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 »

Maybe UAE?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's what I think? Look, I'll make it simple for you. This is the Danish flag: This is the cross from the effigy: Is there something about this concept that's inherently difficult for you to grasp? They're burning an effigy of the Danish flag, not an effigy of the crucifix. What a certain Imam told said to his congregation in Palestine about the cartoons has nothing to do with what you posted before.

*sigh* I give up... you win.

Edit: but we can never be sure. I suggest you go over there and ask.

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 *sigh* I give up... you win.

Well that's twice I've "won" this thread now.

quote:

Edit: but we can never be sure. I suggest you go over there and ask.

Yeah, sure thing buddy. I'll get right on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yeah, sure thing buddy. I'll get right on it.

Chicken!!!!!!!

US just called the drawings offensive as they try to win back the muslim population

In an attempt to keep all relevant discussion on one thread, I'm posting HardTranceProd's post here:

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd As always, the Guardian (UK) delivers the best analysis and op-ed columns. How good is this essay? It's so good that it made me rethink my initial stance a little bit. Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comm...1701681,00.html Denmark's cartoons satirising Islam have inflamed Muslims, but the injury runs deeper than religious insult, says Sukhvinder Stubbs Friday February 3, 2006 The furore concerning the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper depicting the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist has yet to abate. In the wake of the government's defeat on the religious hatred bill, many have rushed to the defence of the cartoonists. These voices range from the chattering classes reaching for their book of Voltaire quotes and trumpeting the sanctity of free speech, to the sort of political-correctness-gone-mad types who email Radio Five live, grumbling that we already "bend over backwards" to accommodate Muslim sensibilities and that enough is enough. Others might shrug.They're only a cartoons. What's the fuss? Cartoons, however, can be a powerful means of catalysing and disseminating ideas, be they pertinently satirical or hideously warped. Cartoons were, for example, used extensively by the Nazis in their anti-semitic propaganda campaigns, depicting Jews as hook-nosed, usurious grotesques molesting pure German women. It would be excessive to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between those Nazi cartoons and the those that appeared in the Danish newspaper. The fact remains, however, that as an editorial act, rather than one of censorship, these items should never have been published. They are deeply crass. It suggests that Islam, as represented by the figure of Muhammad (blasphemy, of course, to represent him at all but that's by the by), is the font of all terrorism - the sort of syllogistic nonsense that leads some to conclude that, because some muggers are black men, all black men are muggers. There would be no general inclination to defend any cartoon which suggested that black men were thus predisposed - it would properly be condemned as racism. Here, however, is the awkward point, one on which the government's ill-fated bill teetered. To have a go at someone on the grounds of their race is to have a go at them as people - to do so on the grounds of their religion is merely an attack upon their ideas, rather than their person. Technically, this is a valid distinction. However, in this instance, it has allowed our Danish cartoonists to get away with the crudest and most incendiary of generalisations. In 1997, when I was director of the Runnymede Trust, I helped launch the Commission on Islamophobia, a newly coined phrase to describe a phenomenon that had grown in tandem with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. We found that "Islamophobia" wasn't just confined to BNP thugs hurling pigs' heads through the windows of Pakistani households, or the vile poison spouted by BNP chairman Nick Griffin. It manifested itself in middle class circles too, around dining tables, on Radio 4, much of it in (understandably) indignant response to the Salman Rushdie fatwa. Under the pretext of taking a rearguard action against religious dogma, it became permissible to unveil a cultural contempt for peoples who tended to be brown-skinned and poorly off. I sense a similar undercurrent today, in the cathartic excitement with which some have rallied to the Free Speech banner, a sense of fear and loathing of the troublesome, brown hordes we see jumping up and down brandishing guns on our TV screens. Because Muslims are not a "race", they must endure such contempt; endure, for Voltaire's sake, jibes such as these cartoons. Such debating society pedantry, however, fails to acknowledge that in the case of Muslims, their religion and sense of cultural identity are so closely bound that an attack upon their faith is, to all intents and purposes, an attack upon their person. There's more to it than that, however. Muslim grievances are not merely spiritual but, more pressingly, material. The rage expressed by demonstrators in Gaza against Scandinavian aid workers was, at a deeper level, the rage of the disenfranchised, the displaced. In the UK and across Europe, Muslims are socially and economically disadvantaged, among those at the bottom of the pile. Cultural gestures such as the Danish cartoons may please well-to-do secular liberals in helping push back the envelope of free speech and cock a snook at religious dogma. To Muslims, however, they merely add to a sense of disaffection, of themselves as a pariah people. Another insult to add to their social injury. I suspect Muslim anger at this cartoon may be shorter lived and less widespread than initially feared. Some Muslims have themselves added to the pro-free speech chorus and suggested that Islam should be strong enough to withstand these brickbats. What the cartoon will add to, however, is a more long-term feeling of sadness, of exclusion and of being fair game for attack, either with the pen or with the bomb. Our first priority must be to address the material disadvantages many Muslims face worldwide. Until we do that in earnest, we should refrain from stupid, insulting cartoons, not by way of a self-imposed, legally binding gagging order (as the government has found, it's difficult to legislate in these matters) but out of discretion, good sense, good taste and goodwill.

