An Extremely Boring Man said:
They're well and truely in the minority.
And your wife's a bit backward.
Imams Back Call for Danish Boycott
- Thread starter Hassan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They're well and truely in the minority.
And your wife's a bit backward.
Jesus was gay.
Boring's wife's really a boke.
Thicko032Devil said:
The publication isn't controlled by the Govt or danish people.
It just represented the views of work or 4-5 people at best.
How is it representing a whole "country"?
Spoony said:
She is not
She is called Mark
032Devil said:
My original message
crappycraperson said:
Your response.
Exactly WHERE in my above message have I said 'government' or 'Danish goverment'? I said 'national newspapers' which means newspapers distributed within a country like eg The Sun is distributed nationally in England. I never said that the paper is either printed or distributed by the government of Denmark. I also said 'a nation' which could be ANY nation and NOT Denmark.
crappycraperson said:
If the strip is published in a national newspaper it is obvious that the editors have accepted that the views expressed within the strip is of acceptable standard for publication. Some Danes would have agreed with it, some indifferent and some outraged.
Editorial policy exists within a publication so that all aspects of it's ideology is adhered too. So, eg, The Guardian have (slightly) Leftist ideology while The Telegraph has (central) right-wing leanings.
A reader chooses to read a publication depending on his/her personal beliefs because that choosen publication represents those ideas. Depending on the readership (which may be in the 10's of thousands or 100's of thousand), that idea gets exposured too.
I don't know about which country you live in but in most European countries, governments do not publish newspapers, private enterprises do.
You clearily get a sexual high or a sense of superiority in resorting to insults. Maybe your just intolerant or your the kind of person that resorts to violence when someone doesn't agree with you.
Thicko.
032Devil said:
islam is not a race so how is this racist?
032Devil said:
you're not getting it. british society may get wound up by different things, but it respects the right of the individual to wind people up about these things. a scouser can slag off cantona - no one is asking for the government to make this illegal. however, these muslim groups are asking that a western nation ban caricatures of mohammed from appearing in newspapers. do you not see the difference?
Kevrockcity said:
You're just being silly now.
Arabs are semites. Yet anti-Arab feelings are included in anti-semitism.
Technically there's no such thing as racism as we're from the same tribe/race that came out of Africa.
All Yanks are fat. That's not racism, it's just an observation. And don't get me started on the Aussies.
no, islam really isn't a race. it's really not even close to being the same thing, a fact that should be obvious being as most muslims are asian, not arab. race is not something you choose.
and yes, technically, there is such a thing as racism.
and yes, technically, there is such a thing as racism.
Kevrockcity said:
No shit.
And you're missing the point.
And Arabs are from Asia, so yeah they're Asian. Shocking isn't it.
Brilliant.Kevrockcity said:
The Middle East is in Asia. (even now they outnumber North African Arabs)
Must be true about Yanks and geography.
According to table "Islam in Asia", ME is counted as being in Asia.
there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world but only 200-300 million arabs. you do the math, genius.
Nistelrooy10 said:
i made a mistake. thanks.
still doesn't change the point that islam is not a race nor even close to being the same thing. or that non-arab muslim asians are more numerous than arab muslims.
here's what the editor of the paper said:
"These were not directed against Muslims, but against people in cultural life in Europe who are submitting themselves to self-censorship when dealing with Islam. I wanted these cartoonists to appear under their own names. That was the point of the whole journalistic exercise."
doesn't sound unreasonable to me, honestly.
"These were not directed against Muslims, but against people in cultural life in Europe who are submitting themselves to self-censorship when dealing with Islam. I wanted these cartoonists to appear under their own names. That was the point of the whole journalistic exercise."
doesn't sound unreasonable to me, honestly.
Those in the know, are the boycotts going to end now that the editor has apologized?
Kevrockcity said:
Well either the boycotts are working or the editor seems to have had a change of heart...
how so? sounds like he's defending the cartoons, not apologizing for them.
Manchester United players boycott media
Manchester United's players are refusing to give television interviews for one week in protest at the repeated showing of Gary Neville's controversial goal celebrations during the 1-0 Premiership win over Liverpool.
The boycott started following Sunday's 3-0 FA Cup fourth-round victory over Wolverhampton players refused to face the cameras.
The boycott also means that no United players were available yesterday to comment on the FA Cup fifth-round draw which sent United to Anfield in a tie which could further inflame relations between the two clubs.
Manchester United's players are refusing to give television interviews for one week in protest at the repeated showing of Gary Neville's controversial goal celebrations during the 1-0 Premiership win over Liverpool.
The boycott started following Sunday's 3-0 FA Cup fourth-round victory over Wolverhampton players refused to face the cameras.
The boycott also means that no United players were available yesterday to comment on the FA Cup fifth-round draw which sent United to Anfield in a tie which could further inflame relations between the two clubs.
Kevrockcity said:
He has apologised...
You said " a nation that prints...............032Devil said:
Key word there is "nation". Its pretty obvious you are talking about either Danmark Govt or Danish people. Whereas these cartoons were made by a very few people. If SUN tomorrow prints a racist slur, would you paint all english people as racist?
