-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Those Mohammed cartoon protests just wont stop
- Thread starter Ark-AMN
- Start date
- Status
BigGreenMat
Member
psycho_snake said:
I know you are a pretty reasonable person, especially since I see you bitch about all the censorship your country subjects you to, so I would hope you understand the impetus behinds the creation of the cartoons.
That being said the cases of abuse in Iraq have been taken quite seriously by the American public. Hell a lot of the American public very vocally protested the idea of going to Iraq in the first place. I still feel it was a huge error and very unfair to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately due to OUR misjudgements we have come into conflict with a large segment of the Iraqi public. The fact that some soldiers do not treat the people who day in, day out want to kill and are actively trying and aiding attempts is not surprising. In fact I would say the soldiers actions while brutal are what I would expect. The blame squarely lies on the people who led us into Iraq and set us up in this position ie Bushco and the military higher ups. I hope they will be held accountable by history, but it is just a hope.
Zaptruder said:
Herein lies the problem. As you've said, evidence and logic are not required by a faith that looks into itself for verification of it's existance. Most have been taught all of their lives to follow their faith without question just like we have been tought all of our lives that freedom of speech is an automatic right. (yes I'm just restating the obvious hehhhe) These types of conflicts will never go away unless we find some kind of common ground since we will never give up our rights to free speech, and they will never stop protecting their prophet from disrespect.
Instigator
Banned
APF said:
Bingo.
Instigator
Banned
Oh yes.
You know its funny, cause according to the Quran Muslims should not differentiate between the prophets or messengers. So why don't they get so riled up when Jesus is portrayed as a hippie or has an appearence on South Park? O wait.. I forgot, the Quran is only used for chanting these days.
Instigator
Banned
RiZ III said:
I can think of 3 reasons:
1. Not all prophets are created equal and Mohammed is clearly on a higher pedestal with Muslims, as he is the last prophet who got the final word from God, undistorted unlike the Torah and Bible (or so they claim). Their daily prayers emphasize the central role of Mohammed. Jesus is also more important than any other figure in Christianity.
2. Furthermore, Muslims identify with Mohammed more because they are the only one worshipping/paying respect to him among the big 3 monotheist religions. Mohammed and his divine revelation is what set Muslims apart. Mohammed being from Arabia certainly helps feeling a connection with him among Arabs in particular.
3. And one can not deny a hostile, islamophobic undercurrent in the West and in that light, the publication of those cartoons was clearly intended as a provocation in some circles masquerading as free speech. You can not entirely blame Muslims for perceiving as only as such just like the West tends to see all Muslims as irrational, backward and apologists of violence (many of the Danish cartoons used those very same stereotypes).
How were they not all "created equal"?
" And the believers, all who believe in God, and His angles, and His scriptures, and His messengers; we do not differentiate between any of His messengers" 2:285
"Mohammed is but a messenger of whom many messengers have passed before him" 3:144
"Those who rejected God and His messengers, and they want to make a distinction between God and His messengers, and they say: We believe in some and reject some!, and they desire to take a path in-between. " 4:150
..and the list goes on. Its true that the Muslims put Muhammad on their holy pedastal, but it certainly isn't justified by the Quran.
And why shouldn't they print these cartoons? Did the Muslims have protests when the children were killed in Beslan? Or when the towers came crashing down? Did they protest Osama using their religion to incite violence? Do they protest the countless disgusting hadith their own preachers preach? No they didn't. So let them parade around creating havok in their own countries.
" And the believers, all who believe in God, and His angles, and His scriptures, and His messengers; we do not differentiate between any of His messengers" 2:285
"Mohammed is but a messenger of whom many messengers have passed before him" 3:144
"Those who rejected God and His messengers, and they want to make a distinction between God and His messengers, and they say: We believe in some and reject some!, and they desire to take a path in-between. " 4:150
..and the list goes on. Its true that the Muslims put Muhammad on their holy pedastal, but it certainly isn't justified by the Quran.
And why shouldn't they print these cartoons? Did the Muslims have protests when the children were killed in Beslan? Or when the towers came crashing down? Did they protest Osama using their religion to incite violence? Do they protest the countless disgusting hadith their own preachers preach? No they didn't. So let them parade around creating havok in their own countries.
Instigator
Banned
Well, there's always been a clear dichotomy between a literal interprepation of holy scriptures and how a religion is actually practiced by most. The older the religion, the more apparent this is.
I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Muslims clearly have their taboos concerning Mahommed, there's no denying that. But I see the cartoons as more of a catalyst for a series of grievances and frustrations Muslims have against the West. Are some of the angry sentiments exploited by extremists and states in the region? Yeah, it appears so, but I also see the anger of ordinary Muslims who genuinely don't like having the prophet mocked and take it seriously, regardless of a tradition of satire and secularism in the West.