stupidity is a non-theological or non-denominational affliction. that is all.

they bomb us, then complain about an irrelavant cartoon.

i really dont like the middle east.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: they bomb us, then complain about an irrelavant cartoon. i really dont like the middle east.

I doubt that they like you too.

quote:

Originally posted by RebeL9 I doubt that they like you too.

they dont like anybody thats not muslim

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 they dont like anybody thats not muslim

Oh and you're completely certain of that?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Oh and you're completely certain of that?

it was a joke, ass

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 it was a joke, ass

Well it certainly wasn't obvious, especially in todays political climate, especially in this thread, "ass."

This just in from London...

WTF
THIS is London???!

















I'm sure the American flag was thrown in there for good measure...

Are those pics for real? I can't believe what a bunch of lunatics..

Anyway, shaolin, I suppose we all agree that those pictures are offensive and generalizing and that muslims have the right to be angry about them. I suppose same happens when someone makes mocking pictures of Jesus or jews or whatever. But the thing is that most of them are overreacting about it so fucking much that it's doing them much more harm than good, and it's really difficult to be sympathetic with them. And what is really striking is that the only thing those morons in the pictures do is firmly confirm the stereotypes suggested in the cartoons.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well it certainly wasn't obvious, especially in todays political climate, especially in this thread, "ass."

stfu

and those pictures dont suprise me at all as a person who moved to the Uk for a year last year from NYC I was shocked at the culture difference their was. Yes it was about the same but I felt great tension(ha sounds like star wars) between everyone and the muslims. Those signs and these people who hold them need to go to hell seriously how could they wish that apon mass amounts of people. If someone had killed or said something so insulting about me I would not wish a 9/11 or a Hollocost

quote:

The United States backed Muslims on Friday against European newspapers that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help America's battered image in the Islamic world. Inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States sided with Muslims outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion. "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." American Muslims welcomed the U.S. position, although it stopped short of urging American media not to republish the cartoons that include depicting Mohammad as a terrorist. ...

link

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Are those pics for real? I can't believe what a bunch of lunatics.. Anyway, shaolin, I suppose we all agree that those pictures are offensive and generalizing and that muslims have the right to be angry about them.

Agreed. Ofcourse these people are over reacting and those pictures are offensive.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I suppose same happens when someone makes mocking pictures of Jesus or jews or whatever. But the thing is that most of them are overreacting about it so fucking much that it's doing them much more harm than good, and it's really difficult to be sympathetic with them. And what is really striking is that the only thing those morons in the pictures do is firmly confirm the stereotypes suggested in the cartoons.

