Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/5/06 10:58 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:
You're overlooking the key difference here. Radical Christians weren't going around threatening to blow up movie theaters and kidnap people in retaliation of this movie. Nor do they go around threatening to kill people for what they think is blasphemous. If Muslims were just out denouncing these cartoons, and boycotting or whatever, fine. But they're not. They're threating to kill, maim and kidnap.

Pro Lifers are Chriustian Fundamentalist, and they go around bombing clinics and shooting abortionists, so there is a connection in there somewhere.

Look at Pat Robertson. He suggested the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and he caught all hell for it from the media. Now there's thousands, if not tens of thousands suggesting, and for some, demanding people die? The outrage that Robertson received should be multiplied many times over for these. Is it? No.

Yet if you read The Daily Mail, they demand Muslim clerics (notably Abu Hamza) should be shot on a weekly basis, and nobody lifts a finger. Why? Is it because it seems to be OK to take the piss out of Islam and Muslims as they seem to be the only religion that doesn't have more lawyers than clerics?

When the cartoons were originally published back in September, there wasn't a bloodlusting outrage, just a boycott of Danish goods for ridiculing their religion. When they were reprinted in Norway in January, again it was just a boycott and not a full-on jihad. What kicked it off is your typical bullshit rights argument - when the French reprinted them and hid behind "freedom of the press", yet seem to want to silence the minority that are protesting because, apparently, if you ridicule the icon of a religion and link him with terrorism, it's apparently just a joke and not going to cause offence.

What people don't think about is the reaction of insulting other religions. They don't wonder what'd happen if any of the following were printed:
* Millions of non-Jewish people died in WWII, so you can stop going on about the Holocaust now.
* John Paul II was just a man, so why is it a big deal he's dead?
* Scientology isn't a proper religion anyway.

Those won't be printed in the usual Western press as, apparently, it's offensive to insult central figures of Catholocism or the plight of Judaism (or get sued shitless by L Ron Hubbard's lawyers), so nobody will. Yet Mohammed can be protrayed with a bomb as his turban and "it's just a joke" and should be printed as there's "freedom of the press"? Fine, then it's fine for the Islamic press to say those responsible should be beheaded and burned as, after all, that's meant in jest and is another example of freedom of the press.

Or maybe it's been a slow month for news, so why not fan the flames of a story to get good pictures while once more portraying those irrational Arabs as psychotic, book-burning neanderthals that'd sooner fly a plane into a building than engage in rational debate?

Hey when do you think trey parker/matt stone will do an episode on this? I was thinking it could be a sequel to the scientology episode (which ended with all the scientologists threatening to sue stan for "mocking scientology" and then leaving).

At 2/8/06 10:33 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
Yet if you read The Daily Mail, they demand Muslim clerics (notably Abu Hamza) should be shot on a weekly basis, and nobody lifts a finger. Why?

It's someone's opinion, probably.

When the cartoons were originally published back in September, there wasn't a bloodlusting outrage, just a boycott of Danish goods for ridiculing their religion.

Do you agree with this coarse of action? Say the French were out to "pick a fight" as it were. Shouldn't Muslims be able to recognize this and not go ahead and fulfill the stereotype set forth by the French? Seems to me the French got it right in the first place, and the Islamic actions only sifts the fundamentalists to the top. Like when people here support Robertson, we know they're nutz.

What people don't think about is the reaction of insulting other religions. They don't wonder what'd happen if any of the following were printed:
* Millions of non-Jewish people died in WWII, so you can stop going on about the Holocaust now.
* John Paul II was just a man, so why is it a big deal he's dead?
* Scientology isn't a proper religion anyway.

I wish I could find the editorial counterpoints printed in the minneapolis star tribune. They've covered all three, though not in the exact same wording, but the same gist. Each of those headlines as a certain amount of credibility, if properly backed with research and a justified opinion.

Do you think the French were unjustified in printing those cartoons in their own country?

Those won't be printed in the usual Western press as, apparently, it's offensive to insult central figures of Catholocism or the plight of Judaism (or get sued shitless by L Ron Hubbard's lawyers), so nobody will.

It's about entertainment, not offensiveness. I thought you knew that.

Yet Mohammed can be protrayed with a bomb as his turban and "it's just a joke" and should be printed as there's "freedom of the press"? Fine, then it's fine for the Islamic press to say those responsible should be beheaded and burned as, after all, that's meant in jest and is another example of freedom of the press.

