Picture Row

[Trem]

Just to vent, white christians or white agnostics are the new minority and the new victim of discrimination.

It seems like it's ok for these muslim extremists to march about with placards calling for the death and maiming of those responsible for whatever - were they even arrested?! Not to the best of my knowledge.

I'd like to see what happens if a group of white men (as disgusting as it would be...) walk about with "kill all asians" or "murder all muslims" or "those against christ will be hanged" - i'd almost certainly bet that they'd be nicked and charged with inciting racial hatred before you can say Allah.

And that is what's wrong with this fucking hole of a country.

Amen to that......or shalam or whatever it is I am meant to say nowadays.

 

[Furr]

You have alot of devout roman catholics from eastern europe coming over in the so called "second migration" at the moment, give it a couple years and your going to have as many fanatic eastern european christians in this country along side the fanatic muslims....

could be intresting....

 

[nath]

Thing is, hardly anyone here would find anything printed offensive. I certainly wouldn't, but the key difference is that I respect the fact that some people take their beliefs seriously. In my opinion too seriously, but that's my opinion, and again - I respect the fact that other people have differing opinions.

Now if you accept that muslims can take their religion very seriously, and accept that it's fair enough (if it doesn't affect other people) then you'll realise that the cartoon was fucking offensive. You all cite the fact that piss takes about jesus wouldn't bother you - sure, but it would bother some people. Also, if swastika cartoons were put in leading newspapers and not in an ironic/satirical way but just plain ole' offensive then I bet most of you would understand the jewish community being furious. Even if you didn't find it personally offensive.

I'm strongly believe in free speech and feel that these sort of cartoons should be allowed to be printed, but I'd expect to see them in the BNP's weekly newsletter, not a proper paper.

Also, it disappoints if not shocks me that so many of you pointblank refuse to accept that this cartoon was way out of line rather than jumping in with your daily mailesque rhetoric. Quickly criticising the muslim extremist reaction, and not at the same time condemning the cartoon as it should be.

It really doesn't surprise me, but it does get to me a bit that you guys refuse to see what's patently a racist cartoon as just that. Instead just saying "meh, wouldn't bother me and what's more muslims are psycho's for wanting people dead for it". It's obvious that the death threats are way out of line, but what seems to be less obvious is just how out of line the thing that originated all this was.

 

[Tom]

Muslim isn't 'a race'.

And I know people who are offended by the word 'actress' and I still don't give a fuck.

Its only in your opinion nath that the cartoons were out of line. I'm not trying to denigrate your post or your opinion, but I think its only fair to suggest that most people in this country really don't care that much about these cartoons. And if I'm correct, and that that is the commonly-held view, then I don't see why anybody should be censured for reprinting them.

By all means, people may protest peaceably over this, but setting fire to buildings and damaging public property and screaming for the deaths of those involved deserves use of the full weight of the law.

I tend to take the view that people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, perhaps instead of condemning the concept of free speech these people should be condemning the concept of blowing yourself and others to smithereens in the name of your religion and homeland.

 

[tris-]

if anything the cartoons were ironic, but i think someone said that already?

lets compare this -

you say the cartoons were out of line

setting an embassy a light and trying to kill people is out of line because they didnt like the cartoons

but we need to compare these in the context. the worse thing here is setting fire to an embassy building because you dont like a cartoon.
i guess that is why there is a big deal about the burning etc. because they are raging over a cartoon that they them selves have done in the past (only not in cartoon form obviously. frescos etc).

and its a cartoon ffs.

the islamists are being hypocrites too.

as stated, islamists them selves have depiced mohammed hundreds of times. when according to them, mohammed cannot be depicted in any form at all. why dont they kill each other then?

its one rule for non islamists (death and destruction) and another rule for islamists (get away with it, because you are a supposed minority too).

by the way, islam isnt a race. so i dont see how the pictures are racist.

 

[nath]

Jesus, it's like banging your head against a fucking brick wall. I say the cartoons were out of line and you come back saying that violence is wrong. Where did I say it was justified. My point which clearly you totally missed was that you guys seem to miss just how offensive those cartoons were. I've never suggested that death threats/any sort of violence was an acceptable response and yet you constantly bring that up.

Plus, the fact that islam isn't a race and so the cartoon can't be called racist is mere semantics and a totally fucking pointless statement.

