posted
BQT: The edgy and avant-garde was in relation to the intent. Read the rest of what I said, including where I pointed out the piece could well be offensive, it just wasn't inherently offensive. The artist has made it clear his piece isn't intended as disrespectful of Christianity, but celebratory.
Tres: try looking up a definition of inherent. Now go read up on Islam. Publishing such depictions is inherently offensive to Islam as practiced by much of the world. That you are using an inadequate definition of inherent is the problem you have with understanding my statement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed. You've seen links in this very thread to many, many examples.
Here's the thing, Lisa--you make stuff up and assert it as fact often enough that I have no confidence that what you're saying here is true. You certainly sound like you know what you're talking about, but I find that you often sound your most convincing when you're pulling things directly out of your nether regions. Given that, and given that what you're saying flies in the face of what little I do know about Islam, I'm suspicious.
I've looked at many, but not all of the links in this thread, and haven't seen anything to support your claim. Could you point me to a few of the links that you feel make this point, and perhaps some other impartial sites that discuss the role of graphic representations of Muhammad in Islamic cultures?
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed.
No, sL, there really isn't. There are exceptions, and some people have gotten away with them. I would not refer to this as a "history."
There was a brief period in the Dark Ages where -- largely influenced by the artistic traditions of the Roman Empire -- it was "okay" to iconize Muhammed; he was depicted in that period as generally having a flame rising from his head in much the same way that portraits of Christ from the same period show a golden halo. But it didn't last more than three generations, and most of the examples of that style have been destroyed.
I understand why it suits your purposes to pretend that it's not a big deal, but you're just not particularly well-informed on this issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BQT: The edgy and avant-garde was in relation to the intent. Read the rest of what I said, including where I pointed out the piece could well be offensive, it just wasn't inherently offensive. The artist has made it clear his piece isn't intended as disrespectful of Christianity, but celebratory.
Bull. The Danish cartoonists could say with equal legitimacy (i.e., none) that their work is a celebration of Islam. To say that something is not intended to offend does not make it true.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no, they couldn't. There's nothing inherently disrespectful about dung, particularly when it comes to art. You'd be surprised the things various dyes and some interesting pots are made out of. Think of all the weird art stuff that appears -- most of that isn't intended to offend, even though it involves all sorts of bizarre things. Why do you assume something made by an artist known for making weird things is intended to offend merely because the subject is religious, particularly when the artist says it isn't intended to offend?
I'm not even saying don't be offended by it. The art isn't particularly effective, IMO, and its certainly possible to be justifiably offended by many things, even if done with good intentions. But its exceedingly easy to imagine it not being intended to offend when created by an artist who experiments with stuff and is likely quite out of touch with what offends religious people.
However, I fail to see publishing an image of the prophet Muhammed with his turban shaped like a bomb when you know any depiction of him is considered offensive by vast numbers of Muslims could be called a celebration. Would you care to explain that to me?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.
Here is an interesting link to another web board that gives some more information about this topic:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why, for that matter, do people believe in (picking an example completely at random) Orthodox Judaism? Could it be because
quote:they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t
?
Your theophobic nastiness aside, O King, try not to compare apples and oranges. We don't go on murderous rampages even when self-styled monarchs of nothing mouth off about our religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do.
Nothing is inherently offensive. Things only become offensive in the mind of an observer, and the context in which they view those things.
But the claim keeps being made that Islam absolutely forbids any depiction of Muhammed, and that merely doing that is an attack on Islam. It's not true, though. It's a lie that keeps getting repeated over and over, as though it somehow justifies the lunacy of the death-cultists. When (a) it wouldn't justify it even if it was true, and (b) it isn't true.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why, for that matter, do people believe in (picking an example completely at random) Orthodox Judaism? Could it be because
quote:they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t
?
Your theophobic nastiness aside, O King, try not to compare apples and oranges. We don't go on murderous rampages even when self-styled monarchs of nothing mouth off about our religion.
Yes; Phelps and the Prussia Blue people are certainly much nastier than you are. But I would suggest that their beliefs are precisely as solidly grounded as yours. Presumably, they too would point to some 'personal experience' or 'inner conviction' as the reason for their faith, just as you have done on these very boards, many times. Why, then, is it not reasonable to suggest that you are delusional, if it is reasonable with respect to them?