I agree with you to a point there (and I see the validity of the point you're makeing). This is my short analysis of the pictures. Since I am Muslim and have studies the religioin on my own, forming my own interpretations, as opposed to getting my religious views from some imam (cleric), it's clear as day to me what that group is and what it represents. I've seen many Muslims (by no means an overwhelming majority though) who look and would very possibly react in such a manner faced with a situation like this. A bunch of sheep coming out of a mosque or some other sort of gathering listening to some imam deliver a fiery speach which is likely to entice confrontational behaviour or expression. And they way these people are acting is certainly inappropriate. And many educated and informed Mulims would argue is "unislamic." And you're right, it certainly isn't helping anyone, especially them and all the other muslims who would be generalized into the same category because someone saw this picture that only reinforced their perception. What you won't see in the media is Muslims publicy demonstrating and condeming this sort of behaviour or discussing the inappropriateness of such behaviour in a more private setting. My point simply is that, although these lunatics do exist, that pretty much the only image you see on TV or in the News, which certainly doesn't reflect the views of all Muslims (not that I'm saying you're making this claim).

But yes, I agree with you. They're over reacting, it's offenisve and inappropriate.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I agree with you to a point there (and I see the validity of the point you're makeing). This is my short analysis of the pictures. Since I am Muslim and have studies the religioin on my own, forming my own interpretations, as opposed to getting my religious views from some imam (cleric), it's clear as day to me what that group is and what it represents. I've seen many Muslims (by no means an overwhelming majority though) who look and would very possibly react in such a manner faced with a situation like this. A bunch of sheep coming out of a mosque or some other sort of gathering listening to some imam deliver a fiery speach which is likely to entice confrontational behaviour or expression. And they way these people are acting is certainly inappropriate. And many educated and informed Mulims would argue is "unislamic." And you're right, it certainly isn't helping anyone, especially them and all the other muslims who would be generalized into the same category because someone saw this picture that only reinforced their perception. What you won't see in the media is Muslims publicy demonstrating and condeming this sort of behaviour or discussing the inappropriateness of such behaviour in a more private setting. My point simply is that, although these lunatics do exist, that pretty much the only image you see on TV or in the News, which certainly doesn't reflect the views of all Muslims (not that I'm saying you're making this claim). But yes, I agree with you. They're over reacting, it's offenisve and inappropriate.

That is true 2 of my best mates in the UK were both Muslim and they didnt not like the way most muslims act this way and go to hear a cleric tell them about the west being wrong and trying to condemn and destory the muslim religion(their words not mine). They also sympathiesed with me as most people only see the worst of their religion and they said that if they could change anything it would be the muslim reputation. They also joked about this stuff when we would be talking making fun of Jesus(i come from a catholic background) and making fun on Allah and stuff and they didnt behead me lol

Re: Re: Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, if the cartoons we're offensive and disrespectful in nature, I can understand why most Muslims would be pissed off. But that's about as far as I'm willing to let them go, being pissed and/or publicly demonstrating their discontent (non-violently ofcourse).

Agreed, but knowing the reputations of those guys through observation you can expect a bomb or two. I especially liked the part of the article where they said that the Denmark newspaper heightened security. I literally laughed because even they know they type of extremists those guys are. If this same scenario were to happen to Christians trust me security would not have been heightened. Life would just go on as usual and the rest would be solved diplomatically.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And to answer your question, it's because many muslims are fucking stupid when it comes to their faith. I don't think I need to emphasize how stagnated mainstream Muslim though/culture has become. One big problem is that many, if not most, Muslims make little to no effort to understand their religion and mostly rely on their parents.

Preach on brotha man!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z But the good news is, that most first generation Muslims (atleast in the US), ppl brought up and raised here, usually tend to eigther make an honest effort themselves to understand/interpret their faith.

That's what I love about any Americanized religion. They are more lineant and go with the flow type of people. If they are offended they take to the streets and protest however the hell they want without the violence. Sometimes deep down in the pit of my stomach I wish someone would pull a Hitler and eliminate all violent extremist Muslims. Again I'm referring to the suicide bombers who are giving Muslims a bad name and the same people who interpret the religion in different ways. I know my statement is extreme, but taking a step back and looking at the situation as a whole it would really solve a lot of the peace problems going on in the Middle East since most of it is about religion to begin with.

