I apologize to you on behalf of 'Muslims'

[Pekka]

Yes and who draws the line what is provocation? I don't think this passed that line. Some people feel it crossed the line. So who makes the call on that? If you are giving personal advices, as to well you should be polite, I agree. But that's where it ends, personal advices.

[Elok]

The recipe for how to cook pork? They depicted the Prophet of Islam WITH A BOMB ON HIS HEAD. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such a thing is going to make certain people very angry. And there's plenty of evidence from past incidents to indicate that when some of the people in question become angry, they tend to express their anger with physical destruction. If people are acting completely surprised by this reaction, they're either disingenuous or terminally stupid.

If a man gets his neighbor's bad-tempered bull riled up by making faces and waving his arms wildly, and the bull then breaks out of his enclosure and gores somebody else, can the man honestly claim total innocence? He knew the stupid animal might react that way, he knew he did not have the power to restrain it if it did, but he teased it anyway.

[Pekka]

Yes, a bomb on his head, in a cartoon, made by some cartoonist. Whoopdidoo.

SO WHAT if a group of people will get angry about it? Your point is?

Getting that hot headed about a cartoon is ridiculous. You still think this is about cartoons though? Do you think this demand will be the last one?

It's the principle of it, if we sell out the principle, we just might as well sell the whole thing, because it's not the same anymore. That's extremist appeasing right there, to give up something you've gained in fear of violence. How much are you willing to give up, or is it just these cartoon things? Did I already say they were cartoons?

[Az]

It's the principle of it, if we sell out the principle, we just might as well sell the whole thing, because it's not the same anymore. That's extremist appeasing right there, to give up something you've gained in fear of violence. How much are you willing to give up, or is it just these cartoon things? Did I already say they were cartoons?

que. eff. tee.

[Pekka]

The point is, JP already apologized, which they didn't have to do but they did, showing some class from them. Government can't apologize for it. Now embassies are burning and we'll see what tomorrow brings us. What do you want people to do? To 'restrain' themselves? We ARE restraining ourselves, embassies are burning and I haven't heard any counter measures to that. That is restraining oneself, that could be interpreted as an act of war in most countries.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by polarnomad


I read the article, but am puzzled as to what conclusion you would like me to draw from it. Could you clarify?

An islamic redacteur that thinks that certain actions made in the the name of islam is more damaging for islam than some drawings ?

Somehow I would think that such a guy would be pretty uotraged if he thougth that the drawings in any way showed something despicable such as child rape or like.

With his comment he actually said that there could be reason in other people thinking the "bomb in turban" drawing made sense.

[Elok]

Well, other jackass papers and web sources could quit reprinting them "on principle." Other than that, there's not much left to do but wait for these people to calm the hell down. It won't take too long if we don't irritate them further and the Danes beef up security around those government buildings they haven't burned already. Mobs are easily discouraged if they aren't provoked and can't succeed in smashing things.

Or people can keep ranting about their rights and insulting the "barbarians." That won't convince them to stop--it will have the opposite effect, if anything--but hey, it'll make you feel better, right?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yes, a bomb on his head, in a cartoon, made by some cartoonist. Whoopdidoo.

SO WHAT if a group of people will get angry about it? Your point is?

Getting that hot headed about a cartoon is ridiculous. You still think this is about cartoons though? Do you think this demand will be the last one?

It's the principle of it, if we sell out the principle, we just might as well sell the whole thing, because it's not the same anymore. That's extremist appeasing right there, to give up something you've gained in fear of violence. How much are you willing to give up, or is it just these cartoon things? Did I already say they were cartoons?

Pekka:

Political Correctness:

[Pekka]

"Or people can keep ranting about their rights"

Exactly. Maybe you will miss those rights when they are gone? Most of us aren't willing to take that path. Most of us like living in free society, where NO entity can come and claim the goods.

What if there are other movements soon, fractions of other religions, that start demanding things to be forbidden. Listen, do you think people should be forbidden to draw a picture of this prophet? If so, then why? If it is forbidden, then there must be consequences, would you punish a man drawing?

If not, if you think we should be able to do it, then personal advices have been given. You are free to criticize the choices of others, but they have the right to make their own choices. And no, it doesn't affect you. Unless extremists get on the move, but unless you want to appease extremists, aka bend over over any demand, these are the prices needed to be paid again, to keep the freedoms we have. It's never free.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Elok
The recipe for how to cook pork? They depicted the Prophet of Islam WITH A BOMB ON HIS HEAD. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such a thing is going to make certain people very angry. And there's plenty of evidence from past incidents to indicate that when some of the people in question become angry, they tend to express their anger with physical destruction. If people are acting completely surprised by this reaction, they're either disingenuous or terminally stupid.

If a man gets his neighbor's bad-tempered bull riled up by making faces and waving his arms wildly, and the bull then breaks out of his enclosure and gores somebody else, can the man honestly claim total innocence? He knew the stupid animal might react that way, he knew he did not have the power to restrain it if it did, but he teased it anyway.

They seem to approve of muslims who carry bombs into crowds, so why should they not think Muhammed would approve and even carry out such an action himself?

If the bull gets riled, we can simply shoot him. Should we simply shoot all the idiots who get riled when a westerner mocks their murderous ideology?

[joncha]

And Christians seem to approve of their priests molesting little boys, right?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, other jackass papers and web sources could quit reprinting them "on principle."

Which principles in your life are you willing to give up every time somebody demands that you shall ?

[chequita guevara]

We have the right to say "******." That doesn't mean we should do it. Don't make a fetish of being offensive just because it is your right to do so. Furthermore, people who are deliberately offensive often find themselves punished for it. Go call your boss an asswhipe and see how long you keep your job.

Violence, however, is not the proper response to an insult. The difference between a bull and a Muslim is one is a man with the ability to make a choice, regardless of how angry he gets. If you provoke a bull, and get killed, it's your fault. If you provoke a Muslim and get killed, it's his fault. I do not accept that Muslims cannot act like civilized people.

[Jaguar]

Che

[joncha]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Che

Quoted for Veracity of Content