Because Mohammed might come down from Heaven with a bomb strapped to his head and then we'd be sorry? I could give a shit less if the Islamic press wants to inflame their masses; it makes it easier to weed out the crazies, like Robertson does for us, so they can be earmarked and shot when the chance presents itself.

Should the Girls Gone Wild producers be beheaded for portraying women in a light other than that set forth by Islamic law?

Just curious.

Or maybe it's been a slow month for news, so why not fan the flames of a story to get good pictures while once more portraying those irrational Arabs as psychotic, book-burning neanderthals that'd sooner fly a plane into a building than engage in rational debate?

I really think ^this^ is more the case.

You guys don't get it, drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), is ABSOLUTLEY not allowed in the Muslim religon, it is against everything we believe in.

The reason that the Muslim people got into a riot, and not like before is because before, you made fun of Muslim people, making fun of a Prophet is against our religon, freedom of speech is just a fucking lame excuse, freedom of speech does not give ANY fucking right to do what you want to, if that is the case then there shouldn't be any freedom of speech, if you want to continue doing your shit Denmark, then keep it in your unknown country, or else you have to except Muslim people to get mad, what the fuck do you think they'd do, after all the things that's happening in the Middle East, you thing they'll enjoy this? I'm going to draw a picture of your prince with a pussy, I don't think you'd be pleased, or a pope raping a kid, I don't think you'd be pleased either.

Of couse I'm not going to do it because I have a mind, and I use it.. I don't just make idoit cartoon to make the world know what "Denmark" is, anyone who thinks this is a joke is a fucking lunatic, it's not a joke, it's not funny and it's not even cool.

Whats the gain in all of this? Money? You lost billons... Respect? You lost billions... You didn't gain anything, infact you decreased everything, now you won't apologize for a so called "stupid cartoon"? If it is so stupid then just apologize and get over with it? Go ahead, it's just a stupid cartoon.

The moral of this is, keep your shit to yourself, people come from different backgrounds, religons and thoughts, not everyone appreicates what you think, out of all the possibility's in the world, you had to make a cartoon, why? Just answer me this... WHY?

At 2/8/06 02:06 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote:

The moral of this is, keep your shit to yourself, people come from different backgrounds, religons and thoughts, not everyone appreicates what you think, out of all the possibility's in the world, you had to make a cartoon, why? Just answer me this... WHY?

Because they wanted to Illustrate a point of how Middle Eastern Radicals use Muhamids name in thier acts of terror and violence.

At 2/8/06 02:06 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote:
The moral of this is, keep your shit to yourself, people come from different backgrounds, religons and thoughts.

Exactly. On a sidenote, if you don't keep your shit (violence) to yourself, we'll have to squish you.

Muslims are right to be offended by this cartoon. Islam clearly states that depictions of Mohammad, even positive ones, are forbidden. Not only was this cartoon a depiction of Mohammad, it was a very unflattering one (pictures him as terrorist), and many consider it to be blasphemous.

Even though I am not a Muslim, and even though I have liberal beliefs, I was very appalled at what the Danish newspaper did, and what the other European countries did when they reprinted the cartoon. Surely many will say it is freedom of expression or freedom of the press, but at what cost? Look at all the damage that was caused as a result of this cartoon. All in the name of "freedom of the press". There is a big difference between having freedom and flaunting it. If you can't be responsible with your liberties, you don't deserve them.

Yes, they have rights to be offended, of course.
But do they have rights to burn the embassy because of it?
And, the cartoon was drawed in Denmark in October, so i think the leaders just want to make the pepole angry to be able to wage war agingst westners.

Whats really funny is that Denmark made these silly pictures to "make people laugh" When the laughing is directly pointed it to them, didnt understand me?

Denmark thought these pictures were going to amuse people all over Denmark and abroad, but there the ones who should be laughed at! There the country who lost Millions if not Billions of Danish currency to these 12 pictures, think about it, 12 stupid and no-sensed pictures drawn and in the end you lose billions of currency? Billions! Denmarks economy lost so many money, for the pictures, yet the government wont do anything, aren't they the people who lost the money? If I was the Danish government I would be angry at the newspaper owner, they made Denmark lose a whole shitload worth of money.

Think About That.

At 2/8/06 04:11 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote: Whats really funny is that Denmark made these silly pictures to "make people laugh" When the laughing is directly pointed it to them, didnt understand me?