 

[tris-]

actually i did see and understand your point and then tryed to make my point, which i think you missed and stopped reading as soon as i mentioned violence?

i didnt see how the cartoon can cause offence. lets take one - a bomb in the turban. the only way they can find this offence is because they know they have given them selves this image of being terrorists or what ever. because imo this is what that picture is showing. only imo ofc, maybe you think it means something else.

i dont see why we should be fucked over because another country finds photos drawn in EUROPE offensive... i find it offensive that women are burnt with acid and stoned to death outside of europe, so i think it should be stopped. i dont like to think a woman is being batterd because of rules set by a bunch of stupid men.

dont care its tradition etc, stop it because i dont like it and its offensive to what i believe.

 

[Tom]

I think this makes for interesting reading nath. I entirely agree with the sentiments.

Is it any less offensive to Jews to hear the leader of Iran stating his desire to 'wipe out' Israel? I don't recall many muslim protestors kicking up a fuss about that. Yet about 1 million people in this very country, most of them non-muslim, protested about our government's willingness to invade a country dominated by followers of the muslim faith?

Wheres the equality there then?

 

[DaGaffer]

Plus, the fact that islam isn't a race and so the cartoon can't be called racist is mere semantics and a totally fucking pointless statement.

Actually I don't think it is 'mere semantics'. Your race is immutable, your religion is a belief system and nothing more. While I have no truck with people who denigrate others for the colour of their skin, any belief system is fair game in our culture. Any fucking religion that isn't robust enough to take criticism deverses all it gets; you can argue that the cartoons had racial overtones (although given the source I doubt that's the case), but the target was a critique of a belief system that is seen as condoning bombing and suicide attacks; neither of which is true btw, but subsequent events are somewhat ironic.

 

[tris-]

fact is, islamists speak with the strongest words - violence. and while all other religions continue not to then they will continue to keep on 'winning'. if they ever do a pass a bill here like the one detailed in the article, we mayaswell all convert to islam or kill ourselves on the spot.

 

[Louster]

One interesting thing a friend of mine pointed out: apparently the original reason that Islam prohibited the depiction of its prophets was to stop them being worshipped in the same way that Jesus was/is. The point he made was that a derogatory caricature isn't exactly going to encourage worship.

Also - Big G, I was mainly referring to idiotic pap like this:

i also said it before but i wish christians had carried on with their skit of killing other religions etc. then we wouldnt have this problem (or is my history wrong, and they never did this? if so i will take that back).

it is of my oppinion, that people who do these violent acts are not really muslims or religious at all. they are crazy retarded people who look for any excuse to cause a riot.

Ignoring the fact that he's advocating mass genocide due to religion, he then goes on to say that 'they're not religious anyway', thus contradicting any point his previous paragraph might have had. Nice one.

nath - the cartoons were offensive, yes. But what I don't personally understand is why some insignifcant newspaper in some random country publishing something offensive causes outrage across the entire Muslim world. I just really don't understand how that's a rational response. Why does it really matter, to this extent? I mean, I could understand Muslims within Denmark being angry and protesting about that particular paper and whatever, but why the entire world? And why blame Denmark/Europe as a whole?

To be honest I'm not sure anyone's getting the full story, and I wouldn't be really surprised if a lot of this was just due to extremist clerics intentionally misleading their locality to stir up trouble, or something.

 

[nath]

Right, I've been going back and forth responding to individual points but I can't be arsed to reply to every one. My point, ultimately, is this: the cartoon was offensive, and it was in bad taste. Muslims should be allowed to complain about how offensive it was. Violence should NOT be involved in this, and free speech should never be questioned.

My issue is that everyone here jumps to complain about the extremists and no one thinks to question the fact that mainstream press is printing this stuff. If openly anti-semitic stuff were to be printed I expect it'd be a different story.

I mean, I could understand Muslims within Denmark being angry and protesting about that particular paper and whatever, but why the entire world? And why blame Denmark/Europe as a whole?

Fair point.

 

[tris-]

Ignoring the fact that he's advocating mass genocide due to religion, he then goes on to say that 'they're not religious anyway', thus contradicting any point his previous paragraph might have had. Nice one.

i was actually trying to pose something to you - do you think if christians did continue to kill all other people of other religions, do you think we would have this problem? on a re-read it does seem to imply i would enjoy to kill people of other religions, this isnt the case.

and by "they" i am talking about this fools who think its ok to kill people because they offended them. do you really think this is what islam is, or do you think they are just using some of it as an excuse to act like dicks?

also, another thing i would like you to consider.

take the films american history X and The Believer, now replace Jews with Islamists. Now afaik the jews didnt go crazy when this film was released. how much would you bet the islamists would go fucking mental and fire bomb the studios and the embasies of the places that put actors/actresses/money into the films?

 

[nath]

I've never heard of The Believer but why on earth would jews go crazy over American History X?

