Those cartoons again
-
I just wonder where is it stated that you may not publish pictures of Mohammed? is it in the quoran? if so, doesnt that rule only apply to muslims? or are muslims trying to force everyone to obey by that rule? are there more rules in the quoran that we should obey? also, why should Denmark apologize ? muslims are burning dansih flags , which is a symbol of destruction of danish society, isnt it? wouldnt denmark and muslims be about even now that both have insulted eachother?
Come on, guys, I'm sure that other folks have pointed this out before. The cartoons where posted at the end of September. How come it has taken some 4 months for them to become an outrage? May it have to do with the nuclear "crisis" hovering over Iran? No need to speculate about the presumed hypocresy of hundreds of millions of human beings (I mean, please, how infantile can one get) and no need to fantasize on the perfectly spherical meaning of "freedom" (for those not-so-bright-yet-keen-to-aver out there). Just a bit less of naivete.
-
In Islam, one cannot produce any ppicture representing life, as, Alah inhabits all life, and to portray the infinite is impossible. So, to attempt to, is a limitation of the infinite, and so, a mistake. This applies to all living things, and explains the reliance of Islam on geometric art, as opposed to representations of life, as in the West. This has given the world a unique and beautiful artform in the way of carpets and mosaic work. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
This has given the world a unique and beautiful artform in the way of carpets and mosaic work.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
legalAlien wrote:
You're wasting your breath. Muslims are rank hypocrites: apparently it is okay for newspapers in muslim countries to publish any anti-semitic/US/UK vitriol they want to and nobody says a thing. And how come if they dislike free-speech so much they walk through the streets of London with abslute impunity threatening to behead anyone who disagrees with them? How do they think they are able to do that without the principle of free speech???
Posters urging that people be killed are almost certainly illegal. These days, police often prefer to just take photographs and then arrest people one at a time after the event. I expect (and hope) that this will happen this time around. I agree with you on the issue of hypocrisy, however. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
These days, police often prefer to just take photographs and then arrest people one at a time after the event.
I think that sounds more sensible. If they go in to arrest people the crowd could quickly turn very nasty and riot police would be called in. Its a media society, if the riot police are called in who do you think would get the worse press. At the moment people see these nutters, extoling violence through our principle of free speech and the thought is that they are all hypocrits. Send in the riot police and the police are blamed for inflaming the situation. Photograph them and quietly pull them in for questioning afterwards and no negative media and it looks like we have the moral high ground by permitting them free speech, while never actually giving in to them at all. They have their day in the spotlight and everyone gets to see what nutters they all are. Free speech is wonderful. "It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". I can't remember who said it, but in this case it is very true.
-Weasels are as curious as raccoons. They look under every bush and sneak into holes. - I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
-
John Carson wrote:
These days, police often prefer to just take photographs and then arrest people one at a time after the event. I expect (and hope) that this will happen this time around.
Guffaw.
If an attempt is made to arrest someone in a large crowd, then that tends to escalate the level of violence and there are more injuries to both police and protestors. If a protest does not immediately threaten persons or property, then letting it run its course and taking action later may be prudent policing. According to a report I read, the police said that the protestors, notwithstanding their signs, basically obeyed police directives. They did not attempt to occupy buildings or set fire to them, did not attempt to beat any one up, nor did they take any other action that posed an immediate threat to persons or property. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Come on, guys, I'm sure that other folks have pointed this out before. The cartoons where posted at the end of September. How come it has taken some 4 months for them to become an outrage? May it have to do with the nuclear "crisis" hovering over Iran? No need to speculate about the presumed hypocresy of hundreds of millions of human beings (I mean, please, how infantile can one get) and no need to fantasize on the perfectly spherical meaning of "freedom" (for those not-so-bright-yet-keen-to-aver out there). Just a bit less of naivete.