Another thing...if this thing escolates anymore meaning terrorism or something of that sort maybe the Jihad is coming(i think thats the right term)

Its a war now, up untill now it was only between US and Muslims, now its between Muslims and whole world.

lol at those London pics. LOL

So a couple of days ago one guy in Croatia got death threats sent to him because he put one of those caricatures on his blog. FFS I think I'm gonna get myself a t-shirt with a huge Muhammed bomber pic.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So a couple of days ago one guy in Croatia got death threats sent to him because he put one of those caricatures on his blog. FFS I think I'm gonna get myself a t-shirt with a huge Muhammed bomber pic.

emc^2 alsp posted this pic on this Forum in Chillout Room, I am worried for him.

I am scared.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z An unexpected reaction:

Not really. Several clergymen in Denmark have spoken out in support of muslims sensibilities over freedom of press. Hell, they even organized to do their Christmas eve sermons on this very topic.
When reading blogs and comments from the Middle East, it is quite clear to me that a lot of these people cannot grasp the concept of atheism, and that's really unfortunate as they are not battling Christians but secularists.
Similarly, seeing the US siding with extremists over democratic principles was not really surprising. Highly hypocritical, considering the targeted surveillance of muslims and events at Guantanamo Bay, but not surprising.
Unfortunately, the view that this is a war between Christianity and Islam (orchestrated by the Jews) is a common misconception today:

quote:

Originally posted by Purple Also just like a naked pic of Jesus masturbating will be offending to you

I don't know who the "you" are referring to, but as Dane and thread starter, let me simply say "no".

quote:

Originally posted by Purple Its a war now, up untill now it was only between US and Muslims, now its between Muslims and whole world.

I agree that this might turn into a war, but as I've tried to outline above, it won't be between Muslims and the rest of the world. It will be between atheists and religious fundamentalists.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yeah, the cross of the Danish flag. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Actually, the cross in the Danish flag is the Christian one. However, I doubt that the people who made the effigy would have had the mental capacity for looking it up.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And many educated and informed Mulims would argue is "unislamic." And you're right, it certainly isn't helping anyone, especially them and all the other muslims who would be generalized into the same category because someone saw this picture that only reinforced their perception. What you won't see in the media is Muslims publicy demonstrating and condeming this sort of behaviour or discussing the inappropriateness of such behaviour in a more private setting. My point simply is that, although these lunatics do exist, that pretty much the only image you see on TV or in the News, which certainly doesn't reflect the views of all Muslims (not that I'm saying you're making this claim).

I can only speak for Danish news-coverage, but moderate muslims get quite a lot of air time.
However, that being said, right now the sale Danish products in countries such as Saudi-arabia is nill. Absolutely nothing. That more than suggests to me that it it not a minority of these people that are stupid sheeps. It's the majority. By far.
That you and muslims I meet in the west are far more enlightened doesn't change the fact that Middle Eastern muslims have proved themselves to be stupid and racists. If I were in your position I would distance myself from these people in spite of your shared religous base, and because of all the differences. Just as I try to distance myself from all the extreme right nutbags that have jumped to the defense of free speech for the wrong reasons.




Finally, the Guardian-piece:

quote:

Originally posted by The Guardian UK Others might shrug.They're only a cartoons. What's the fuss? Cartoons, however, can be a powerful means of catalysing and disseminating ideas, be they pertinently satirical or hideously warped. Cartoons were, for example, used extensively by the Nazis in their anti-semitic propaganda campaigns, depicting Jews as hook-nosed, usurious grotesques molesting pure German women. It would be excessive to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between those Nazi cartoons and the those that appeared in the Danish newspaper. The fact remains, however, that as an editorial act, rather than one of censorship, these items should never have been published. They are deeply crass.