There the country who lost Millions if not Billions of Danish currency to these 12 pictures, think about it, 12 stupid and no-sensed pictures drawn and in the end you lose billions of currency? Billions!

So you are teasing them for not raping your peoples more like the US does?

If I was the Danish government I would be angry at the newspaper owner, they made Denmark lose a whole shitload worth of money.

This is why you guys lose out on government; you're too fucking reactional.

Think About That.

It seems funny.

At 2/8/06 02:06 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote: You guys don't get it, drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), is ABSOLUTLEY not allowed in the Muslim religon, it is against everything we believe in.

o rly
(.) (.)
^
---
V

The reason that the Muslim people got into a riot, and not like before is because before, you made fun of Muslim people, making fun of a Prophet is against our religon, freedom of speech is just a fucking lame excuse, freedom of speech does not give ANY fucking right to do what you want to, if that is the case then there shouldn't be any freedom of speech, if you want to continue doing your shit Denmark, then keep it in your unknown country, or else you have to except Muslim people to get mad, what the fuck do you think they'd do, after all the things that's happening in the Middle East, you thing they'll enjoy this? I'm going to draw a picture of your prince with a pussy, I don't think you'd be pleased, or a pope raping a kid, I don't think you'd be pleased either.

Actually freedom of speech does give you the right to do whatever you want. If you dont like freedom of speech stop typing your opinion. And definately get the hell of newgrounds. Without freedom of speech this site would be a picture of George Bush.

No i dont think anyone would be pleased to see their "prince with a pussy" as you so elegantly stated. But we woudnt go ape nuts and try to burn an embassy down.

Of couse I'm not going to do it because I have a mind, and I use it.. I don't just make idoit cartoon to make the world know what "Denmark" is, anyone who thinks this is a joke is a fucking lunatic, it's not a joke, it's not funny and it's not even cool.

For one its not an idiot cartoon. IT has a point. And they didnt draw it to make people know what denmark is. It was the illustator getting his point across. And if thats wrong I dont want to be right.

Whats the gain in all of this? Money? You lost billons... Respect? You lost billions... You didn't gain anything, infact you decreased everything, now you won't apologize for a so called "stupid cartoon"? If it is so stupid then just apologize and get over with it? Go ahead, it's just a stupid cartoon.

There standing by what they believe in.

The moral of this is, keep your shit to yourself, people come from different backgrounds, religons and thoughts, not everyone appreicates what you think, out of all the possibility's in the world, you had to make a cartoon, why? Just answer me this... WHY?

Ok than practice what you preach. Dont post . Do you know how many people you could have offened with this post. People from denmark, catholics..... You can tip toe around peoples feelings for a long time and never deal with an issue. why? why did you make this post? to share you views with peers.

I am amazed that so many muslims are offended by this and not the way radical muslims are acting. Yep nothing makes me think religion of peace like burning down an embassy.

1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression: An Analysis

By Richard C. Csaplar, Jr.
Guest Columnist

Mr. Csaplar, a member of the Regent University Board of Trustees, writes in response to a recent article on the Crusades in U.S. News & World Report.

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is going to piss off a lot of people.

And I hope it does.

At 2/8/06 11:06 AM, Geordi_LaForge wrote:

At 2/8/06 10:33 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
Yet if you read The Daily Mail, they demand Muslim clerics (notably Abu Hamza) should be shot on a weekly basis, and nobody lifts a finger. Why?

It's someone's opinion, probably.

Made easier by the fact that, in Britain, the Race Hate Laws state that you cannot and will not make fun of Sikhs and Jews, but every other religion is fair game. Except for the fact that the three main rleigions in the UK are Christian, Catholic and Church of England, so you don't want to upset your dominant ideology and readership, so go for about the onbly religion you can take the piss out of and everyone thinks it's OK, as we're led to believe all Muslims are murderous, terrorist scum by these very same papers

When the cartoons were originally published back in September, there wasn't a bloodlusting outrage, just a boycott of Danish goods for ridiculing their religion.

Do you agree with this coarse of action? Say the French were out to "pick a fight" as it were. Shouldn't Muslims be able to recognize this and not go ahead and fulfill the stereotype set forth by the French? Seems to me the French got it right in the first place, and the Islamic actions only sifts the fundamentalists to the top. Like when people here support Robertson, we know they're nutz.

Shame the Muslims went to the Danish, really.

