Bin Laden issues out warning to Europe

WoollyRedHat

Osama Bin Laden, on an online message has threatened " grave punishment" to Europe in reguards to the printing insulting cartoons depicting the Islam prophet Muhammed in the Danish newspaper, claiming a reation would come

He also said it was a new crusade against Islam, with the Pope having a "long and lengthly role"

He then went on to say " The response will be what you see rather than what you hear"

The message was released in audio and is believed to be Bin Laden's

This is just great. Why did they reprint the cartoons after the outrage the first time it happened. Looks like Europe is more and more of an enemy to extremists by the day...

A lot more detail of what he said here:http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iluhfiiaAuB6NXbQeS0poJ3U0uPg

sink

They reprinted the cartoons as a protest against an exposed plot to kill the the cartoonist. Now i'm not saying it was a smart thing or even right to print them in the first place, but the media should not be banned from printing them. I have no respect for the feelings of extremist biggots and bullies, but I do respect the beliefs of moderate muslims who have been caught in the middle.

WoollyRedHat

I feel the same way. But like you said it still wasn't clever, I don't view extremists as having a conscience, truth to be told it shouldn't have been printed in the first place.

Anyway, there is a few startling statements. Time to crank up security. I presume the EU will debate this issue in serious detail as soon as possible as well as responses from Political leaders and perhaps the Pope.

The Artist

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Osama Bin Laden, on an online message has threatened " grave punishment" to Europe in reguards to the printing insulting cartoons depicting the Islam prophet Muhammed in the Danish newspaper, claiming a reation would come

He also said it was a new crusade against Islam, with the Pope having a "long and lengthly role"

He then went on to say " The response will be what you see rather than what you hear"

The message was released in audio and is believed to be Bin Laden's

This is just great. Why did they reprint the cartoons after the outrage the first time it happened. Looks like Europe is more and more of an enemy to extremists by the day...

A lot more detail of what he said here:http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iluhfiiaAuB6NXbQeS0poJ3U0uPg

i dont know much about politics as the post interested me.does Osama Bin Laden really take things seriously about cartoons printed in the media and starts threating ,he must be mad!

WoollyRedHat

A leading extremist moreover, but I would call it mad and more

The cartoon in question was taking the piss out of their prophet Muhammed.

wes

He has already made threats several times. I don't see why more threats should make anyone more worried. He is already pissed and trying to organize attacks. I doubt this threat will change much at all.

Fratton Fred

He is a terrorist and this is just another example of terror tactics. There may or may not be a threat imminent, but this message will get people scared.

Interesting he has mentioned the Pope, I don't think he has done this before.

SeanW

He is a terrorist, slime licking, bottom feeding piece of scum. Beginning, Middle and End of story. His views on what Western newspapers should or should not print is worth no more than the Mafia's views on law and order or a message from the KKK about racial harmony.

The newspapers were right to print those cartoons because we have a duty to resist Islamofascism lest we eventually become subject to it.

Liam Byrne

Nasty piece of work alright.....pity the U.S. didn't go after him instead of Saddam....

Moriarty

<OBL> DERKA DERKA MOHAMMED JIHAD~!!!

Piff. Bring it cave boy.

daithicarr

they were also printed in a eygptian news paper without any uproar, three days after they were first published . its only when a western paper printed it there was a stink kicked up .

considering he is ossama was behind the septermber 11th attacks youd think they would spend more time looking for him. and not go after some country which had nothing to do with it. Iraq.

But i suppose having him as a boogey man is probably more usefull. idiotic statements like this can be used to continue to justify the war on Terror.

Dave!

How's Italy's security? I wonder if the Vatican is gonna be a target

Playboy

SeanW wrote: »

The newspapers were right to print those cartoons because we have a duty to resist Islamofascism lest we eventually become subject to it.

You really do have issues dont you? Not so long ago you were starting a thread telling muslims to feck of back to the dark ages and now you are supporting the 'right' of our media to insult a portion of the population of europe.

