Imams Back Call for Danish Boycott

holyland red said:
I think you'd have to consult the bible for these...It's been a while since I last held one. Your best bet is Im Red2 who could probably quote the borders in his sleep.
Click to expand...
OK, but just to let you know there are people out there who believe that the most southern point of the State of Israel is Mecca.

So to recap, the west is the Nile (the Eastern chunk of Egypt), the East is the Euphrates (the Western chunk of Iraq), the south is Mecca (the NW part of Saudi Arabia). From that, one can understand why those people are paranoid especially when Israel hold such a massive arsenal of weapons.
 
Abbsta said:
OK, but just to let you know there are people out there who believe that the most southern point of the State of Israel is Mecca.

So to recap, the west is the Nile (the Eastern chunk of Egypt), the East is the Euphrates (the Western chunk of Iraq), the south is Mecca (the NW part of Saudi Arabia). From that, one can understand why those people are paranoid especially when Israel hold such a massive arsenal of weapons.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the ones wanting to go to Mecca, but I'll have to take your word for it. You are probably aware of the fact that there are Jews who wish Israel never existed. The point is that we discuss politics here, rather psychiatry.
I'm also quite sure that you are aware that despite having nukes, Israel have engaged in a process leading to a two-state solution back in 1991 so the paranoia you are refering to is NOT easily understood.
To sum it all up, religious themes are nothing more than a symbol in our democracy, whereas the people we have been negotiating with for the last 15years or so pursue the destruction of our country on the basis of their religious teachings.
 
holyland red said:
I'm not sure about the ones wanting to go to Mecca, but I'll have to take your word for it. You are probably aware of the fact that there are Jews who wish Israel never existed. The point is that we discuss politics here, rather psychiatry.
I'm also quite sure that you are aware that despite having nukes, Israel have engaged in a process leading to a two-state solution back in 1991 so the paranoia you are refering to is NOT easily understood.
To sum it all up, religious themes are nothing more than a symbol in our democracy, whereas the people we have been negotiating with for the last 15years or so pursue the destruction of our country on the basis of their religious teachings.
Click to expand...
It is politics since you have an official state flag redrawing the boundaries of the region. You are asking them to believe that your intentions are merely romantic with such a huge arsenal of weapons.

Democracy shmocracy. We all saw how one man with a dodgy 45 min claim take us to war. I'll cut the BS and I'll tell you this, I'm with you if they are calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. And I'm with them if you are dreaming of the Great State of Israel.
 
I reckon they should find the toughest Palestinian and the toughest Isreali, then get them to have a scrap. This I feel is the best way to resolve the problem. Just like at school.
 
Spoony said:
I reckon they should find the toughest Palestinian and the toughest Isreali, then get them to have a scrap. This I feel is the best way to resolve the problem. Just like at school.
Click to expand...
I with you there Spooney. I think any two countries who are picking on each other should let their UN delegates go to the toilets and put their kits on while the UN set up an fighting arena and let's have it. we acn have tag teams and all.
 
Abbsta said:
I'm with you if they are calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. And I'm with them if you are dreaming of the Great State of Israel.
Click to expand...

Great to have you on our side then, Abbsta. You'll get a first row seat next to the mud arena. ;)
Our UN ambassador's name is Danny Gillerman, so you can start practicing the chants.
 
Spoony said:
I reckon they should find the toughest Palestinian and the toughest Isreali, then get them to have a scrap. This I feel is the best way to resolve the problem. Just like at school.
Click to expand...

Yes but the Palestinian must be allowed the first punch.

If the Israeli punched first he would be condemned by the UN as the aggressor.
 
crappycraperson said:
Loads of people have been taking the mickey out of jesus since forever.

Don't see why muslims should care what other people think of their "prophet".
Click to expand...

But has there ever been a nation that prints a cartoon strip in national newspapers that take the piss out of Jesus?

I doubt it somehow.



It disrespect of the highest order.
 
032Devil said:
But has there ever been a nation that prints a cartoon strip in national newspapers that take the piss out of Jesus?

I doubt it somehow.