The analogy between Nazi cartoons and the cartoons of Jyllands-posten, is not only "excessive" - it's flat out ridiculous. As far as I can see, there's one out of the twelve cartoons (the turban bomb one), which can be described as racists - the rest are far from "crass". Even the one that might be "crass", is still based on actual facts: Terrorists *do* use Islam as a weapon for recruitment, and they do tend to use bombs.
Furthermore, and what is of uttermost importance, Jews back in Nazi Germany, weren't hurting anyone. Radical Islamics, on the other hand, have issued death threats and killed those who do not live according to their teachings. Let's not forget why these cartoons were brought in the first place: It was provoked by the fact that nobody dared illustrate a childrens book, because of threats from radicals.

quote:

Originally posted by The Guardian UK It suggests that Islam, as represented by the figure of Muhammad (blasphemy, of course, to represent him at all but that's by the by), is the font of all terrorism - the sort of syllogistic nonsense that leads some to conclude that, because some muggers are black men, all black men are muggers. There would be no general inclination to defend any cartoon which suggested that black men were thus predisposed - it would properly be condemned as racism.

I've seen plenty of cartoons and movies where criminals are black. Actually, most movies I see portray terrorists as Arabs too.

quote:

Originally posted by The Guardian UK Here, however, is the awkward point, one on which the government's ill-fated bill teetered. To have a go at someone on the grounds of their race is to have a go at them as people - to do so on the grounds of their religion is merely an attack upon their ideas, rather than their person.

The problem with this passage is that it misrepresents the setting. Noone is having a go at someone because of his or her religion. The go is at the religion in itself. If it was the first case, it would be classified as racism, and there would be laws to protect the individual.

quote:

Originally posted by The Guardian UK Technically, this is a valid distinction. However, in this instance, it has allowed our Danish cartoonists to get away with the crudest and most incendiary of generalisations.

I wonder how this editor would describe the cartoons of Jews that are so widespread on web pages of Islamic extremists?

quote:

Originally posted by The Guardian UK In 1997, when I was director of the Runnymede Trust, I helped launch the Commission on Islamophobia, a newly coined phrase to describe a phenomenon that had grown in tandem with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. We found that "Islamophobia" wasn't just confined to BNP thugs hurling pigs' heads through the windows of Pakistani households, or the vile poison spouted by BNP chairman Nick Griffin. It manifested itself in middle class circles too, around dining tables, on Radio 4, much of it in (understandably) indignant response to the Salman Rushdie fatwa. Under the pretext of taking a rearguard action against religious dogma, it became permissible to unveil a cultural contempt for peoples who tended to be brown-skinned and poorly off. I sense a similar undercurrent today, in the cathartic excitement with which some have rallied to the Free Speech banner, a sense of fear and loathing of the troublesome, brown hordes we see jumping up and down brandishing guns on our TV screens.

This is absolutely beautiful: The editor is up in defense because of "the crudest and most incendiary of generalisations", and then proceeds and accuses everyone in favour of freedom of speech on this issue as racists. The irony is so obvious, I cannot even begin to comprehend that no one at the Guardian spotted it before sending it to press.

quote:

Originally posted by The Guardian UK There's more to it than that, however. Muslim grievances are not merely spiritual but, more pressingly, material. The rage expressed by demonstrators in Gaza against Scandinavian aid workers was, at a deeper level, the rage of the disenfranchised, the displaced. In the UK and across Europe, Muslims are socially and economically disadvantaged, among those at the bottom of the pile. Cultural gestures such as the Danish cartoons may please well-to-do secular liberals in helping push back the envelope of free speech and cock a snook at religious dogma. To Muslims, however, they merely add to a sense of disaffection, of themselves as a pariah people. Another insult to add to their social injury.

So, because some muslims are poor and frustrated, we should all allow ourselves to be threatened into living by their religious beliefs? Are you fvcking kidding me? What kind of an argument is this?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.