Yes we should be able to say what we want but that isnt how the world works. If you say something bad enough then you are going to upset people. With free speech comes responsibility. The cartoons in question are utterly irresponsible and serve no purpose other than to antagonise and further alienate a section of the population of europe. It wasnt too long ago that 'The life of Brian' was upsetting large amounts of people in Britain and Ireland and Monty Python were defending it on chat shows. It upset people because there was a different attitude to religion here then and a different respect for it. Just because we have moved on doesnt mean we have to expect everyone else to move on at the same pace or move on at all.

What these people think they are acheiving by reprinting these cartoons is beyond me. And people like you are directly responsible for this ridiculous Us Vs Them attitude that pervades our media and society today with respect to Muslims. The funny thing is that most people such as yourself have never met a Muslim person and dont have the first clue what they are talking about. People talk about terrorists but the media are terrorists in my mind .. spreading terror among average white europeans that 'Islamofacism' (:rolleyes:) is coming to take over and that everyone in europe is going to be living under Sharia law unless we fight it .. its utterley ridiculous. If anything the muslim populations that live in europe are becoming more westernized the longer they live here and very much so after 1 or 2 generations .. things are not going the other way.

Media events such as these cartoons only serve to help the cause of the radical and extreme elements that exist within Islam. If we stop throwing fuel on this fire and try and integerate with and understand our neighbours then radical Islam will just go away.

Lemming

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

He also said it was a new crusade against Islam, with the Pope having a "long and lengthly role"

I guess the Pope having dialogue with Muslim clerics in recent weeks has rattled him. This is an attempt at creating division; nothing more. And a fairly desperate and erroniously obvious one.

This is just great. Why did they reprint the cartoons after the outrage the first time it happened. Looks like Europe is more and more of an enemy to extremists by the day...

You are forgetting one thing. What makes you think Europe hasn't always been an enemy of these extremists anyway? TBH, that comment smells of "If we stay quiet maybe the bad, bad men wont hurt us. Much." The day we live in fear of a fringe element of lunatics regardless of their creed, colour, race or beliefs is the day that we may as well march silently into gas chambers and gas ourselves with smiles on our faces.

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

The cartoon in question was taking the piss out of their prophet Muhammed.

"Their"? prophet? It's not "their" prophet. It's the prophet of the islamic world. Who are these people to claim it's "their" prophet and to commit obscene acts in his name; sullying it and the name of Islam across the world for a warped viewpoint?

Playboy wrote: »

Y
Yes we should be able to say what we want but that isnt how the world works. If you say something bad enough then you are going to upset people. With free speech comes responsibility. The cartoons in question are utterly irresponsible and serve no purpose other than to antagonise and further alienate a section of the population of europe.

As offensive as the cartoons may have been; they proved their original point eloquently (and rather unfortunately imo). People were killed over the whole thing. But you're forgetting one thing; the Muslim world didn't react until a bunch of clerics did a tour highlighting the cartoons to deliberately stoke up outrage, and I should imagine a spot of "firebrand preaching" too.

So who left petrol lying around, who lit the fire and who fanned the flames?

I see a lot of appeasement being thrown around on this thread. It's disturbing and shows how little we value what we have as a society and are willing to pander to violent, violent extremists who view us with hatred anyway for the illusion of safety.

WoollyRedHat

As reguards to the cartoon, I was referring to the religion of Islam in general.

Their"? prophet? It's not "their" prophet. It's the prophet of the islamic world. Who are these people to claim it's "their" prophet and to commit obscene acts in his name; sullying it and the name of Islam across the world for a warped viewpoint?

Granted, our idealogy might always have been hated by others, but to print cartoons that were going to firstly upset those who weren't extremists in the first place, having a go at them as well as further furiating some extremist (Including the clerics you speak about, as another cause for them to spread their preachings against us) lunatics didn't exactly help us.

