Danish embassy invaded - Part II

[Thorn]

Does anyone else like these cookies?

[germanos]

Originally posted by BlackCat
@germanos : I knew I shouldn't have posted that link - taking that pic as your avatar You could at least heve chosen the blurred one.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Please read the article rather than trying to be an apologist for the newspaper. They said the cartoon was offensive and not funny, so they weren't going to print it. Did they not feel the Muslim cartoons were offensive? If they just said they thought it was not funny, then fine, but they said they rejected it because of offensiveness.

You are becoming quite the anti-Muslim apologist, aren't you LOTM?

'The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."'

The paper said they rejected the cartoon cause it was not funny, They said it might be offensive to some, but that was NOT why they rejected it.

In any case whats the point. Suppose JP decided to protect the sensibilities of Christians, but not muslims? Theyre a private newspaper dammit, they dont have an obiligation to treat everyone with equal respect. The Independent refused to run these cartoons, but showed Ariel Sharon as a baby eating monster. And you know what, that the Indys free speech right.

And to remind you they solicited teh muhammed cartoons in response to a particular incident - the difficulty a childs book author had finding an illustrator.

You are becoming a censorship apolgist, which i find absolutely rich.

I seem to remember some people upset that the Haitian community in Miami protested the phrase "kill the Haitians" in GTA. Poor Haitians, maybe they should have burned some embassies, phoned in death threats, and and organized an international boycott of all UK products.

[Pekka]

We already went through this. It was the decision of private magazine, a magazine that already apologized. Sure it might be hypocritical of them. So what? Does that change anything? No.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The paper said they rejected the cartoon cause it was not funny, They said it might be offensive to some, but that was NOT why they rejected it.

"Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.""

The current statement that "it would outrage some, not many" is just a cover. When originally denied, it was because "they will provoke an outcry". Not a small offense, but an outcry.

In any case whats the point. Suppose JP decided to protect the sensibilities of Christians, but not muslims?

Which means that they are using double standards and the stated intent, to look into free speech issues with Islam, starts to sound like a bunch of BS since they were concerned about making Chrisitians upset in previous drawings, but didn't give a hoot about doing the same for Muslims. It just is something that gives more of a voice to those who are peacefully protesting (and there are some).

You are becoming a censorship apolgist, which i find absolutely rich.

Being polite to others and realizing something you say will not be well recieved is a far cry from censorship.

If you tell me not to call a black person ******, are you censoring me? If a newspaper publishes a story called "******" and is protested and boycotted by Black Americans, is that a case of censorship?

Censorship is government action, and I don't recall calling for the government to ban this paper from running its cartoons.

I seem to remember some people upset that the Haitian community in Miami protested the phrase "kill the Haitians" in GTA. Poor Haitians, maybe they should have burned some embassies, phoned in death threats, and and organized an international boycott of all UK products.

HAR HAR MR STRAWMAN STRIKES AGAIN! Because someone here is advocating violence!!

So, when did you stop killing Muslims, LOTM?

[Pekka]

saying ****** will target a person. Drawing a dude doesn't.
Should I think a magazine should be print the word ****** and use it? Sure. Up to the magazine though. I won't be burning embassies over it, if some foreing paper does that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
saying ****** will target a person. Drawing a dude doesn't.
Should I think a magazine should be print the word ****** and use it? Sure. Up to the magazine though. I won't be burning embassies over it, if some foreing paper does that.

Would you be mad if people protested because a magazine did so?

And how does saying '******' in a magazine target a particular person? It just targets a group.

[Pekka]

If a magazine did that, I wouldn't be mad but I would understand people would protest.

IT's when people would start burning embassies around the world, it's when people start giving death threats, it's when people start burning the embassies of other countries too because, oh well no one even knows why.

It's when they say it's OK to now kill those individuals around the world, the citizens of where that magazine originated from.

Yeah I have hard time understanding that one.

[Arrian]

Regardless of whether we here believe the Danish newspapers' editor about his "real" reasons for not publishing the Jesus cartoons, does anybody seriously think that many Muslims will? Or any of the Muslims already pissed off about this?

****ing hell.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
If a magazine did that, I wouldn't be mad but I would understand people would protest.

IT's when people would start burning embassies around the world, it's when people start giving death threats, it's when people start burning the embassies of other countries too because, oh well no one even knows why.

It's when they say it's OK to now kill those individuals around the world, the citizens of where that magazine originated from.

Yeah I have hard time understanding that one.

NO ONE here is advocating the violence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Regardless of whether we here believe the Danish newspapers' editor about his "real" reasons for not publishing the Jesus cartoons, does anybody seriously think that many Muslims will? Or any of the Muslims already pissed off about this?

****ing hell.

-Arrian

Another good point.. it'll be quite a good propoganda tool to use for more rioting. Look, they benefit Christians but not Muslims in Europe. It's a Crusader mentality!!

[Pekka]

The discussion of are the pics offensive to many muslims is non-issue, it's trivial, of course it is.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui NO ONE here is advocating the violence.

I am GO VIOLENCE, but what are we talking about again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
The discussion of are the pics offensive to many muslims is non-issue, it's trivial, of course it is.

Well, not to the Muslims who aren't engaging in violence, but are enraged . More fuel for the fire as well.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by germanos

You probably already knew this, but:

One of three especially inflammatory but undocumented Muhammad images distributed by a Danish imam as an example of an "anti-Muslim environment" in the European country turns out to be a poorly reproduced copy of an Associated Press photo taken at a French pig-squealing contest.

The weblog NeanderNews pointed out the image used by Imam Ahmad Abu Laban was a faxed copy of AP's Aug. 15 photo of Jacques Barrot competing at the annual French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48718

Imams

French Pig-Squealing Championships