Please note, I am saying nothing about nastiness. If I had one bullet and two targets, I would certainly shoot Phelps before you. I am talking about truth-value, and why people believe as they do.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the claim keeps being made that Islam absolutely forbids any depiction of Muhammed, and that merely doing that is an attack on Islam.
Islam does forbid any depiction of Mohammed, at least as the religion is currently interpreted. While any and all depictions of Mohammed are still not therefore inherently attacks on Islam, you can make the argument that cartoons solicited specifically to provoke and offend Muslims by doing something that the solictor knows is considered offensive are intended to be attacks on Islam.
The editor of that Danish paper admits as much.
Whether attacks on any religion should be met with violence is a different issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes; Phelps and the Prussia Blue people are certainly much nastier than you are. But I would suggest that their beliefs are precisely as solidly grounded as yours.
Yes, O KoMical one, we all know your theophobic bias. Save it for a thread where it's on topic. I can ignore you (or mock you) there just as easily, and your incessant derailment attempts are juvenile.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm perfectly willing to accept that people hate. You'll notice that's not what you said. I do, however, believe that there's usually a reason for hate. Just saying "because they hate" is also not useful. While we can't fix every problem, that doesn't mean we should just write them all off and not try. Not. Useful.
I hear what you're saying, really. But I disagree. What do you think the "God Hates Fags" folks have as their reason for hating? Or the parents of the Prussian Blue girls?
After reading the in-depth article about Fred Phelps posted awhile back, with him my best guess would be a combination of childhood abuse and mental illness, with his family (who make up most of his church) a combination of abuse by him and the result of being raised in his household. At this point, there's probably nothing that anyone outside of the family can do, and my best hope is that after he dies the church falls apart and the rest of them get some serious counseling.
The Prussian Blue girls I don't know enough about to make a serious guess.
For this:
quote:Do you really think there's no point at which you have to just say, "I don't care why you're behaving like a pig; you're behaving like a pig, so go to hell"?
I think it depends both on your goals and the magnitude of the people you're talking about. Fred Phelp's church is maybe 20 - 30 people. They're not actively killing people. I have no problem writing them off. I think they are emotionally hurtful to a lot of people, and a sad example of humanity, but nothing they do is going to bring about WWIII.
There are millions of Muslims across the world. Most of them are not extremists or terrorist bombers. That’s an awful lot of people to tell to go to hell. And the consequences of doing so are a lot more serious.
Somehow, the “Muslim World” and the “Western World” are going to have to get along. Or, you know, kill each other. I’d prefer get along. I don’t think it’s going to be easy. Particularly because you can’t really point to an overarching culture for either group, obviously. They’re both conglomerates of different groups, large and small. The fact that in this case it seems like a small group of Muslims was attempting to manipulate the larger group for some sort of personal advantage is distressing. I wonder if they realized that Muslims would die in the rioting they caused? I wonder if they had any idea what they were getting themselves into, and just didn’t care, or if they were idiots who didn’t think it through?
I also wonder what good you think you’re doing by urging people just to dismiss the whole problem with phrases like “that’s what they do” and “people hate.” I understand that you believe that, and that’s fine. But what advantage does it give you to get me to believe it as well? Are you just trying to make an idealistic child face reality? What good does it do for you to convince me that the majority of Muslims are hopeless cases? Does it advance your political advantage in some way? Make me less likely to care about the fact that there’s maltreatment and unfairness on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Or are you just so set in your prejudices that you think any rational person should share them? I tend to lean towards the “idealistic child” explanation, myself. Your attitude usually comes across as someone who thinks they’re imparting what should be obvious wisdom on the unwashed masses. But again, that’s just a poorly informed guess born of idle curiosity. I’m not too concerned about if I’m right or not.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yes, O KoMical one, we all know your theophobic bias. Save it for a thread where it's on topic. I can ignore you (or mock you) there just as easily, and your incessant derailment attempts are juvenile.
It is just as on-topic as your complete dismissal of any reasons for Moslems acting as they do.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres: try looking up a definition of inherent. Now go read up on Islam. Publishing such depictions is inherently offensive to Islam as practiced by much of the world. That you are using an inadequate definition of inherent is the problem you have with understanding my statement.
Do you mean by "inherently offensive" that the depiction itself causes offense just by its nature of being a depiction of Muhammed, rather than something implied by the depiction (such as intentions or beliefs of the author)?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Well, no, they couldn't. There's nothing inherently disrespectful about dung, particularly when it comes to art. You'd be surprised the things various dyes and some interesting pots are made out of.