You're right, we shouldn't live in terror, or let the extremists see we are scared, but if you heard a group of people from a top security prison broke out, wouldn't you be scared?
I don't underestimate those who gladly kill themselves to kill others and use excuses like the cartoons to draw up hatred.

I myself will not be scared after their message threatening us, but none the less the EU and such should take their threats seriously.

Lemming

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

As reguards to the cartoon, I was referring to the religion of Islam in general.

But you accidentally raised a rather good point. Warping religious belief to suit whatever agenda you want to push.

Granted, our idealogy might always have been hated by others, but to print cartoons that were going to firstly upset those who weren't extremists in the first place, having a go at them as well as further furiating some extremist (Including the clerics you speak about, as another cause for them to spread their preachings against us) lunatics didn't exactly help us.

Ok, lets look at this using an example. So you see someone acting like an asshole and tell them to stop acting like one; they pull a gun and shoot you dead. Who is to blame? You for saying something? or the person who carries out a violent deed in reaction.

I should point out it's not the non-extremists screaming blue murder and wanting to kill us. All those mass demonstrations were manipulated. Most of the masses were not shown all of the cartoons but only the couple of directly insulting ones. Thus they were manipulated out of context. Why is that? Again, who is to blame here?

You're right, we shouldn't live in terror, or let the extremists see we are scared, but if you heard a group of people from a top security prison broke out, wouldn't you be scared?

Erm, unless you're trying to equate terrorists with escaping prisoners who are somehow not trying NOT to get noticed so they can get away but instead choose to make some sort of political statement through violence, then your example is brutally flawed.

WoollyRedHat

Lemming wrote: »

But you accidentally raised a rather good point. Warping religious belief to suit whatever agenda you want to push.



Ok, lets look at this using an example. So you see someone acting like an asshole and tell them to stop acting like one; they pull a gun and shoot you dead. Who is to blame? You for saying something? or the person who carries out a violent deed in reaction.

I should point out it's not the non-extremists screaming blue murder and wanting to kill us. All those mass demonstrations were manipulated. Most of the masses were not shown all of the cartoons but only the couple of directly insulting ones. Thus they were manipulated out of context. Why is that? Again, who is to blame here?



Erm, unless you're trying to equate terrorists with escaping prisoners who are somehow not trying NOT to get noticed so they can get away but instead choose to make some sort of political statement through violence, then your example is brutally flawed.

Look, I agree with you.
I am in no way saying this is our fault, what I am trying to say is why even bother fueling the extremists who do take evrything out of context to use as a tool against us. If it weren't for extremists who would use anything to cry Jihad against us, then I doubht there would be much uproar, maybe a few scuffles, but nothing more.

The escaping convicts was in reference to dangerous men who got out, the public would be a little scared. The odds of them coming into their path are slim, but however there would be some fear.

While the extremists have another reason, however small to cite hatred, then some people will be scared, we have seen what has happened in the past, although thankfully most of us don't let it get the better of them.

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

As offensive as the cartoons may have been; they proved their original point eloquently (and rather unfortunately imo). People were killed over the whole thing. But you're forgetting one thing; the Muslim world didn't react until a bunch of clerics did a tour highlighting the cartoons to deliberately stoke up outrage, and I should imagine a spot of "firebrand preaching" too.

So who left petrol lying around, who lit the fire and who fanned the flames?

I see a lot of appeasement being thrown around on this thread. It's disturbing and shows how little we value what we have as a society and are willing to pander to violent, violent extremists who view us with hatred anyway for the illusion of safety.

And what was their original point apart from a poor attempt at satire? Was their point that if you insult people then they are likely to get pissed off?

As I said earlier cartoons such as the ones printed only serve to help the cause of these radical clerics. Only idiots will give them material to prove their point. Im not advocating bending over and letting radical clerics and or extremists dictate to us what we should or shouldnt do in our own country. What I am saying is that Islam and Muslims are now part of the fabric of modern european society and that they should be treated with respect. Radical clerics dont represent all Muslims but when people are trying to antagonise these clerics or groups with stunts like the cartoons then they are also insulting large majority of moderate muslims also. Why do they deserve this?