It disrespect of the highest order.
Click to expand...
"Nation"

You mean Danish Govt printed those cartoons?

People need to fecking grow up.
 
032Devil said:
But has there ever been a nation that prints a cartoon strip in national newspapers that take the piss out of Jesus?

I doubt it somehow.



It disrespect of the highest order.
Click to expand...

i hope you're kidding.
 
Massive debates in Norway today about this.

Basically, it was uneccessary by the publications to print these, and extreme muslims have obviously reacted irrationally to it, with death threats etc.

You basically don't go into a mental house to wind up the patients, and then get surprised when said patients react irrationally and violently.
 
I can see a restriction on freedom of expression certainly places us on a slippery slope, but in the long run, a sense of social responsibility governing press freedoms seems bound to promote a healthier atmosphere of respect and mutual toleration, of which the world is greatly in need.
 
Sultan said:
I can see a restriction on freedom of expression certainly places us on a slippery slope, but in the long run, a sense of social responsibility governing press freedoms seems bound to promote a healthier atmosphere of respect and mutual toleration, of which the world is greatly in need.
Click to expand...

Will have to be up to each individual publication
 
Clinton Slams Cartoons, Rising Anti-Islamic Feeling

Former US president Bill Clinton condemned on Monday, January 30, 2005, the publication of cartoons depicting and ridiculing Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. He branded as "appalling" and "outrageous" the 12 cartoons, which caused an uproar in the Muslim world. Clinton also warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism. He criticized the tendency to generalize negative news of Islamic militancy.
 
An Extremely Boring Man said:
Will have to be up to each individual publication
Click to expand...

Would racism be acceptable from a publication in the name of freedom of expression ?

Well this offends many, as does racism-what's more it's deliberate provocation.
 
Sultan said:
Would racism be acceptable from a publication in the name of freedom of expression ?

Well this offends many, as does racism-what's more it's deliberate provocation.
Click to expand...

No, racism wouldn't be acceptable in the name of freedom of speech, as in most countries it is against the law.

Newspapers and publications publish things that offends someone every day.
 
An Extremely Boring Man said:
No, racism wouldn't be acceptable in the name of freedom of speech, as in most countries it is against the law.

Newspapers and publications publish things that offends someone every day.
Click to expand...

Fine, carry on offending...
 
Sultan said:
Fine, carry on offending...
Click to expand...

As long as media express opinions, someone will take offends.

As long as there is free press, media will express opinions.

The media has a responsibility to not just offend for the sake of it, and those offended has a responsibility not to overreact to provocation.
 
An Extremely Boring Man said:
No, racism wouldn't be acceptable in the name of freedom of speech, as in most countries it is against the law.

Newspapers and publications publish things that offends someone every day.
Click to expand...

racism isn't covered under freedom of speech?
 
Sultan said:
I can see a restriction on freedom of expression certainly places us on a slippery slope, but in the long run, a sense of social responsibility governing press freedoms seems bound to promote a healthier atmosphere of respect and mutual toleration, of which the world is greatly in need.
Click to expand...

what is acceptable speech and who defines it?
 
Sultan said:
Would racism be acceptable from a publication in the name of freedom of expression ?

Well this offends many, as does racism-what's more it's deliberate provocation.
Click to expand...

Race is something you're born with, unless you're Michael Jackson.

Religion is something you sign up to. Therefore, it seems to be fair game for questioning, satirically or otherwise.
 
Kevrockcity said:
what is acceptable speech and who defines it?
Click to expand...

That would depend on social,political,cultural and religious devide...
 
spinoza said:
Race is something you're born with, unless you're Michael Jackson.

Religion is something you sign up to. Therefore, it seems to be fair game for questioning, satirically or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Provocation Spin, I don't take kindly to being labelled a terrorists as those caricatures imply.

Then it's what the paper exactly tried to put in peoples head.
 
Sultan said:
That would depend on social,political,cultural and religious devide...
Click to expand...

i don't understand. you said that certain infringements on freedom of speech would benefit society as a whole. which ones are you talking about and who decides? racist speech? speech that "desecrates" religious symbols? what else?

what should the response be of the danish and norwegian governments? that depictions of mohammed in cartoons are illegal? that criticizing muslims or islam is illegal? that equating terrorism and islam is illegal?
 
