Tweet
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ill wait for the hesaid shesaid stuff to settle out.
First, there were differnences - the mohammed cartoons were in response to a specific newsworthy issue, and in fact included some cartoons that were not at all offensive. Secondly, I have no problem at all with folks peacefully protesting JP. In case youve noticed, even most of the folks who ARENT burning embassies or phoning in death threats, are protesting not JP, but Denmark in general. Theyre boycotting a dairy foods company that is unconnected to JP. They are PEACEFULLY calling for censorship. That, as well as the violence, is what has made this such a big deal to many of us.
What if the Black americans boycotted the state where the newspaper was published? There are huge numbers of people in the muslim world, and muslims living in the West who are calling (peacefully) for Denmark to censor JP.
There are others, largely in the Mideast, possibly encouraged by certain govts, who are using violence.
In the midst of all this, you seem mainly concerned with showing A. that JP may once have rejected some cartoons of Jesus and B. That Germany bans holocaust denial
HAR HAR MR STRAWMAN STRIKES AGAIN! Because someone here is advocating violence!!
I seem to recall some people being deeply critical of Haitians for peacefully protesting GTA. Perhaps im confused and it wasnt you.
Again, Ill let that pass.
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 outrage, but an outcry.
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 outrage, but an outcry.
Ill wait for the hesaid shesaid stuff to settle out.
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).
First, there were differnences - the mohammed cartoons were in response to a specific newsworthy issue, and in fact included some cartoons that were not at all offensive. Secondly, I have no problem at all with folks peacefully protesting JP. In case youve noticed, even most of the folks who ARENT burning embassies or phoning in death threats, are protesting not JP, but Denmark in general. Theyre boycotting a dairy foods company that is unconnected to JP. They are PEACEFULLY calling for censorship. That, as well as the violence, is what has made this such a big deal to many of us.
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.
Censorship is government action, and I don't recall calling for the government to ban this paper from running its cartoons.
What if the Black americans boycotted the state where the newspaper was published? There are huge numbers of people in the muslim world, and muslims living in the West who are calling (peacefully) for Denmark to censor JP.
There are others, largely in the Mideast, possibly encouraged by certain govts, who are using violence.
In the midst of all this, you seem mainly concerned with showing A. that JP may once have rejected some cartoons of Jesus and B. That Germany bans holocaust denial
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!!
I seem to recall some people being deeply critical of Haitians for peacefully protesting GTA. Perhaps im confused and it wasnt you.
So, when did you stop killing Muslims, LOTM?
Again, Ill let that pass.
Comment