Raspberry

الجهاد سرب

Sesshoumaru

I found the cartoons very funny. So what if some people found it offensive. What can you say or do these days that isn't offensive to at least some people? Despite what some people think, freedom of speech does include the right to offend people if you wish. Otherwise it is useless and we might as well all start bowing towards mecca.

Mr. Incognito

I think Osama is long since dead and they just rollout the "boogey-man" every year or two to justify these crazy wars in Afganistan and Iraq.

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I found the cartoons very funny. So what if some people found it offensive. What can you say or do these days that isn't offensive to at least some people? Despite what some people think, freedom of speech does include the right to offend people if you wish. Otherwise it is useless and we might as well all start bowing towards mecca.

So by your logic should we allow racist, bigoted, sexist cartoons be printed because some people find it funny .. After all thats what is important .. our right to be amused at other peoples expense.

WoollyRedHat

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

Raspberry

Playboy wrote: »

So by your logic should we allow racist, bigoted, sexist cartoons be printed because some people find it funny .. After all thats what is important .. our right to be amused at other peoples expense.

That's a nice twist you've put on it there. However it's more like our right to say what ever we want. The cartoonist was making a point. He made his point in a satirical way. If we want freedom of speech, we have to allow for people being offended. That is the sacrifice.

Why is it that you feel we should trim our opinions in an effort to try and avoid offending a bunch of people due to a ridiculous belief they have?

SeanW

Playboy wrote: »

You really do have issues dont you?

Yes. I have issues with Islamofascism. I don't want to live under an extremist Sharia jackboot. Full stop.

Not so long ago you were starting a thread telling muslims to feck of back to the dark ages

You misquoted me. I said Muslims in the West who feel that their religion is in direct conflict with the native laws and norms of the Western country they occupy, should - instead of introducing Sharia law to the United Kingdon which is what some were trying to do - go piss off to some place like Saudi Arabia which does have Islamic law and is already in the Dark Ages. I didn't tell anyone to feck off back to the Dark Ages, I merely pointed out that some places are still there and anyone who wants that should go to those places.

and now you are supporting the 'right' of our media to insult a portion of the population of europe.

Freedom of speech includes the right to insult or offend as you see fit. It means you have the right to ask a legitimate question (like asking whether Islam is violent and then being murdered for your trouble) but you also have the right to be a complete asshole if that's what floats your boat. "I may disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it." You can say whatever you like about my religion, I'm not going to wait in dark alley to stick a knife in your throat. Perhaps it's because I don't choose to be gravely offended by absolutely nothing.

Yes we should be able to say what we want but that isnt how the world works. If you say something bad enough then you are going to upset people.

Enough that they want to kill you?

With free speech comes responsibility.

True. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded building (unless there actually is one). Everything else is, or should be, fair game.

What these people think they are acheiving by reprinting these cartoons is beyond me.

They're telling these cavemen that we will not be bullied by threats, intimidation, murder, terrorism and so on.

spreading terror among average white europeans that 'Islamofacism' (:rolleyes:) is coming to take over and that everyone in europe is going to be living under Sharia law unless we fight it .. its utterley ridiculous.

No? Perhaps you haven't watched Pat Condell's videos as referenced in another thread (he backs up everything he says with sources in his description) German judges quoting Sharia law, UK taxpayers paying extra-spouse benefits to immigrants with multiple wives. It just goes on and on.

If anything the muslim populations that live in europe are becoming more westernized the longer they live here and very much so after 1 or 2 generations .. things are not going the other way.

Some may well be, but many more or not. They're the ones we need to teach a lesson.

Media events such as these cartoons only serve to help the cause of the radical and extreme elements that exist within Islam. If we stop throwing fuel on this fire and try and integerate with and understand our neighbours then radical Islam will just go away.

A bully will only "just go away" when he is faced down. Appeasing them only reenforces their behaviour.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

And what was their original point apart from a poor attempt at satire? Was their point that if you insult people then they are likely to get pissed off?