On one hand, they have the same argument of free speech (after all, the only bodycount is Muslims shot by police in Israel, about a week before a high ranking Israeli official points out Israeli polic treat Jews and Muslims very differnetly, by the way). But remember, at all times, it's a minority of Muslims burning and threatening (but not doing) decapitations. Although a mass rally in Beirut this weekend may change that...

Do I support it? Hey, if you're going to rile several million people, don't bitch when a few get that highly wound up.

What people don't think about is the reaction of insulting other religions. They don't wonder what'd happen if any of the following were printed:
* Millions of non-Jewish people died in WWII, so you can stop going on about the Holocaust now.
* John Paul II was just a man, so why is it a big deal he's dead?
* Scientology isn't a proper religion anyway.

I wish I could find the editorial counterpoints printed in the minneapolis star tribune. They've covered all three, though not in the exact same wording, but the same gist. Each of those headlines as a certain amount of credibility, if properly backed with research and a justified opinion.

Read at the top - Judaisim is protected by Race Hate Laws, Islam isn't. However, this doesn't cover why no major news outlet in the West condemns Israel when they drive their tanks into Palestinian settlements or shoot civilians left and right...

Do you think the French were unjustified in printing those cartoons in their own country?

The reasons are very unjustified - hiding behind "freedom of the press" is cowardly and another typical Bullshit Rights Argument. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's right, last time I checked. After all, British Law says I can piss in the wheel arch of a black cab, but does that mean I necessarily have to?

Those won't be printed in the usual Western press as, apparently, it's offensive to insult central figures of Catholocism or the plight of Judaism (or get sued shitless by L Ron Hubbard's lawyers), so nobody will.

It's about entertainment, not offensiveness. I thought you knew that.

No, I didn't - I've been upset ever since The Black and White Minstrel Show got cancelled because apparently it was offensive...

Yet Mohammed can be protrayed with a bomb as his turban and "it's just a joke" and should be printed as there's "freedom of the press"? Fine, then it's fine for the Islamic press to say those responsible should be beheaded and burned as, after all, that's meant in jest and is another example of freedom of the press.

Because Mohammed might come down from Heaven with a bomb strapped to his head and then we'd be sorry? I could give a shit less if the Islamic press wants to inflame their masses; it makes it easier to weed out the crazies, like Robertson does for us, so they can be earmarked and shot when the chance presents itself.

Hang on, repeat the last part of the sentence. Actually, all of it - come to think of it, renounce God. After all, I don't give a shit yadda yadda yadda. Problem is, that'd draw more complaints and less "can't you take a joke" comments than yours did. Strange world.

Should the Girls Gone Wild producers be beheaded for portraying women in a light other than that set forth by Islamic law?

No - beheaded for reducing IQs to dangerous levels. Just like the WWE creative team should be beheaded for the Mohammed Hassan terrorist angle last year - not because it happened to air on the 7th July, but because it was poorly thought out and creativly bankrupt, even for them.

I knew I'd remember that one eventually.

Just curious.

Or maybe it's been a slow month for news, so why not fan the flames of a story to get good pictures while once more portraying those irrational Arabs as psychotic, book-burning neanderthals that'd sooner fly a plane into a building than engage in rational debate?

I really think ^this^ is more the case.

Hey, svaes me mentioning The Satanic Verses...

Uhm Mathew, your are forgetting your French history now aren't you.

The Berbers and the Moors,

Battle of Poiters.

Editorial on the topic. http://www.commondre../views06/0208-20.htm

At 2/9/06 06:08 PM, redskvnk wrote: Editorial on the topic. http://www.commondre../views06/0208-20.htm

"Adding fuel to the fire, said the Times, were "a group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics...[who] took their show on the road" last fall, traveling around the Middle East showing a package that included cartoons that had never actually appeared in any newspaper, "some depicting Mohammed as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality." Newspapers in France, Germany and elsewhere further fanned the flames by reprinting the Danish drawings."

"What if millions of people take offense? What if some of them turn violent, even murderous? So what? No one can make you angry. You decide whether or not to become angry. If journalistic gatekeepers worry about the mere possibility of prompting outrage, they'll validate mob rule and undermine our right to a free press, one that covers the controversial along with the bland. "

I agree with this writer.

How to piss off 2 religions with 1 cartoon:

http://www.gaspirtz.com/dp/1-8.htm

Should be good for a riot or two.