As I said thicko
Sultan said:
i see it now. thought you were referring to the quote i posted.
if you don't mind me asking, sultan, can you tell me which cartoons of the 12 you found offensive.
Kevrockcity said:
I did not open the link you posted because it would have seriously offended me. I have made an effort to not view them.
Although from reading comments and articles it has to be the one where the prophet is shown as a terrorist, the implication being all the followers are such.
there is one where mohammed's head resembles a bomb. i don't think the implication is that all muslims are terrorists, but rather, that islam is used to justify terrorism. but we are free to make our own interpretations (unless, of course, these muslim groups get their way).
if mohammed was shown saving puppy dogs, giving ice cream to children, and other inarguably benevolent things, would this have been offensive (as any depiction of mohammed is seen by some as blasphemy)?
if mohammed was shown saving puppy dogs, giving ice cream to children, and other inarguably benevolent things, would this have been offensive (as any depiction of mohammed is seen by some as blasphemy)?
crappycraperson said:
You really are a first class moron.
Read the whole sentence in it's entirety and you will see that I was talking about Jesus and NOT Muhammad.
032Devil said:
And if The Sun prints a racist slur I for one wouldn't paint all English people as racist. Though I believe you would!
Kevrockcity said:
Depiction of any Prophet from the revealed religions is regarded as an absolute no no, regardless of the message.
A lot of the confusion or misunderstandings on these issues come about because in the "Western World" freedon of speech or expression is something that is righty held in very high esteem-in the Islamic World it is not absolute.
Sultan said:
That is absolutely garbage!
If I was to draw a picture of Uncle Sam as the devil, am I implying that all Americans are the work of Satan?
Eh?032Devil said:
You were using jesus to emphasize the point.
A "nation" doesn't print any cartoons, a newpaper publication does.
An Extremely Boring Man said:
AEBM: I said to you before, it is your ignorance of Islam and Muslims which makes you arrive at such observations.
Prophet Muhammed (SAW) is a role model for Muslims to follow in their daily lives, If the role model is shown to be a terrorist what does that make me ?
Spoony said:
What's a 'boke'?
Sultan said:
It makes you an individual which has nothing to do with said cartoon whatsoever, an indivdual who is making far too much out of said cartoon.
Winston Churchill is a role model for plenty of Brits. He's one of the most caricatured people ever, and many of those cartoons were far from complimentary. Does that say or make any of those who Chruchill is a role model anything at all? Of course not.
Likewise, there are plenty of offensive cartoons about Jesus, God etc. Does that say anything about my wife, who is a Christian? Of course not.
Kevrockcity said:
Except that the cartoons (those that I managed to download - it's a slow as shite site you linked to) were extremely unimaginative, as they mainly depicted Muslims as terrorists. There are many other things I would say about Islam, were I the editor... he's useless
Mind you some in Britain are not much better
Kevrockcity said:
The editor is without doubt myopic and basically idiotic if he couldn't see the wider picture. There have been enough 'fatwas' issued that if you are of reasonable intelligence and are going to attack Islamic beliefs and haven't taken that into account then it's their own fault (to an extent).
Sultan said:
Sultan - some Danish people perceive Prophet Muhammed as a terrorist. You can either rear up in self-righteous anger, declaring that they need to be punished, or you can try to understand why they want to depict the prophet that way. I don't see how a bunch of Danish cartoonists should be able to shake your personal perception of the Prophet, whatever they do.
The debates still going on TV over here. Mostly sensible people, with intelligent views, but one or two extremists on both sides.
One Christian right winger claims that the good Prophet Mohammed was responsible for slaughtering jews, and married a nine year old. Is that true?
One Christian right winger claims that the good Prophet Mohammed was responsible for slaughtering jews, and married a nine year old. Is that true?
Sultan said:
Sullie--as an educated adult, it makes you capable of ignoring the depiction, understanding the author/cartoonist's viewpoint, or educating others as to why the depiction is not necessarily true.
While the Prophet might be the role model for Muslims, as Jesus should be for Christians, those outside of our religions may look at "practicing" members of the faith and discuss the shortcomings of (some of) the followers. In this context, however, it seems that some of the most outspoken of the advocates for the religion (be it Islam or Christianity) are those clerics or pompous hypocrites who speak of the glories of their religion without fulfilling the message.
A cartoonist is within his rights to depict Muhammad in those various charicatures not as an insult to the Prophet, but to those (thankfully a small minority) who hide behind the religion as they commit crimes and atrocities. The shame is on the hypocrites who, even now, do not admit that their actions demean the faith and cast its followers in a bad light, but instead protest the cartoons as a means of diverting public scrutiny and opinion from analysis of their behavior.
Do you think Norway will reduce their taxes on alcohol?
It's kind of anti-Islam...
It's kind of anti-Islam...
spinoza said:
Well they should, as you well know
I can't believe it's more expensive to drink in Oslo than in Shanghai
I can't believe it's more expensive to drink in Oslo than in Shanghai