What is the purpose of satire? Answer that and you have answered your own question.

And the point, I think, was rather well summed up by one cartoon with the artist looking over his shoulder; which applies to pretty much anyone who is not a member if Islamic society. The point was further proven by a bunch of firebrand clerics who deliberately went on a tour to goad members of the same faith.

As I said earlier cartoons such as the ones printed only serve to help the cause of these radical clerics. Only idiots will give them material to prove their point.

Once again you are missing one very fundamental and important point. People like this; be they Muslim, Catholic, Taoist, Budhist, or martian; do not need "causes" or excuses handed to them. They perceive them through their own warped logic and then attempt to twist religious dogma to suit their own viewpoint. You don't even need to travel outside of Ireland or Catholiscm to see such people "at work".

Im not advocating bending over and letting radical clerics and or extremists dictate to us what we should or shouldnt do in our own country.

Yes. Yes you are. You're not advocating we let them dictate to us and yet that's exactly what you are proposing we do. The ironic thing is of course that in Iran, they then announced a cartoon contest to ridicule Israel & the holocaust (I never heard any more on it other than them encouraging it in response) and completely missing a core point of the original cartoons.

What I am saying is that Islam and Muslims are now part of the fabric of modern european society and that they should be treated with respect.

On that you shall have no arugment from me. But what is respect and what is pandering or deference? Deference is not a bad thing per-se, but it can also be incredibly damaging when unquestioned.

Radical clerics dont represent all Muslims but when people are trying to antagonise these clerics or groups with stunts like the cartoons then they are also insulting large majority of moderate muslims also. Why do they deserve this?

See my comments about antogonising extremists.

As for moderates and non-extremists; why does anybody do anything in the world for fear of upsetting someone else. I've seen the catholic religion ridiculed plenty of times with little repercussion. So what gives another religion the right to consider acts of violence a perfectly acceptable act?

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

What is the purpose of satire? Answer that and you have answered your own question.

eh I know what the purpose of satire is .. thats why I said what was the point of the cartoons except as a poor attempt at satire.

Lemming wrote: »

And the point, I think, was rather well summed up by one cartoon with the artist looking over his shoulder; which applies to pretty much anyone who is not a member if Islamic society. The point was further proven by a bunch of firebrand clerics who deliberately went on a tour to goad members of the same faith.

How does this apply to everyone who is not a member of Islamic society? I live in london where there is an enormous Muslim population. How come I dont feel I am looking over my shoulder?

Lemming wrote: »

Once again you are missing one very fundamental and important point. People like this; be they Muslim, Catholic, Taoist, Budhist, or martian; do not need "causes" or excuses handed to them. They perceive them through their own warped logic and then attempt to twist religious dogma to suit their own viewpoint. You don't even need to travel outside of Ireland or Catholiscm to see such people "at work".

Sorry to disagree but I dont think I'm missing any 'fundamental point'. Yes these clerics have a warped logic and they percieve injustice where there is none. But in this case there was an injustice and a continuing injustice. Certain elements in the western media have made a point of printing cartoons that offend and ridicule the Islamic faith in order to make some sort of pathetic point about 'free speech' to a small minority of radicals and extremists that exist within Islam.

In making this 'point' (which shows these radicals just how tough we are :rolleyes:) they are offending the large majority of moderate muslims and are creating division in our society. Its not the fact that an image of Mohammed was printed but the fact that it was intented in an offending and ridiculing manner. Muslims will percieve this as an attack on them and their faith .. an attack that they see repeated and made a point of in the western media .. a point that says more or less that they have put up with this kind of behaviour if the want to be members of our society.

Now most mulims will not attack anybody over something like this but what does happen is that they feel alienated and excluded from mainstream western society. And when people start creating divisions like this then what you are doing is creating a breeding ground for radicalism and extremism and you give these radical clerics an audience that is willing to listen. You see my point? The only purpose these cartoons serve is to promote division which is exactly the opposite of what we want. We want Islamic people to integrate into our society and come to share our values .. this is not the way to do it.

