16 more killed over cartoons.

[David Swidler]

Because this isn't really about the cartoons. The cartoons are simply a reminder to the Muslim world that there people out there who aren't Muslim, and that is truly what enrages them.

It's not that there are non-Muslims per se, it's that those non-Muslims are having a grand old time of being non-Muslim, and the believers can't tolerate the success and "arrogance" of the nonbelievers, especially when the Muslim world itself is mired in poverty.

 

[bigred]

Wow, I was just talking about this. Vermin? They're human beings.

Technically, perhaps.

But murdering innocents over a freakin cartoon no less disqualifies one from the human race IMO. Pls dispose of appropriately and have a nice day.

Touchy-feely apologists can feel free to join in any time as they are clearly part of the problem (see: Europe).

 

[bigred]

Depends what you think their point is. If you think their point is that the cartoons upset them, sure, they already made their point. If, however, you think their real point is something else, such as that they are willing to commit violence in order to force us to capitulate to whatever their demands are, and that we are too weak and cowardly to stop them, then no, they're not done making that point. They'll keep trying to make that point for a VERY long time.



Until something makes them stop, yes, they will continue to do exactly that.



Yes.

And since you brought up icebergs, I'd like to mention a little historic parallel, namely the Titanic. When it spotted the iceberg in its path, it tried to turn to the side to avoid it, but couldn't do so fast enough. So it struck a glancing blow which tore a small gash down much of the length of the hull. The ship was designed to withstand flooding in several compartments, but the gash tore through one too many, and the ship was doomed. Ironically, had the Titanic instead decided to hit the iceberg head-on, it might have survived. The front compartment would have been badly damaged and would have flooded very quickly, but flooding probably would not have extended any farther back into the hull and the ship would have remained afloat.

Relevance to the current dangers? It's too late in the day to avoid danger. We must take the problem head-on. Some hardship and conflict up front can save us a whole lot of grief in the long run.



Scrutinizer is partly correct. We need to stand ready to kill such people, and we must display our strength and conviction in that regard quite brazenly. But if we're successful at doing that, we won't have to do too much actual killing.

:thunderous applause:

Nice to know at least a few other people get it.

Sadly, I doubt it's nearly enough to matter.

 

[bigred]

It's not that there are non-Muslims per se, it's that those non-Muslims are having a grand old time of being non-Muslim, and the believers can't tolerate the success and "arrogance" of the nonbelievers, especially when the Muslim world itself is mired in poverty.

It's probably a mix of both, but also very well said.

 

[jj]

But murdering innocents over a freakin cartoon no less disqualifies one from the human race IMO.

Well, yes, it does. Just like ordering innocents to do things to or with their bodies that they don't wish to do, just like ordering innocents to get on their knees and thank god, ...

But murder is worse, indeed. There's no reasonable excuse for this kind of behavior, and the people who whipped up the riots ought to be held for murder 1.

 

[FreeChile]

The guy who started all of this was on 60 Minutes, and that seemed to be his position, too. He felt that Muslims were intimidating people into following their rules, and freedom of speech was slowly being eroded without anyone talking about it. He published these cartoons not to insult Muslims but to confront the issue of censorship head-on, and expose Muslim extortion to the light of day.

It sounds to me that he was simply a bigot hiding behind the veil of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, if there is such a thing, would not apply to a single group. If he were truly interested in freedom of speech, the word Muslim should not even be a part of his rhetoric.

 

[Ralph]

:thunderous applause:

Nice to know at least a few other people get it.

Sadly, I doubt it's nearly enough to matter.

Given recent events it's to hard to forsee this not leading to furthur conflict.

I'm sure one thing the jihadis "learned" from all this is how damned EASY it is to keep things stirred up.

Bin Laden hoped to ignite a world-wide "muslim vs infidels" conflict by crashing planes into a building & killing thousands of people.

It didn't work.....but a few cartoons and some haranguing by the Imams and you've mobs of foaming maniacs rioting,killing, burning, and denouncing the US & the Jews(who had nothing to do with the cartoons).

Given how thin-skinned the believers are when it comes to being "offended"---anybody with access to a computer could easily keep things going the way they are---or make things far worse should they so desire...........

 

[Art Vandelay]

It sounds to me that he was simply a bigot hiding behind the veil of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, if there is such a thing, would not apply to a single group. If he were truly interested in freedom of speech, the word Muslim should not even be a part of his rhetoric.

Huh? That makes no sense to me. Muslims are trying to deny others freedom speech. Therefore "Muslims" is part of his rhetoric.

 

[Orwell]

Depends what you think their point is. If you think their point is that the cartoons upset them, sure, they already made their point. If, however, you think their real point is something else, such as that they are willing to commit violence in order to force us to capitulate to whatever their demands are, and that we are too weak and cowardly to stop them, then no, they're not done making that point. They'll keep trying to make that point for a VERY long time.



Until something makes them stop, yes, they will continue to do exactly that.



Yes.

And since you brought up icebergs, I'd like to mention a little historic parallel, namely the Titanic. When it spotted the iceberg in its path, it tried to turn to the side to avoid it, but couldn't do so fast enough. So it struck a glancing blow which tore a small gash down much of the length of the hull. The ship was designed to withstand flooding in several compartments, but the gash tore through one too many, and the ship was doomed. Ironically, had the Titanic instead decided to hit the iceberg head-on, it might have survived. The front compartment would have been badly damaged and would have flooded very quickly, but flooding probably would not have extended any farther back into the hull and the ship would have remained afloat.