DaTxomin wrote:
Come on, guys, I'm sure that other folks have pointed this out before. The cartoons where posted at the end of September. How come it has taken some 4 months for them to become an outrage? May it have to do with the nuclear "crisis" hovering over Iran? No need to speculate about the presumed hypocresy of hundreds of millions of human beings (I mean, please, how infantile can one get) and no need to fantasize on the perfectly spherical meaning of "freedom" (for those not-so-bright-yet-keen-to-aver out there). Just a bit less of naivete.
Just what point you are making on each of the several issues you raise completely eludes me. There has been plenty of activity over those 4 months, even though the matter has not come to world-wide attention until now. The history is described in this article: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
In Islam, one cannot produce any ppicture representing life, as, Alah inhabits all life, and to portray the infinite is impossible. So, to attempt to, is a limitation of the infinite, and so, a mistake. This applies to all living things, and explains the reliance of Islam on geometric art, as opposed to representations of life, as in the West. This has given the world a unique and beautiful artform in the way of carpets and mosaic work. Nunc est bibendum
>>In Islam<<, one cannot produce any ppicture representing life, as, Alah inhabits all life, and to portray the infinite is impossible ok, so may be it for you who are a muslim. but in my atheist beleif its perfectly ok to do so. are you saying that i still need to obey _your_ rules? http://www.puzzleframework.com
-
fat_boy wrote:
This has given the world a unique and beautiful artform in the way of carpets and mosaic work.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
You dont like Turkish carpets for example? How about the Moorish palace in Seville? You see no beauty in that either? Nunc est bibendum
Oh, thought you were attempting humor.
fat_boy wrote:
You dont like Turkish carpets for example?
Nope: revolting. Will not have rugs, cushions, throws or any other questionable soft furnishings in my home. No pink. Ever. And never, ever have a tablecloth on the table. What the fück is the point of buying a beautifully finished piece of wood and then hiding it under a floral tablecloth? Yeeuk. (Same argument for the carpets).
fat_boy wrote:
How about the Moorish palace in Seville? You see no beauty in that either?
Exquisite piece of architecture tho have only (shame to say) seen pictures: never been there.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
>>In Islam<<, one cannot produce any ppicture representing life, as, Alah inhabits all life, and to portray the infinite is impossible ok, so may be it for you who are a muslim. but in my atheist beleif its perfectly ok to do so. are you saying that i still need to obey _your_ rules? http://www.puzzleframework.com
Roger J wrote:
are you saying that i still need to obey _your_ rules?
I certainly wouldn't say that. I would however argue against deliberately insulting other peoples culture or religion while standing up for their right to do so. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
-
>>In Islam<<, one cannot produce any ppicture representing life, as, Alah inhabits all life, and to portray the infinite is impossible ok, so may be it for you who are a muslim. but in my atheist beleif its perfectly ok to do so. are you saying that i still need to obey _your_ rules? http://www.puzzleframework.com
-
Roger J wrote:
are you saying that i still need to obey _your_ rules?
I certainly wouldn't say that. I would however argue against deliberately insulting other peoples culture or religion while standing up for their right to do so. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
farmer giles wrote:
against deliberately insulting other peoples culture or religion
I disagree. It is OUR culture to insult anything we want. We have a satirical history going back hundreds of years, and nothing is above that. It is part of our honesty and sense of humour and to avoid insulting a foreign culture by limiting our own is a mistake. Nunc est bibendum
-
DaTxomin wrote:
Come on, guys, I'm sure that other folks have pointed this out before. The cartoons where posted at the end of September. How come it has taken some 4 months for them to become an outrage? May it have to do with the nuclear "crisis" hovering over Iran? No need to speculate about the presumed hypocresy of hundreds of millions of human beings (I mean, please, how infantile can one get) and no need to fantasize on the perfectly spherical meaning of "freedom" (for those not-so-bright-yet-keen-to-aver out there). Just a bit less of naivete.
Just what point you are making on each of the several issues you raise completely eludes me. There has been plenty of activity over those 4 months, even though the matter has not come to world-wide attention until now. The history is described in this article: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Just what point you are making on each of the several issues you raise completely eludes me.