Playboy

Raspberry wrote: »

That's a nice twist you've put on it there. However it's more like our right to say what ever we want. The cartoonist was making a point. He made his point in a satirical way. If we want freedom of speech, we have to allow for people being offended. That is the sacrifice.

Why is it that you feel we should trim our opinions in an effort to try and avoid offending a bunch of people due to a ridiculous belief they have?

Well we expect Racists, Sexists, Paedophiles etc to trim their beliefs in order to fit into society. Should we just let everyone say whatever the fck they like and not care who it offends? Stop being so idealistic .. we dont have free speech ... we cant say what we like and 90% of time we dont say what we like or what we think. If we have freedom of speech then why are people like David Irving put in prison?

Playboy

SeanW wrote: »

Some may well be, but many more or not. They're the ones we need to teach a lesson.

This sentence just about sums you up. I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post because I think your judgement is clouded by some other agenda and what I say isnt going to change your mind.

DarkJager

Why don't the media just put a blackout on this patethic fcukin retard??? Every now and again he supposedly surfaces, babbles off some random sh1t about crusades and infidels, then goes back to his hole.

Playboy

DarkJager wrote: »

Why don't the media just put a blackout on this patethic fcukin retard??? Every now and again he supposedly surfaces, babbles off some random sh1t about crusades and infidels, then goes back to his hole.

Because it sells and servers many other purposes

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

eh I know what the purpose of satire is .. thats why I said what was the point of the cartoons except as a poor attempt at satire.

"Poor" is subjective. Do not mistake "poor" with "contentious".

How does this apply to everyone who is not a member of Islamic society? I live in london where there is an enormous Muslim population. How come I dont feel I am looking over my shoulder?

I failed to qualify that remark correctly. It applies to anybody who is not a member of Islamic society and passes a remark that is critical of Islam or challenges a belief/practice of islam. It is perceived that you can say very little for fear of being attacked. And the west has had more than a handful of fairly high-profile murders over the last decade to prove that point.

Sorry to disagree but I dont think I'm missing any 'fundamental point'. Yes these clerics have a warped logic and they percieve injustice where there is none. But in this case there was an injustice and a continuing injustice.

Satire works because there is truth behind it. That's part of the whole f.*.c.k.i.n.g. point of satire. Is using humour to get at a difficult-to-dicuss truth an injustice? No, what you're encouraging is just blatant revisionism and appeasement of a school yard bully.

Personally speaking, I wish more Muslims (i'm sure many do, but that many would appear very much a minority) would question their own belief structure; if not to break it down but to improve upon understanding of it and to highlight those cases where others are trying to manipulate it for their own goals; case in point - firebrand clerics telling half-truths to stir hatred. But because people are fearful of offending Islam by questioning or critiscing such people, they go unchecked.

Its not the fact that an image of Mohammed was printed but the fact that it was intented in an offending and ridiculing manner. Muslims will percieve this as an attack on them and their faith

Actually, had a picture of the prophet Mohammed been printed in any context by a western media outlet there would have been uproar, with the west accussed of attacking Islam.

A point that says more or less that they have put up with this kind of behaviour if the want to be members of our society.

This is, I think, the most single and individually important comment you've made on this thread. To be a member of our society you HAVE to be willing to put up with this sort of behaviour, and people do it all the time. The fact that we have a large sub-group who are demanding to be exempt from t his whilst threatening to carry out wanton acts of violence appears to be lost on you.

SeanW

Playboy wrote: »

This sentence just about sums you up. I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post because I think your judgement is clouded by some other agenda and what I say isnt going to change your mind.

Of course.

First you misquote me, quite egregiously I might add, then you ignore all the evidence while looking for a pathetic excuse to dismiss my arguments out of hand. I fear it is your judgement that is being clouded by some other agenda, and for that reason I won't be responding to any more of your ... contributions.

