boycotts of Danish goods in middle East!

[ahctlucabbuS]

You infidel, you!

[JPaul]

Fatwah me up, baby.

[Snee]

But, if you get that, how can you think that every westerner thinks the same as the people who write in the paper(s)?

And also, do you know what the pictures were meant to say? 'cos as far as I know it may well be that it was



If so, they were hardly saying anything about you, or trying to get to you, but rather they were trying to do something to or about the ones that blow people up.

And you don't do that, do you?


My point is that all you've seen are those pics, you don't know (and you don't seem to care) why they were in there. And to top it off, you seem to want to blame everyone who isn't like you, like some racist or something.

You think the chap may have become some kind of fascist xenophobiac fucktard fundamentalist, I think that's a bit harsh.

He justs expects everyone else to feel the same way as he does about his religion, that it is precious and should not be mocked. Others are more able to laugh at their own (and others) religion, but to each their own.

Problem is, that he's pretty much been saying that all the people in those countries that have published those pictures think alike, that they are all out to hurt him, and that his people has the right to mess with the respective economies of those countries, for it. And he isn't even willing to consider that the pictures might not have been published to mock his religion.

If I'd have seen a picture of Jesus wrapped in the american flag or something, back when I was a believer, I'd not automatically have thunk that it was a representation of the Jesus I believed in, and this is a bit like that.

Bawa doesn't seem to be willing to consider that it might not have been an attempt to mock what he believes in, instead he prefers to blame and villainize us all.

[Snee]

Then you're back to blaming all muslims (by printing those pictures) for something a small group of individuals (the terrorists) do?

No I'm not, 'cos again, the pictures might not be intended to show muhammed "as he was", but what the terrorists, not every muslim, believe it.

Is that so hard to understand?

[maebach]

I'm partially understanding your thoughts snny.

I think we can expect another terrorist strike soon

[JPaul]

You think the chap may have become some kind of fascist xenophobiac fucktard fundamentalist, I think that's a bit harsh.

He justs expects everyone else to feel the same way as he does about his religion, that it is precious and should not be mocked. Others are more able to laugh at their own (and others) religion, but to each their own.

Problem is, that he's pretty much been saying that all the people in those countries that have published those pictures think alike, that they are all out to hurt him, and that his people has the right to mess with the respective economies of those countries, for it. And he isn't even willing to consider that the pictures might not have been published to mock his religion.

If I'd have seen a picture of Jesus wrapped in the american flag or something, back when I was a believer, I'd not automatically have thunk that it was a representation of the Jesus I believed in, and this is a bit like that.

Bawa doesn't seem to be willing to consider that it might not have been an attempt to mock what he believes in, instead he prefers to blame and villainize us all.

I agree with you, there's just a certain phrase I wanted to use

[Busyman]

And furthermore, it's entirely possible for the staff or owner(s) of the paper to subscribe to a specific view and/or ideology that isn't shared by the majority of the population. Here we have papers with socialist tendencies, for instance, and that particular ideology isn't one that's shared by the entire population.

yeh thats why it efficts reached norwagian, french, Ispanish, UK, Italia and many other Europian newspapers, they all re-posted the same cartoons. now how in the hell u say not all western think same, they all are trying to hurt our feelings, one can be mistake two also can be but 3rd wont be a mistake its on purpose.
btw french newspaper owner fired his GM for reposting it.

I hope every fucking paper publishes those pics so you can wage war against the entire world...oh wait.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Then you're back to blaming all muslims (by printing those pictures) for something a small group of individuals (the terrorists) do?

No I'm not, 'cos again, the pictures might not be intended to show muhammed "as he was", but what the terrorists, not every muslim, believe it.

Is that so hard to understand?

No, but they're still picturing Muhammed regardless.

There are better ways to go about portraying the fanatics' believes as insane. At least when, as this case shows, whatever noble intentions there may be to separate ordinary, sane Muslims from the fanatics clearly goes unnoticed. Instead you get a situation that can only do more harm than good.

[JPaul]

No I'm not, 'cos again, the pictures might not be intended to show muhammed "as he was", but what the terrorists, not every muslim, believe it.

Is that so hard to understand?

No, but they're still picturing Muhammed regardless.

There are better ways to go about portraying the fanatics' believes as insane. At least when, as this case shows, whatever noble intentions there may be to separate ordinary, sane Muslims from the fanatics clearly goes unnoticed. Instead you get a situation that can only do more harm than good.

Fair point, however it does strike of political correctness. To what extent do we allow others to say, "You can't express your opinion on that subject, or in that way, because I object to it".

I object to stoning, public corporal punishment, bleeding cattle to death, busyman and various other things. However others carry on, in spite of my objections. They then impose sanctions on a country, because of a cartoon in a newspaper. That seems a bit of a double standard.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Double Standards? Sure.

As a member of Amnesty International I frequently object to what's often going on in muslim countries and especially in countries with "muslim laws".

However, wouldn't I be accused of double standards if I were to deny them their right to object in this case? Sure, some individuals choose to object in a violent way which is completely unacceptable... but as long as their objections are within reason I have no problem with that.