If you are referring to the alledged hipocresy of muslims or the definition of freedom, I haven't raised these issues. They are all over the board. If you are referring to the question, "May it have to do with the nuclear "crisis" hovering over Iran?", simply connect the dots.
John Carson wrote:
There has been plenty of activity over those 4 months, even though the matter has not come to world-wide attention until now.
You've answered yourself.
-
Oh, thought you were attempting humor.
fat_boy wrote:
You dont like Turkish carpets for example?
Nope: revolting. Will not have rugs, cushions, throws or any other questionable soft furnishings in my home. No pink. Ever. And never, ever have a tablecloth on the table. What the fück is the point of buying a beautifully finished piece of wood and then hiding it under a floral tablecloth? Yeeuk. (Same argument for the carpets).
fat_boy wrote:
How about the Moorish palace in Seville? You see no beauty in that either?
Exquisite piece of architecture tho have only (shame to say) seen pictures: never been there.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
legalAlien wrote:
you were attempting humor
I dont riddle my posts with emoticons, I prefer to let people gauge the tone by understanding. I like rugs, they are truly beautiful (at least a good one is, and there is a lot of dull crap). The AlHambra, never been there myself either, one day... But, as you admit, Exquisite. And with out their aversion to images of living things, they would not have developed that style. So, there is some good in Islam. Nunc est bibendum
-
John Carson wrote:
Just what point you are making on each of the several issues you raise completely eludes me.
If you are referring to the alledged hipocresy of muslims or the definition of freedom, I haven't raised these issues. They are all over the board. If you are referring to the question, "May it have to do with the nuclear "crisis" hovering over Iran?", simply connect the dots.
John Carson wrote:
There has been plenty of activity over those 4 months, even though the matter has not come to world-wide attention until now.
You've answered yourself.
Since you apparently have no interest in communication, I don't know why you bother posting. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine -- modified at 7:52 Monday 6th February, 2006
-
Since you apparently have no interest in communication, I don't know why you bother posting. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine -- modified at 7:52 Monday 6th February, 2006
-
I just wonder where is it stated that you may not publish pictures of Mohammed? is it in the quoran? if so, doesnt that rule only apply to muslims? or are muslims trying to force everyone to obey by that rule? are there more rules in the quoran that we should obey? also, why should Denmark apologize ? muslims are burning dansih flags , which is a symbol of destruction of danish society, isnt it? wouldnt denmark and muslims be about even now that both have insulted eachother?
Roger J wrote:
if so, doesnt that rule only apply to muslims? or are muslims trying to force everyone to obey by that rule? are there more rules in the quoran that we should obey?
Well just a point: I don't know if you are us citizen, but if you are you perhaps won't burn flag of the us (or your country). When other people in other countries do this, you don't like it too and you may want them to respect your flag. The flag of the us is often burned in arabic countries and not many us citizens are happy about this. This is the same point with the cartoons. The muslims want to be respected and, as they believe that god or the prophet should not be painted, they want everyone to respect their religion, not drawing any cartoons of mohamed. Not all muslims take their weapons and burn down the consulates (and the flags), but some of them do. There are so called christians, who do nearly the same, treating people with black skin as animals, kill christians from other confessions and so on. I dislike the reaction of the muslims, but you shouldn't do, like they are the only ones who react "a little bit strange".
Roger J wrote:
also, why should Denmark apologize ? muslims are burning dansih flags , which is a symbol of destruction of danish society, isnt it? wouldnt denmark and muslims be about even now that both have insulted eachother?
Well in this point you're right. But the cleverer gives in (a sad truth, it establish the world domination of the dumb)! On the other hand there are many examples where the western countries reacted totally wrong. Not only George Bush, but a lot of heads of governments. There are two sides of every story and (even some hollywood pictures want to make us believe) you can't say that one are the good ones and the others are the bad. Most times this is wrong. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
Roger J wrote:
if so, doesnt that rule only apply to muslims? or are muslims trying to force everyone to obey by that rule? are there more rules in the quoran that we should obey?
