boycotts of Danish goods in middle East!

[maebach]

The latest is an Iraqi militant organization calling for all muslims to attack Danish and Norwegian targets (A christian magazine reprinted the pictures over here shortly after their original release).

While I agree with freedom of speech, and there was certainly nothing illegal about the pictures per se, I don't believe it to be the morally right thing to do.

I must agree. And we must not forget, the terrorist, who killed the dutch director (theo van Gogh) for making a film about islamic women being abused. wasn't taht freedom of speech/thought on van gogh's part?

@ cheese - candia pwns mexicans

[JPaul]

While I agree with freedom of speech, and there was certainly nothing illegal about the pictures per se, I don't believe it to be the morally right thing to do.

Surely freedom of speech is an absolute, isn't that the point.

[manker]

Me too.

However, to insult a deity, who to millions of people is as real as our parents are to us, and who these same millions of people speak to with their intimate desires and dreams five times a day, is hardly the same as calling someone a 'doodyhead'.

I don't know why anyone would even make such a correlation.

I was trying not to be crass, for once.

I didn't know your whole focus was 'cause I said "doodyhead".

It wasn't.

I mentioned it once, right at the end of the conversation.

[Formula1]

as some of you may know there is a boycotts of Danish goods in middle east from past few days because of a Danish news paper by making ridicules cartoon of Prophet Mohammad(pbuh), also few countries including sudia Arabia and labia withdraw their ambassadors from there, I want to point a view of mine.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalInte...0-052626-1117r

In the answer to why did this news paper made that cartoon they said it was to show the freedom of speech, I want to know what kind of freedom is that, even if that is stepping over our moral believes. To me it was very stupid comment that they were showing freedom of speech, they could go on political leaders but they had to make fun of religious matters. maybe to them religious matter is noting and they can make fun of Jesus as they regularly do(no offence meant, we believe in him and have huge respect for him, prophet Eesa is mentioned with respect in Quran) any time they want but that doesn’t work here, we don’t tolerate with those kind of things. The news paper site was destroyed by a hacker and was back last days and apologized in a way that "we got it wrong".
Denmark ambassador in Saudi Arabia said 100million damage was made overall middle east in few days cuz of boycotts, and now the foreign minister is waiting for an act by our governments for what is happening, I say how the feck they can blem us for whets happening, we deserve an apologies and they asking us for one.
These boycotts will continue even if Denmark government apologies so it could be a lesson for those who think they can go away with this kind of act.

Over here in the U.S. , there is a cartoon show called South Park. It made fun of Jesus and God , and there really wasnt an uproar, or in other words, it was never banned by the government or anyone. I'm not condoning the act the of Danish the newspaper.

[ahctlucabbuS]

While I agree with freedom of speech, and there was certainly nothing illegal about the pictures per se, I don't believe it to be the morally right thing to do.

Surely freedom of speech is an absolute, isn't that the point.

You can still question the motive/necessity to print those pictures, and if you view the incident as slandering can you justify it as morally right?

What is legal isn't necessarily right as I see it.

(Off to bed)

[manker]

Over here in the U.S. , there is a cartoon show called South Park.

The guy lives in Dubai, rather than a cave, and has 3k posts on a filesharing forum, I'm pretty sure he's aware of South park.

[Busyman]

I was trying not to be crass, for once.

I didn't know your whole focus was 'cause I said "doodyhead".

It wasn't.

I mentioned it once, right at the end of the conversation.

Then what was it?

The motives of the Muslims were known quite obviously....so wtf?

[manker]

Read my posts again.

If you can't do that, I can't be arsed.

[GepperRankins]

While I agree with freedom of speech, and there was certainly nothing illegal about the pictures per se, I don't believe it to be the morally right thing to do.

Surely freedom of speech is an absolute, isn't that the point.

ja, so it's fair to act offended.

by that i suppose it's also fair for us to call this whole thing silly

[Busyman]

Read my posts again.

If you can't do that, I can't be arsed.

"Busy you don't understand. You don't get it."

"Ok what is it then?"

"Oh never mind. The invalid doesn't doesn't get it."

Back and forth over the most mundane.