The piece of 'art' is made, in part, of feces and a collage of images cut-out of pornographic magazines. What different media would you choose if you WERE trying to offend? Immersing it in the artist's urine? Oh wait, that's been done, and I'm sure you'll tell me that it, too, was an affectionate and respectful tribute to the richness of Christian culture...
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed. You've seen links in this very thread to many, many examples.
Here's the thing, Lisa--you make stuff up and assert it as fact often enough that I have no confidence that what you're saying here is true.
Read it yourself. Of course, you can take the easy way out, and say that the Muslims who created the art pictured on that page (I'm not talking about the ones done by non-Muslims, though it's significant that there's been no outcry, say, against the graven image of Muhammed at the US Supreme Court) aren't "real" Muslims.
You could say that. But that'd be wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed.
No, sL, there really isn't. There are exceptions, and some people have gotten away with them. I would not refer to this as a "history."
There was a brief period in the Dark Ages where -- largely influenced by the artistic traditions of the Roman Empire -- it was "okay" to iconize Muhammed; he was depicted in that period as generally having a flame rising from his head in much the same way that portraits of Christ from the same period show a golden halo. But it didn't last more than three generations, and most of the examples of that style have been destroyed.
I understand why it suits your purposes to pretend that it's not a big deal, but you're just not particularly well-informed on this issue.
Apparently, I'm better informed than you are. The depictions on the link I just reposted are from the 14th-18th centuries. That's a "brief period" to you, apparently.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And maybe the artists were just not "observant" muslims. After all, lots of religions have differences of opinion about the sinfulness or importance of particular actions.
Do I need to add the "doesn't justify the violence" disclaimer here or are we finally assuming that?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
How many depictions are on the page though? Couple hundred?
Paintings or drawings that were made in a period that ENDED 300 years ago doesn't, to me anyway, have much to do with the way Muslims treat their law and rules regarding depictions of muhammed today. Are you saying that Jewish or Christian laws haven't changed at all? Ever? In the last 300 years? Interpretations? Nothing?
I'd also like to see a link to a site where you, starLisa, show evidence that Islam doesn't forbid or even frown upon Muhammad being depicted or rendered. I've always been under the impression that it's a pretty big deal that he not be iconized or worshipped in any way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WARNING: Some of the images on the link are potentially offensive, to anyone. I hadn't looked at the whole thing when I posted it, when you get down to the bottom there are some "response to the controversy" images that you may not want to look at. You'll know because they warn you, too. The first 3/4 of the page is fine, though.
It appears to be offline for upgrades. Here's a mirror.
posted
Here's another mirror that is up right now. I haven't scrolled all the way through it yet, but I'm sure the same warnings apply.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, there's a book out there about the whole history of depicting Muhammed.
I'm aware. It's a fairly complicated issue, confused not only by the caliphate but changing opinions (back and forth, even) of what constitutes "idolatry."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am wondering -- if the back-ground to the prohibition to depict Mohammed is that it may be considered, or lead to, idolatry; why does the prohibition apparently extend to non-muslims? It's not as if the Danish cartoonists are in danger of worshipping their creations; neither is, to judge from their reaction, any muslims...
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm aware. It's a fairly complicated issue, confused not only by the caliphate but changing opinions (back and forth, even) of what constitutes "idolatry."
This would seem to lend credibility to starLisa's position that there is a substantial history of depicting Mohammed (pbuh) without widespread rioting and violence and destruction. Although it seems clear she has exaggerrated quite a bit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tristan: I am wondering -- if the back-ground to the prohibition to depict Mohammed is that it may be considered, or lead to, idolatry; why does the prohibition apparently extend to non-muslims? It's not as if the Danish cartoonists are in danger of worshipping their creations; neither is, to judge from their reaction, any muslims...
Two reasons. (1) Muslims believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. (2) The cartoons are just an excuse. In today's environment, any excuse for violent eruptions will do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: (1) Muslims believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. (2) The cartoons are just an excuse. In today's environment, any excuse for violent eruptions will do. [/QB]
Gee, there you go, pretending to do that mind-reading trick again.
posted
I have personal issues with Mark Steyn. But I can't argue with his latest column about this issue. Have a look.Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muslims do not all believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. But there are a lot.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I really have a problem with is the idea that all the world has to follow an Islamic command. I'm not Moslem. The prohibition of drawing Mohammed does not apply to me.