The issue of printing those cartoons is basically the same catch-22 the original Danish cartoonists were faced with when they were offered the assignment. In a climate of extreme tensions between the Muslim world and the West, doing those cartoons is like kicking the hornet's nest. Either out of feat or out of pragmatism, one might choose not to needlessly increase tensions just to show some zeal for the value of free speech. The latter is the choice the vast majority of news channels and newspapers chose in the West.
I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Muslims clearly have their taboos concerning Mahommed, there's no denying that. But I see the cartoons as more of a catalyst for a series of grievances and frustrations Muslims have against the West. Are some of the angry sentiments exploited by extremists and states in the region? Yeah, it appears so, but I also see the anger of ordinary Muslims who genuinely don't like having the prophet mocked and take it seriously, regardless of a tradition of satire and secularism in the West.
The issue of printing those cartoons is basically the same catch-22 the original Danish cartoonists were faced with when they were offered the assignment. In a climate of extreme tensions between the Muslim world and the West, doing those cartoons is like kicking the hornet's nest. Either out of feat or out of pragmatism, one might choose not to needlessly increase tensions just to show some zeal for the value of free speech. The latter is the choice the vast majority of news channels and newspapers chose in the West.
Instigator said:
Or, to put it into plain writing. The JP editors are tools. At least, I think they are. They almost make me wish there were laws that allowed suing for stupidity, shortsightedness and general lack of insight. Not to mention for putting an entire population in harm's way.
FlameOfCallandor
Banned
I like it when leaders put bounties on innoccent people. It really says alot about their society and their culture.
Lucky Forward
Member
Sheesh. Remember when "cartoon violence" meant a mouse blowing up a cat with a rocket launcher?
those poor fuckers better be in hiding.
i've had enough of islam. we can turn the other cheek and only give lip-service to 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali, etc., but if you draw a cartoon you deserve to die. Fuck these muslims and anyone who wishes death on the cartoonists.
i'm so sick of playing with one arm tied behind our back. we're clearly at war with people here, and it's time to fucking act like it.
i've had enough of islam. we can turn the other cheek and only give lip-service to 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali, etc., but if you draw a cartoon you deserve to die. Fuck these muslims and anyone who wishes death on the cartoonists.
i'm so sick of playing with one arm tied behind our back. we're clearly at war with people here, and it's time to fucking act like it.
Instigator
Banned
I see whytemyke wants to run a concentration camp or be in charge of a purification squad.
Would you prefer to coddle these people who want us dead?Instigator said:
edit: because I know that most of GAF only argues what they want to see in a thread instead of what actually is in one... if you read my post you'll see I'm obviously referring to the people calling for the murder of the cartoonist.
Oh they should be allowed alright. The question is just whether it's a good idea to actually act on the right at this point in time. I don't think it was. It was suitable for internal debate in Denmark, perhaps, but definitely not suitable for worldwide scrutiny and inevitable misinterpretation.Cloak said:
I saw pictures from new protests in Pakistan today. Banners promising "World War 3" to the west and such. Are these people really oblivious to the fact that if it came to the extremes they seem to be so anxious to get to, they would all become very, very quiet in a very short time? Or is it just that they figure the west will keep 'one hand tied behind the back' no matter what happens?
Instigator
Banned
Cooter said:
Moronic.
The publishers in Denmark were well aware they were venturing into dangerous territory. Not just because the west is in conflict with the Muslim world, but because first and foremost because of an uneasy relations between the Muslim minority already living in Denmark as with many European states with immigrant populations.
Muslim extremists are surely using this as a rallying cry for war, but I can guarantee you the vast majority of ordinary Muslims didn't find the cartoons funny either. The publishers lit the match and the fire got out of control.
callous said:
This begs the question of when a "good time" to do so would be...
Instigator said:
So artists and poltical commentators should have to wait until all is well between Islam and "the west" before they satirize or criticize Islam? They're gonna be waiting a mighty long time, then...
Think about what you're saying.
Hardly.
If dangerous territory is publishing an offensive cartoon then maybe its time the west sees the irrational hatred being spewed by these people. A woman might know that a short dress will increase her chances of being raped but if she does get rapped you still can't put the blame on her.
I don't think anybody here insisted that ordinary Muslims found the cartoons funny. That's not the point. How about civility and perspective? How about leaving the west and it's customs and cultures alone and stop trying to impose Muslim ideals on the west. We have no interest for them and especially have no desire to be lectured. These people are immigrants. You move to a foreign land to become part of the culture and customs. Dont move to another country and get upset because something offends you when the same thing was happening before you arrived.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Publishing your ideas is never moronic. Why should the Danes modify their core political values to conform to the sensibilities of an immigrant population? Why are the immigrants in Denmark in the first place, is it because their native countries offered them fewer opportunities? Could those less-than-ideal conditions be a result of policies that prevent the free exchange of ideas? Is there any way to allow "a little" censorship, only where it's "warranted" by hurt feelings?