At 2/9/06 11:17 PM, gspz wrote: How to piss off 2 religions with 1 cartoon:
http://www.gaspirtz.com/dp/1-8.htm
Should be good for a riot or two.

Feh, hardly accurate -- crosses were a method of execution long before they were symbolized -- and not all that funny either.

At 2/8/06 02:06 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote: You guys don't get it, drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), is ABSOLUTLEY not allowed in the Muslim religon, it is against everything we believe in.

Is that what this is all about? They would have burned embasies to the ground and taken hostages even if the cartoon wasn't offensive in nature? I don't see Buhddists rioting over having their founder arrested on an episode of "The Simpsons," Scientologists rioting over a "South Park" episode that implied that the world's most famous Scientologist (Tom Cruise) was gay, or Christians rioting over "Piss Christ" (Jesus in a jar of urine). So what makes Islam so special that we can't make a joke at your expense every now and again?

In a world of free press, your religion is always just inches away from being offended. My advice: either learn to take the criticism or drop your faith (I'd go with option II; faith in the irrational is worthless anyway...).

At 2/8/06 02:06 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote:

You guys don't get it, drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), is ABSOLUTLEY not allowed in the Muslim religon, it is against everything we believe in.

No, this is not about your cartoon anymore. It is about the East using it as an excuse to bitch about the West and generally act like asses. It could have been a little Muslim getting lynched. It could have been another movie (wasnt it a movie or documentary?) like that Van Gogh fellow made. It could have been anything your religion would have found offensive.

Its just for some reason the mainstream of your religion is quite a bit more reactionary and crazy than the mainstream of the other major religions at this time. In short, the mainstream of your religion is just using this cartoon as political leverage to bitch about the West and to try to get some sort of sympathy or concessions out of them. Either that or to try to scare the shit out of the West.

And I can promise you, your extremists in your religion (and even a large part of your religion as a whole) has scared the shit out of the West. Papers and news shows wont even show the cartoons here for fear of death and retaliation. What message exactly does that send? I can tell you, not a good one for Islam.

At 2/9/06 11:17 PM, gspz wrote: How to piss off 2 religions with 1 cartoon:

http://www.gaspirtz.com/dp/1-8.htm

Should be good for a riot or two.

Gaspirtz, you are so dead!

Just kidding.

At 2/9/06 11:17 PM, gspz wrote: How to piss off 2 religions with 1 cartoon:

http://www.gaspirtz.com/dp/1-8.htm

Should be good for a riot or two.

Ah, you can't print that due to the Race Hate Laws.

Remember, you can't insult the Jews or Sikhs as you'd be on criminal charges, but Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are all fair game.

Who cares!? I see people all the time mocking my beliefe. Hell i had friends that used to antagonize me any chance they could! You dont see me going into a crowded intersection with bombs strapped to my chest and blowing everyone to hell becuase NBC aires a show mocking the crucifiction of christ. Give me a break!
If you ask me, the muslims are way out of line going about this the way that they are.

If you've seen Syriana, you'll know what im talking about in my next sentence. Some young kids go with some freaky guy to look at a surface to air missle. The older muslim convinces them to put it on the bow of a boat, and ram into giant cargo ship.
Older muslim: "You shall die, and i shall live, becuase Allah wills it."
Young Kids: "What if we dont want to?"
Older muslim: "than you will die anyway, becuase you know about my plot, and you will not get into heaven...Also, allah wills it."

Im fed up with People's bitching. Sometimes people have the right to do so. But when it comes to poeple pleasing, im sickened! Liberals are my pet peeve. All they do is bitch until they get their way. They only succeed becuase the govt. wants them to cut their shit out! But what happens when you give a mouse a cookie? He Bitches and protests until he gets his milk.

If people could find something worth bitching about in the first place, none of this crap would be happening. Something worth protesting about would be freedom in China. Look back at Tiananmen Square, and answer me this... Why those kids there? What were they protesting, and why? If i recall correctly they were marching for freedom! They werent complaining about how offended some people might get if they put a comic strip in the newspapaer portraying Mao Zedong as a Masicist in a leather thong Being urinated on by the leader of North Korea.

In short, quit your bitching. Its seems freedom is never enough for some people!

hahahaha that whole issue has me ROFLMAO! The muslims that have gone round burning things and shooting guns just re-itterate what the cartoonist was saying in the first place! They really aren't helping themselves in any way at all!!!