I'm a Reformed Christian who tries to live my life according to my own set of beliefs. I don't expect the rest of the world to recognize every one of those beliefs and be forced to live according to them too. In fact, I should have compassion for those that don't agree with me, if I'm following the teachings of my faith.
If Islam wants to be perceived as a faith of peace and love it needs to look at something like this and say "Well, the people who drew that cartoon haven't seen the light, so we must have patience and compassion for them." They should not expect the entire world to bend down and follow Islamic law, yet it seems they do. They want tolerance and respect for their own faith but won't show any for anyone else's.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, going down the top ten list of countries with high muslim populations, we see that none of the top five (in order: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey) are particularly known for Muslims who want to force the entire world to follow Islamic law. Quite the opposite for some of them, in fact.
Of the top ten Muslim population countries in the world, those make up about 75% of the Muslim population. That's about a third to two fifths of the entire Muslim population of the world in countries not known for efforts in their Muslim population to force everyone in the world to follow Islamic law, in some cases known for their support of secular law (India, for instance).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
99.99% of all Christians would never dream of bombing an abortion clinic, but the .01% that do give my faith a bad name and I denounce them.
You'll also find many Christians standing up and denying that those who do so are true representatives of our faith. While I do see some encouraging signs of Muslim's calling for peaceful protest, not violence, I do not see people who are standing up and saying "These people are not true representatives of the Islamic faith. We denounce them and want no part of them." Now if I've missed that, point me to where it's being said.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some links have already been provided to that effect in this thread, actually. Here's one that Storm Saxon posted back on page two, from my home and native land. There are plenty of other examples if you look, but the condemnations and peaceful protests aren't getting as much press time as the violence.
On a broader note, I think people are still ignoring the fact that this is all symptomatic of a deeper issue.
If Muslims around the world constantly stage violent protests at the drop of a hat, then why were there no violent protests last October? J-P originally ran the cartoons on September 30th, 2005. There was a peaceful demonstration in Denmark in October, but violent demonstrations didn't begin until January 2006. Why would anyone who felt that insulted wait until January or February to get mad? It isn't because Arabs hadn't seen them -- an Egyptian newspaper reprinted some of them in November 2005 and there were no protests. A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be oversimplifying by drawing a straight causal link: cartoons->violence. The time delay alone is enough to invalidate that, but if you take a closer look at it there is obviously much more going on here. Violent protests in the Middle East didn't begin in earnest until two things happened:
(1) A group of radical Danish Muslim clerics put together a "dossier" that grouped the 12 published cartoons together with at least three vastly more offensive fakes, and then met with various political and religious leaders throughout the Middle East;
(2) European newspapers began reprinting some or all of the cartoons in a show of solidarity with the original Danish paper.
Storm Saxon's links on page 5 are a good starting point. If you look through them you'll find a good timeline of events from September 30th of last year up to now, but you have to go back five or six years before you begin to get a good feel for how the relationship between Denmark and its immigrant and first-generation Muslim population has been developing.
To reiterate some of my previous posts to this thread, this is primarily about the larger question of how Denmark (and Europe in general) deals with its Muslim population. There is blame to be laid at the feet of both groups.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Muslims do not all believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. But there are a lot.
True. But all the death-cultists (and their supporters) do, and a disturbingly large number of the rest do as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Some links have already been provided to that effect in this thread, actually. Here's one that Storm Saxon posted back on page two, from my home and native land. There are plenty of other examples if you look, but the condemnations and peaceful protests aren't getting as much press time as the violence.
No offense, Twinky, but that article does not even come close to doing what Belle is talking about. She wrote:
quote: do not see people who are standing up and saying "These people are not true representatives of the Islamic faith. We denounce them and want no part of them." Now if I've missed that, point me to where it's being said.
That article does nothing of the sort. Beyond that, the first Muslim quoted in the article compares those cartoons to Der Sturmer type cartoons of Jews, and that's beyond despicable. These cartoons are a reaction to incessant atrocities that are claimed by the perpetrators to be Allah's will. If you want to object to tarring a group with the misdeeds of some of that group's members, that's one thing. But the Nazi cartoons depicted Jews as vermin to be exterminated. To draw the comparison demonstrates an utter lack of any moral sense on the part of this Tarek Fatah character.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the Nazi cartoons depicted Jews as vermin to be exterminated.
Ironic thing for you to be angry about, given how often you refer to Muslims as mindless murdering barbarians.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the Nazi cartoons depicted Jews as vermin to be exterminated.