Relevance to the current dangers? It's too late in the day to avoid danger. We must take the problem head-on. Some hardship and conflict up front can save us a whole lot of grief in the long run.



Scrutinizer is partly correct. We need to stand ready to kill such people, and we must display our strength and conviction in that regard quite brazenly. But if we're successful at doing that, we won't have to do too much actual killing.

Yeah right... Do you really think you're going to win this with massive violence? That's not working in Iraq, now, is it? You can't fight fundamentalists with a regular army and bombs and invasions. All of that will only contribute to reinforce their hold over the Muslim masses.

That being said...

More cartoons that might offend in the Middle East

 

[Orwell]

Huh? That makes no sense to me. Muslims are trying to deny others freedom speech. Therefore "Muslims" is part of his rhetoric.

Some Muslims are trying to deny others freedom speech.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It may only be 'some' Muslims, but they are doing it not only in the name of Islam, but also according to Sharia law. That makes it Muslim.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Moreover, other Muslims have not made any serious effort to oppose it. There's simply no excuse for Muslims' failure to stop terrorism. The only reasonable is that conclusion Muslims, as a whole, are okay with terrorism.

 

[Orwell]

Moreover, other Muslims have not made any serious effort to oppose it. There's simply no excuse for Muslims' failure to stop terrorism. The only reasonable is that conclusion Muslims, as a whole, are okay with terrorism.

I haven't done anything lately to "oppose terrorism" either, Art. Does that mean that I approve of it? Did the Irish approve of the terrorism in Northern-Ireland? I mean, most Northern-Irish did nothing about it...

Lets call a spade a spade, shall we? This idea that all Muslims (including those that live in the west and have never set foot in a Muslim country and those that live in non-arab countries, i.e. the majority of Muslims when it comes down to it) are somehow responsible for the actions of a minority (albeit a pretty vocal minority), that they automatically approve of these actions because they're not out in the streets protesting them, smacks of, well, bigotry.

 

[NeilC]

I think a hell of a lot of catholics in N.Ireland did support the IRA.

 

[Orwell]

I think a hell of a lot of catholics in N.Ireland did support the IRA.

But it would be pretty dumb to say that Catholics in general, even those that don't live in Northern Ireland, somehow approved of it. Most Catholics had nothing to do with the conflict. The same thing applies to the majority of Muslims.

 

[NeilC]

Yes but the IRA/catholic relationship was entirely different.

Whilst one cannot claim that ALL muslims think someing and even saying "most" needs some evidnce I do believe that Islam itself and therefore all muslims who claim to support it should feel responsible for actions done in it's name.

If I am going to link myself with a group then I feel partly responsible for it's actions. Take Fathers for Justice - as soon as that cock and bull story about them kidnapping Blair's son came out, the leaders said they would probably disband it since they could not condone anything like that being done in their name, even though they personally had nothing to do with it.

I wonder if you polled all muslims on the planet if they supported the terrorists what you'd get? Would it be more than 50%?

 

[FreeChile]

I haven't done anything lately to "oppose terrorism" either, Art. Does that mean that I approve of it? Did the Irish approve of the terrorism in Northern-Ireland? I mean, most Northern-Irish did nothing about it...

Lets call a spade a spade, shall we? This idea that all Muslims (including those that live in the west and have never set foot in a Muslim country and those that live in non-arab countries, i.e. the majority of Muslims when it comes down to it) are somehow responsible for the actions of a minority (albeit a pretty vocal minority), that they automatically approve of these actions because they're not out in the streets protesting them, smacks of, well, bigotry.

Thank you, Orwell, for clarifying these points with Art. He doesn't seem to remember that the only good Jap is a dead Jap, or that girls are inferior to boys, or that Indians are savages.

 

[NeilC]

This is why discussion about race and religion are so limited these days - anyone who isn't 100% careful about their language gets branded a bigot. It's worse than boring, it's damaging.

 

[FreeChile]

This is why discussion about race and religion are so limited these days - anyone who isn't 100% careful about their language gets branded a bigot. It's worse than boring, it's damaging.

Are we simply talking about language here or was there any action involved? The justifications presented simply prove that discrimination was involved. It's like Ross Perot's freudian slip "You people."

 

[NeilC]

I don't know. You seem to think you can see into people's hearts, you tell me.

Where did anyone say ALL muslims? They didn't, they said muslims. Me, I took that to mean Islam as a religion and assumed that there are some muslims who are not included - because it's so obviously true. Islam, like all these religions, is in my opinion like a virus. It is as if it has a life of it's own - as per Dawkins' meme theory. Islam's laws appear to me to be directly opposed to free speech. Islam seems to have a problem with the western world at large. I think that belief in this medieval fairy story is dangerous.

I also think that for bin laden and his ilk to exist there must be a much larger group of people directly supporting him and an even bigger one tacitly supporting him, and another one outside that sympathising with him. Looking at the riots, pop songs, muslim media reactions etc etc I'd drawing the conclusion that the sympathetic group is a majority.