At 2/8/06 02:06 PM, CatiousOutlaw wrote: You guys don't get it, drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), is ABSOLUTLEY not allowed in the Muslim religon, it is against everything we believe in.

Lol, I had no idea Allah was such a prick.

To you people whom just don't get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Read the god damn article.

http://www.washingto..A2304-2005Jan11.html

About Bush and the US government, what does that have to do about things?

Well... originally the media has always been on Bush's side, basically fabricating things so that the public has Bush's back. And then criticizing anyone whom has a different say on anything.

http://en.wikipedia...ki/Freedom_of_speech

About Freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is only allowed in each government or nation, but there is no say on things that work internationally. Also the freedom of speech must concide or not work against the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.

The Dan's Freedom of speech worked against the public order of the muslim world. Therefore it's beyond the limits of actual freedom of speech and more like the abused liberty of mockery.

Another thing about freedom of speech is that it only allows the government not to control what you say. But if you should suddenly make a billion people or so angry at you enough to want to kill you then by all means the government doesn't have to do anything to stop them, because it doesn't concide under the foundation of freedom of speech.

Because controlling the public would be against this freedom of speech you people preach about.

You just using it as an excuse to do what you want and have the government protecting you, when they are suppose to just simply allows things to occur without any restriction. But however that clearly means that anyone whom doesn't like what you said, has the freedom to do something about it.

These freedoms only work with your relation with the government, not with your relation with other people.

How can people get any more stupid is beyond me.

Why is it that last year the Sikh community effectivly shut down a play in Birmingham because one scene featured a rape in a temple without massive amounts of fuss about free speech and all that (or stating this proves their religion doesn't like freedom), yet Islam always get it in the neck? It's not like the entire Islam community is busy protesting, daubing and burning, is it?

Better change those race hate laws, eh? It gets in the way of newscasting in this country to the point not one newscaster said "Good" when Ariel Sharon had a stroke.

At 2/15/06 09:52 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Better change those race hate laws, eh? It gets in the way of newscasting in this country to the point not one newscaster said "Good" when Ariel Sharon had a stroke.

The media wasn't saying "good" when Castro fell either. It's not their place to editorialize the news.

Wait a minute...

A minority of hardliners, representing a religion primarily based in the Eastern Hemesphere, threatening violnece against people that purchase or receive a bit of paper and ransack shops selling them.

Now, why wasn't this given widespread coverage? After all, there's images of people burning placards in the street and the usual images of angry masses to point cameras at?

Is it because:
A.) You don't want to appear racist by aiming negative coverage towards Hindus.
B.) You want to sell more Valentines cards.
C.) It's easier to paint Muslims as evil, freedom-hating psychopaths that'll decapitate you for looking at them funny.
D.) Because you can relate it to any story relating to muslims since The Satanic Verses (Hey, read Galtung & Ruge!).

Two very similar stories (replace decapitations with generally getting your head kciked in) from two hardline, anti-West minorities of more Eastern religions, yet one is splashed across the world's media, and the other is buried on the page 18s of the world, and impossible to find on the BBC site if you aren't looking for it. Nothing to do with it being easy to demonise anything Islam, is it?

Oh, and I believe the world's press was mocking Castro's fall more than saying what a tragic occurance it was. Last time I checked, Castro wasn't trying to even out the Holocaust bodycount with the nearest Palestinian settlements...

Yesterday, I was accused of saying "all arabs are terrorists" at school. Of course I didn't say it, and, no they were not able to find evidence to substantiate the belief that I said it and the kid who actually said it was punished. Interestingly enough, however, I believe that saying this is protected speech (in the United States) under the First Amendment, because it does not incite violence. What do you guys think?

At 2/15/06 09:52 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Why is it that last year the Sikh community effectivly shut down a play in Birmingham because one scene featured a rape in a temple without massive amounts of fuss about free speech and all that (or stating this proves their religion doesn't like freedom), yet Islam always get it in the neck?

First of all, the play involved the portrayal of a universally-illegal, known-to-be-risque action in the middle of a universally-defined "sacred place." Anyone has the right to speak out against that play, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Second, the Sikh didn't burn embassies, riot for days, kill people, make international demands for apology, make kidnapping and murder threats, write opposing "Holocaust" cartoons, and burn the flags of another nation.

The Islamics did that, so of course they're going to get it in the neck when they act like such childish idiots on an international scale.