Slurpy said:
Their core political values include allowing someone to say whatever they want, even if that might offend another person/group, regardless of the goal. Their core political and social values are such that society is meant to be an open place for expression of any idea without fear of violence or repression.
That's just stupid. I don't agree with the publishing of the cartoons, but that doesn't stop me from recognising that the goal was far from what you describe. It was to spur a debate on freedom of expression following the evidence that a large number of Danish artists, comedians and writers had explicitly said they censored themselves out of fear.Slurpy said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Slurpy said:
Their core political values consist of allowing anyone to voice their opinion in a nonviolent, non-threatening manner, e.g. drawing a cartoon in a newspaper. Content-based regulation of speech by the government is abhorrent to Western political values. Insult is subjective and beyond the scope of government to regulate. Why am I even saying this, isn't it common knowledge?
They want an apology? What kind of apology is this that they want? They do realise that apology's have been made! The UN requested that muslims accept these apology's! The extremist muslims then proceeded to demonstrate even more violent protests in which people have died! In this request for more apologies they have also threatened the lives of people in most of the western world (like this is new :-/), the very people who protested against such events in Iraq and believe that the cartoons are wrong have had there lives threatened! How is this logical? DEATH TO BRITAIN! Why? What did britain do? What did I as a Londoner to be procise do? Is everyone in the western world expected to end there life in shame of those who would be willing to create such cartoons and in the honour of Mohameds name? Should I go outside and write an apology to the world with my own blood? Would that help maybe? No, it wouldn't... Why? Because this all comes down to a hatred to the western world which many muslims have wanted to vent and have now come up with an irrational reason to do so with! They now see that they can get away with such threats because it's in the name of there religion and they are shocked and appauled with the actions of these newspapers (which obviously then means the government which obviously has complete control of the newspapers and then the citizens who fully support said government and obviously newspaper.) Obviously muslims will not like the cartoons, but, what do the cartoons have to do with the citizens and governments of the western world as a whole? Why should everyone need to bow down to these Islamic beliefs out of fear? Why are we being covered in a veil of terror to such an extreme that we should feal the need to supress some of our basic human rights such as freedom of speach?
The next question is how now many muslims can be protesting the coming of Islamiphobia as if it's not to be expected? One day I go walking down the streats of London, "Oh what's that I?" I say as I see a massive congregation of people chanting..... I walk over to investigate further, but, as I get closer the chants become clearer, suddenly I notice one of the signs being held high and proudly above one persons head "Death to....." well me actually.......... Now how am I not meant to fear those who want me dead in atleast some way? Obviously with the terrorist attacks in London I went along as normal, there wasn't exactly muslim people running through the streats chearing the attacks no infact the opposite, muslims expressed there deap regret for the attacks... Now however I see not just 1, 2 or 6 people wanting me dead, but a whole crowed of people essentially chearing for someone to come along and slice off my head in the middle of the streat........ How am I in some way not meant to worry about how close another possible attack is? Obviously I know the vast majority of muslim people don't want me dead.... Infact specifically me dead, I doubt there is more then one (don't ask.) But the fear is still there in some way... It's not something that you can just ignore really and it's not the fault of the majority.... It's just something that you can't really expect people not to have....... You can't go into the streats and protest the onset of islamiphobia when this is what people are seeing.. :-/
Basically what I am saying is that a lot of work needs to be done..... Understanding needs to be broadened and whilst the majority in the west (talking about muslims and others alike) are doing this, and live together peacefully without threatening each others lives everyone else seems to be completely against this..... Stick to what they know and don't leave these confined areas of knowledge...... It's these people that I'm worried about.... And I'm pretty sure it's the same for most people...
Anyway, I've ranted long enough...... Not really sure (as usual) if people will understand what I said, but, that's my 2p on the matter.
Ronok
Edited something cause it seemed like a personal attack on the op of that quote..... Ermmm sorry. ^^;; What I said might not seem to make as much sence anymore though. Hmmmm..... I didn't mean it to be an attack anyway.