Well just a point: I don't know if you are us citizen, but if you are you perhaps won't burn flag of the us (or your country). When other people in other countries do this, you don't like it too and you may want them to respect your flag. The flag of the us is often burned in arabic countries and not many us citizens are happy about this. This is the same point with the cartoons. The muslims want to be respected and, as they believe that god or the prophet should not be painted, they want everyone to respect their religion, not drawing any cartoons of mohamed. Not all muslims take their weapons and burn down the consulates (and the flags), but some of them do. There are so called christians, who do nearly the same, treating people with black skin as animals, kill christians from other confessions and so on. I dislike the reaction of the muslims, but you shouldn't do, like they are the only ones who react "a little bit strange".
Roger J wrote:
also, why should Denmark apologize ? muslims are burning dansih flags , which is a symbol of destruction of danish society, isnt it? wouldnt denmark and muslims be about even now that both have insulted eachother?
Well in this point you're right. But the cleverer gives in (a sad truth, it establish the world domination of the dumb)! On the other hand there are many examples where the western countries reacted totally wrong. Not only George Bush, but a lot of heads of governments. There are two sides of every story and (even some hollywood pictures want to make us believe) you can't say that one are the good ones and the others are the bad. Most times this is wrong. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
There are two sides of every story
Actually there are three. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
-
Roger J wrote:
if so, doesnt that rule only apply to muslims? or are muslims trying to force everyone to obey by that rule? are there more rules in the quoran that we should obey?
Well just a point: I don't know if you are us citizen, but if you are you perhaps won't burn flag of the us (or your country). When other people in other countries do this, you don't like it too and you may want them to respect your flag. The flag of the us is often burned in arabic countries and not many us citizens are happy about this. This is the same point with the cartoons. The muslims want to be respected and, as they believe that god or the prophet should not be painted, they want everyone to respect their religion, not drawing any cartoons of mohamed. Not all muslims take their weapons and burn down the consulates (and the flags), but some of them do. There are so called christians, who do nearly the same, treating people with black skin as animals, kill christians from other confessions and so on. I dislike the reaction of the muslims, but you shouldn't do, like they are the only ones who react "a little bit strange".
Roger J wrote:
also, why should Denmark apologize ? muslims are burning dansih flags , which is a symbol of destruction of danish society, isnt it? wouldnt denmark and muslims be about even now that both have insulted eachother?
Well in this point you're right. But the cleverer gives in (a sad truth, it establish the world domination of the dumb)! On the other hand there are many examples where the western countries reacted totally wrong. Not only George Bush, but a lot of heads of governments. There are two sides of every story and (even some hollywood pictures want to make us believe) you can't say that one are the good ones and the others are the bad. Most times this is wrong. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
There are two sides of every story
Actually there are three sides: your side, my side and the truth.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
farmer giles wrote:
against deliberately insulting other peoples culture or religion
I disagree. It is OUR culture to insult anything we want. We have a satirical history going back hundreds of years, and nothing is above that. It is part of our honesty and sense of humour and to avoid insulting a foreign culture by limiting our own is a mistake. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
It is OUR culture to insult anything we want.
Well that is not culture that is dullness. You can make jokes, but there is no apology to hurt other persons. And when this is what an insult does. There must be a space, where you can make jokes, but if it goes further this is no culture and there is no right to do this. By the way: When you make jokes about something stupid, you're intelligent. When you make jokes about something intelligent you're stupid. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
ihoecken wrote:
There are two sides of every story
Actually there are three sides: your side, my side and the truth.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
legalAlien wrote:
Actually there are three sides: your side, my side and the truth.
The truth? What is the truth? It's totally uninteresting when you discuss about feelings. And there is more than one truth, there are many. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!