Sultan said:
Provocation Spin, I don't take kindly to being labelled a terrorists as those caricatures imply.

Then it's what the paper exactly tried to put in peoples head.
Click to expand...

It's a cartoon. It's purpose is to lampoon something. It may not be politically correct, it may even cause you offence.

But criticising the Danish government for allowing it is absolutely the wrong move.
 
Kevrockcity said:
i don't understand. you said that certain infringements on freedom of speech would benefit society as a whole. which ones are you talking about and who decides? racist speech? speech that "desecrates" religious symbols? what else?

what should the response by of the danish and norwegian governments? that depictions of mohammed in cartoons are illegal? that criticizing muslims or islam is illegal? that equating terrorism and islam is illegal?
Click to expand...

I have never blamed the Danish government, however there are laws against slander in most countries; there are laws against blasphemy here in the UK.
 
Sultan said:
I have never blamed the Norwegian government, however there are laws against slander in most countries; there are laws against blasphemy here in the UK.
Click to expand...

There are laws against inciting religious hatred (maybe - not sure if it's been passed) but not against blasphemy per se.

Reason being it's hard to say what's blasphemy and what's legitimate criticism. If there were laws against blasphemy Richard Dawkins would be in the nick.
 
Sultan said:
I have never blamed the Norwegian government, however there are laws against slander in most countries; there are laws against blasphemy here in the UK.
Click to expand...

if you don't think the norwegian or danish governments are at fault, then you must think these boycotts of danish/norwegian goods called for by muslim groups are pretty absurd.
 
Actually it doesn't really matter.

Muslim governments can register official displeasure all they like, since it's their prerogative. Maybe then the Danish government will feel that they should pass legislation clarifying what is and isn't offensive. It's the same situation as with Palestine's new Hamas-led government. All Western governments will try their best to make them a pariah state, since it's their prerogative. Maybe then Hamas will rethink its goal to destroy Israel.

However, since I don't believe in the goodness of human nature, I expect both attempts to fail miserably.
 
Kevrockcity said:
if you don't think the norwegian or danish governments are at fault, then you must think these boycotts of danish/norwegian goods called for by muslim groups are pretty absurd.
Click to expand...

Freedom of choice ?
 
spinoza said:
Actually it doesn't really matter.

Muslim governments can register official displeasure all they like, since it's their prerogative. Maybe then the Danish government will feel that they should pass legislation clarifying what is and isn't offensive. It's the same situation as with Palestine's new Hamas-led government. All Western governments will try their best to make them a pariah state, since it's their prerogative. Maybe then Hamas will rethink its goal to destroy Israel.

However, since I don't believe in the goodness of human nature, I expect both attempts to fail miserably.
Click to expand...

Well put Spin...
 
spinoza said:
There are laws against inciting religious hatred (maybe - not sure if it's been passed) but not against blasphemy per se.

Reason being it's hard to say what's blasphemy and what's legitimate criticism. If there were laws against blasphemy Richard Dawkins would be in the nick.
Click to expand...

There was talk of repealing the ancient laws a few years ago, not sure they have done so...anyway as I remember it only covered Christianity.
 
Sultan said:
Freedom of choice ?
Click to expand...

doesn't make it any less misguided. underpinning these boycotts is the assumption that the norwegian and danish government could have or should have done something to prevent the printing of the cartoons - this is clearly ridiculous. makes muslim groups look foolish and/or fascist for even asking. as for the militant organizations calling for attacks on norwegian and danish targets, it shows them for the comically medieval savages that they are.
 
Kevrockcity said:
doesn't make it any less misguided. underpinning these boycotts is the assumption that the norwegian and danish government could have or should have done something to prevent the printing of the cartoons - this is clearly ridiculous. makes muslim groups looks foolish and/or fascist for even asking.
Click to expand...

There is no assumption, just a natural response. Spins post answers this question well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.