 

[tris-]

hmm, maybe i am thinking of something else then.

ah yes, american history x wasnt jews was it.

well, just take the The Believer then.

imdb.com

 

[old.user4556]

Just to point out (not sure if this is relevant), a cartoon of Muhammad (with or without a bomb) is considered totally unacceptable.

 

[nath]

ah yes, american history x wasnt jews was it.

No, however I fail to see how anyone would take offense at AHX - it's about a racist and how wrong his life was.

Well, I guess racists might take offense.

 

[Tom]

Just to point out (not sure if this is relevant), a cartoon of Muhammad (with or without a bomb) is considered totally unacceptable.

But its acceptable to walk into a crowded area with explosives and blow yourself to bits in the name of Allah. Why aren't these same people who whinge about some cartoon also protesting against suicide bombings? Why aren't they burning the offices of the government of Iran for suggesting that Israel be wiped off the map?

Because they're hypocrites.

 

[tris-]

here is my contribution in support of the artists of the cartoons in subject.

i dont care if you dont like it either, but i think it makes a clear point about how bollocks thise whole thing is over a cartoon.

 

[Tom]

i dont care if you dont like it either, but i think it makes a clear point about how bollocks thise whole thing is over a cartoon.

Have a read of the article I posted on page 7, it poses an interesting theory that some of what they're protesting over may not have actually appeared in print.....

 

[nath]

Why shouldn't I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won't, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.

I'd be very surprised if they hadn't already received such threats. It's pretty amusing that he's suggesting Islamic extremists would be teaching Christian extremists how to terrorise. Do they teach their grandmothers to suck eggs too?

 

[Chilly]

I'd be very surprised if they hadn't already received such threats. It's pretty amusing that he's suggesting Islamic extremists would be teaching Christian extremists how to terrorise. Do they teach their grandmothers to suck eggs too?

When was the last time a catholic (or whatever) ran into a crowded area and blew himself and the people to bits?

 

[Lazarus]

I spoke to my Father in law regarding this yesterday (Muslim, born and raised in Lahore) and he is very religious (5 times a day preayer man and all that.

Also spoke to my brother in law - also born and raised in Pakistan, but slightly less "religious" (unless you count cognac a religion)

Both of them were totally against the anger and violence by a minority of Muslims. What they also said made complete sense as well.

Most of these people inciting violence and shouting for death are probably to stupid to understand that it is merely a cartoon.

Additionally, they CANNOT know that this picture was of Mohammed, since they do not know what mohammed looks like (there are no actual pictures of him since he did not want his followers worshipping a picture)

Some sense from some Muslims (at last?)

 

[Trem]

When was the last time a catholic (or whatever) ran into a crowded area and blew himself and the people to bits?

They prefered to plant the bombs in cars.

 

[Skyler]

Some sense from some Muslims (at last?)

I'm fairly sure a strong majority of Muslims have that kind of sense. But as usual the most idiotic and angry people are always the loudest, so they are all we hear about.

 

[Chilly]

They prefered to plant the bombs in cars.

that's a fucking good point - I completely forgot about the IRA and associated groups.

See? We all need to think before we post (at least I do!) And I rekon everyone here could do with a few history lessons.

 

[DaGaffer]

that's a fucking good point - I completely forgot about the IRA and associated groups.

See? We all need to think before we post (at least I do!) And I rekon everyone here could do with a few history lessons.

Well, not really. The analogy falls down if you look at the history of the IRA more closely; the press always referred to 'sectarian' violence, but the reality was the IRA were actually a marxist organisation that happened to draw its ranks from the Catholic community; religion itself wasn't the reason why it did what it did.

 

[Chilly]

Well, not really. The analogy falls down if you look at the history of the IRA more closely; the press always referred to 'sectarian' violence, but the reality was the IRA were actually a marxist organisation that happened to draw its ranks from the Catholic community; religion itself wasn't the reason why it did what it did.

True, I was going to write something along those lines but decided not to because I wasnt too sure. But terrorists are terrorists right?

 

[Tom]

IRA never sent suicide bombers out. And against civilian targets there was often a warning.

 

[`mongoose]

IRA never sent suicide bombers out. And against civilian targets there was often a warning.

Erm... what about all the pub bombings?

A warning saying we've planted a bomb in London isn't much use when they don't tell you which pub had the bomb in...

Don't get me wrong - I know why the IRA started and agreed with some of their sentiments but they were no cute and fluffy bunnies. They shot civilians as well as 'military' targets. Never mind the number of shot policemen and women - hardly a military target imo.

M