(Dunno if anyone even noticed.)Slurpy said:
Define what would constitute acceptable satirizing of Islam, or what people perceive to be Islam's failings. Or would any such action be viewed as "inciting hatred and violence"? Funny how every other religion has been satirized and insulted, but only when it comes to Islam are we supposed to modify our core political values for the sake of appeasement. Please.
unless, of course, said sticks and stones are aimed at muhammed. in which case they can blow you up.Cooter said:
this is such an incredibly complicated situation, and I feel bad for moderate muslims in the middle east who are being swept up into this shit where it's either "want people dead", or have your neighbor villify you as much as these people who did it.
clearly, however, I'm not willing to allow the sensitivities of a people a half a world away indicate what I say, nor will I let people of a different culture dictate what I do with what I believe is right. And, I hate to say it, but I will strike down the hand that tries to take from me my rights like freedom of speech, be it foreign or domestic. and I hope to God that Bush still at least believes in THAT ideal.
Guileless said:
No.
And I'm tired of people saying that the cartoons didn't have a point of view and were only created to incite (insert what they were trying to incite here) and to be offensive for the sake of being offensive. One of the messages in these cartoons was that of self censorship on the topic of Islam, created in part by violence or threats of violence on those who would speak out. In addition, many of the cartoons spoke out on the connection between Islam and violence. The medium of a one panel cartoonist is rather crude, so the resulting cartoons will not be subtle, and will also be somewhat ambiguous.
However you can not deny that there is a connection between Islam and violence if you've seen at least one video of men yelling "Allah Akbar" as they chop off an innocent mans head. Or if you have the knowledge that men have killed themselves along with as many innocents in order to be in paradise with 72 virgins (or raisins). Or if he know that teachers have been brutally murdered in southern Thailand because they teach in secular schools. Or if you watched planes fly into the World Trade Centre, or watch the Madrid trains explode, see the casualties photos from the London underground bombings etc. etc.
It still astonishes me how a so called man of god can at one moment condemn a cartoon, and in the same sentence offer up a reward to have a human being murdered. Drawing a cartoon is thus far worse than ordering out a hit! In fact the murder is morally good. When I was younger I was an atheist who nevertheless still looked at religion as a positive thing, or at least a neutral thing. Over the last few years I've changed my mind.Ark-AMN said:
posted earlier by me in abu ghraib thread, hope it contributes to the debate
"Filmmaker Nigel Wingrove in 1989 shot a film named , "Visions of Ecstasy," a quasi-soft porn movie about the visions of St. Theresa of Avalon an erotic response to crucifixion. The British Board of Film Classification refused to give it a certificate. They couldn't brand it "pornographic" or prove that its content was blasphemous, but they presumed viewers would perceive it as such and blocked its distribution. Mr. Wingrove believed that his right of expression was violated and took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In 1996, the court ruled against him.
In one of its most notorious decisions, Otto Preminger Institut v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights decided that depictions of religion that are "gratuitously offensive" to believers infringe upon their rights and "do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs." It also said that securing religious pluralism was essential to any successful democratic society. "
so filmmakers, journalist, media members do not have right to release material that is "gratuitously offensive" to fundemental christian/western values because that kind material "do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs" but those cartoons published in that danish newspaper somehow do?
"Filmmaker Nigel Wingrove in 1989 shot a film named , "Visions of Ecstasy," a quasi-soft porn movie about the visions of St. Theresa of Avalon an erotic response to crucifixion. The British Board of Film Classification refused to give it a certificate. They couldn't brand it "pornographic" or prove that its content was blasphemous, but they presumed viewers would perceive it as such and blocked its distribution. Mr. Wingrove believed that his right of expression was violated and took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In 1996, the court ruled against him.
In one of its most notorious decisions, Otto Preminger Institut v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights decided that depictions of religion that are "gratuitously offensive" to believers infringe upon their rights and "do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs." It also said that securing religious pluralism was essential to any successful democratic society. "
so filmmakers, journalist, media members do not have right to release material that is "gratuitously offensive" to fundemental christian/western values because that kind material "do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs" but those cartoons published in that danish newspaper somehow do?
<nu>faust, the fact that there is British common law against blasphemous libel is very unfortunate, and should be repealed. I also disagree with the European Court of Human Rights ruling, and their reasoning behind the ruling. Being offensive doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and whether the work contributes to debate or human affairs is rather irrelevant. This is not a standard all works must face.
You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of double standard here. However since the cartoons were not created in England, and a case regarding the cartoons has of yet not been brought to the European human rights board, I don't see how you can sincerely imply this. Especially since a semi pornographic scene with Jesus on the cross and a cartoon with Mohamed with a little fuse are not equivalent.
You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of double standard here. However since the cartoons were not created in England, and a case regarding the cartoons has of yet not been brought to the European human rights board, I don't see how you can sincerely imply this. Especially since a semi pornographic scene with Jesus on the cross and a cartoon with Mohamed with a little fuse are not equivalent.
Instigator
Banned
Guileless said:
Sieg Heil then.
- Status