Ironic thing for you to be angry about, given how often you refer to Muslims as mindless murdering barbarians.
Er. No. Lisa's condemned what she calls the "death cultist" faction of Islam, not Muslims in general. And that's not exactly undeserved, given this fundamentalist faction has committed and supported murder many thousands of times against Westerners of European, Israeli, and American nationalities.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, don't bother. He's going to keep going with the nastiness regardless. I think he's hoping for a reaction.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you heard how she's talked about Muslims over, and over, and over again in other threads? She rarely makes a distinction between various groups of Muslims, and rarely elevates them above the level of beasts in her eyes.
I don't know how you could even try and defend her if you'd have read everything she's written about them over the past few months.
Edit to add:
starLisa-
Of course I'm hoping for a reaction, but God willing, a positive one from you. I'm hoping one day you'll realize that your intractable, hate filled point of view is never going to solve the problem, and that often you sound dangerously like the very thing you oppose. I'm not trolling for some vicious outburst from you, I don't have to! You do it all by yourself. I'm just continually surprised that you don't see the irony in a lot of what you say. But then, I think a lot of what you say is intentional trolling anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
An article from the LA Times that focuses on Danish people's reactions the what's going on. A couple of quotes:
quote: "A lot of Danes have problems understanding what is going on and why people in those countries reacted this way," said Morton Rixen, a philosophy student, looking out his window at a city awhirl in angst and snow. "We're used to seeing American flags and pictures of George Bush being burned, but we've always seen ourselves as a more tolerant nation. We're in shock to now be in the center of this."
quote: Danes suspect that the furor over the cartoons has been co-opted by the wider anti-Western agenda of Middle East extremism. Yet they believe the media images of fury over the drawings have cracked the veneer of their nation and exacerbated a debate about immigration, freedom of expression, religious tolerance and a vaunted perception of racial harmony often disputed by immigrants.
quote: Some worry that anti-immigrant political parties are exploiting the burning of Danish embassies in Lebanon, Syria and Iran to promote a xenophobic agenda. "Racism is suddenly popping up in this country," said Merete Ronnow, a nurse who worked in Danish relief efforts in Lebanon and Afghanistan. "I'm stunned by this. It's like now Danes can express exactly what they feel. My colleagues are saying, 'Look, this is how a Muslim acts. This is what a Muslim does.' "
And they interviewed one of the Danish Muslims who took the cartoons to the Middle East.
quote: Akkari said he traveled to the Middle East because Denmark's institutions and right-of-center government had ignored the concerns of the Islamic community. "Nobody listened to us," said Akkari, a spokesman for 27 Muslim organizations. "We are not saying censorship of the press…. But there must be limits on the freedom of speech when dealing with some things."
The son of a political refugee who fled Lebanon in the 1970s, Akkari was raised and educated in Denmark. He said the Danes think of themselves as tolerant but that minorities here encounter subtle discrimination and a "national pride" that often feels threatened by immigrants.
When asked about the Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons, Akkari said the paper should practice equality and publish derogatory caricatures of the Pope and a rabbi. "Then we will be satisfied," he said.
But these days Akkari is more worried that Middle East violence will create a backlash in Europe over integration. "It's hurting our case," he said. "It's turning the picture completely."
That answers some of my questions. . . this guy, at least, seems to have gotten more than he expected out of the decision to push those cartoons.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respect the rights to free speach as much as any man or woman here, but I also believe that people show now go out of their way to do something known to be highly offensive to a great portion of the world.
By publishing these pictures in papers throughout Europe, they are doing far more than supporting the rights of a Danish newspaper, they are telling the muslim community that they view one of their most important guidelines to life as unimportant in comparison to their wanting to make a social statement, it is fine to speak out in support of the Danish newspaper, I see no reason why that should be offensive, but to republish the articles, is simply impassive, rude, and boorish.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Er. No. Lisa's condemned what she calls the "death cultist" faction of Islam, not Muslims in general. And that's not exactly undeserved, given this fundamentalist faction has committed and supported murder many thousands of times against Westerners of European, Israeli, and American nationalities.
Incidently, "death cultist" is not a very fair term. Can't we just call them Muslim extremists? Or, if it has to be something ultra-biased against them, how about "The Legion of Doom"?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There are plenty of other examples if you look, but the condemnations and peaceful protests aren't getting as much press time as the violence. 
