy of this cartoon uprising all that more bitter: Read: http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007934 Or: |
Here's a nice round up of why they're roiting...
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
'Taqiyya' means 'deception' btw...
Excellent article by the Economist (as usual):
http://economist.com/opinion/displa...tory_ID=5494602
| quote: |
| The limits to free speech Cartoon wars Feb 9th 2006 From The Economist print edition Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West �I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.� That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was �unacceptable� to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong. Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law. No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam �vicious and wicked�, on charges of stirring racial hatred. Drawing the line In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence�be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful�western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them. Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred �an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship��though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a �manifest provocation�. Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case. In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments. It's good to talk It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations? No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So they burned a couple of croatian flags in Bosnia too. Aside from the danish ones, of course. Although the interesting thing is that the pictures were published in Bosnia about a month before they were published here. Anyway, there's also an interesting story I've read in the newspapers today. It seems that a 16th century monastery in Split, Croatia had a picture of Muhammed drawn on the wall, alongside with some saints and philosophers. When the turks invaded there, the only monastery that they spared was that one, primarily because of the fact that Muhammed was drawn on the wall. Oh and another thing, does anyone remember when South Park had that super best friends episode where they were making fun of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tse, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Sea Man? Hm, yeah, no big protests back then too. And I hate to be a conspiracy theorists, but did anyone notice that Tehran wanted to switch to euro around this time? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, you know they had to find a way to blame America eventually... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by djdarren did you hear the accident in Rome? There was a metting of all Ford dealers generally from Turkey. There were 8 buses but only 1 of them didn't have any foreigners. There were just Turkish people in that bus. And that bus didn't go with the other 7 buses, instead the bus driver chose his own route and they die. One my friends' father,mother and uncle died in that accident. everybody say that it is a response from europeans. You know a few days ago a priest killed in eastern part of the Turkey. So there is a concpiracy that this bus accident was a response to the subject. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Tranaholic, you will like this article as it makes the hipocracy of this cartoon uprising all that more bitter: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by daydreamer i can see how things would get out of control, with proving who is an extremist and who is not. after all, there are bound to be some law abiding muslims, who actually like western society. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Here's a nice round up of why they're roiting... [[ LINK REMOVED ]] 'Taqiyya' means 'deception' btw... |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.