Manic Moran

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

This is just great. Why did they reprint the cartoons after the outrage the first time it happened. Looks like Europe is more and more of an enemy to extremists by the day...

You're kidding, right?

You're saying it's Europe's fault that the extremists can't take a joke? That we should not exercise, within our own borders, one of our most fundamental rights? That we should restrict this right for fear of the threat of violence? Is that not the goal of terrorism?

Frankly, Europe is an enemy to the extremists anyway regardless of what we print. That's why they're extremists with respect to us.

NTM

Playboy

SeanW wrote: »

Of course.

First you misquote me, quite egregiously I might add, then you ignore all the evidence while looking for a pathetic excuse to dismiss my arguments out of hand. I fear it is your judgement that is being clouded by some other agenda, and for that reason I won't be responding to any more of your ... contributions.

>Quote

Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

Its quite clear what agenda you serve. Your own words. I did not misquote you.

Denis Irwin

Osama can kiss my Irish arse. If he thinks We'll back down over his bullying and threats he's got another thing coming.

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

"Poor" is subjective. Do not mistake "poor" with "contentious".

Well imo it was poor .. I wasnt aware that I wasnt allowed to be subjective? Your appraisal that the cartoons were 'contentious' and not 'poor' is subjective is it not :rolleyes:

Lemming wrote:

I failed to qualify that remark correctly. It applies to anybody who is not a member of Islamic society and passes a remark that is critical of Islam or challenges a belief/practice of islam. It is perceived that you can say very little for fear of being attacked. And the west has had more than a handful of fairly high-profile murders over the last decade to prove that point.

I have many muslim friends who I have frank and open discussions about Islam all the time. I am critical and I challenge a lot of their beliefs. I have never been threatened .. there has never even been a raised voice. The vast majority of Muslim people I have met (and i have met and have been friends with many) are very respectful and peace loving people.

If you have a point to make to a muslim about his/her faith and you make that point in a respectful and intelligent manner and you have educated yourself in the topic then I dont see why any sane muslim would have a problem with it.

But .. when you are insulting to any faith in the global media then of course you are going to have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you .. and also .. you are going to offend a hell of a lot of people.

Lemming wrote:

Personally speaking, I wish more Muslims (i'm sure many do, but that many would appear very much a minority) would question their own belief structure; if not to break it down but to improve upon understanding of it and to highlight those cases where others are trying to manipulate it for their own goals; case in point - firebrand clerics telling half-truths to stir hatred. But because people are fearful of offending Islam by questioning or critiscing such people, they go unchecked.

There are 1.8 billion muslims in the world. A lot of them live in poverty in 3rd world countries and have little or no education. What you are asking is quite impossible for the time being.

However I think you will find that muslims living in the western world with a decent education like you and I are just normal people who do question their 'own' belief structure ... whatever that belief structure may be. You do know that Islam is not a centralized religion like the catholic church and there are mny different interpretations of the religion and the sharia law. Your sweeping statements are utter codswallop.

Lemming wrote:

Actually, had a picture of the prophet Mohammed been printed in any context by a western media outlet there would have been uproar, with the west accussed of attacking Islam.

Not true. Mohammed appeared on South Park where he was running around saving people alongside Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. There was no uproar about that .. the episode has been repeated many times on european television. Why no uproar?

Lemming wrote:

This is, I think, the most single and individually important comment you've made on this thread. To be a member of our society you HAVE to be willing to put up with this sort of behaviour, and people do it all the time. The fact that we have a large sub-group who are demanding to be exempt from t his whilst threatening to carry out wanton acts of violence appears to be lost on you.

Who is this large sub group that are demanding? Have you done a survey that Im not aware of. I think that its fair game for anyone in a civilized society to feel that they should not have to put this sort abuse. Would it be acceptable if this were racism? Why is there different standards. Peoples religion is fair game but race isnt? The fact is that you probably could not do something more insulting to the muslim community .. potraying their prophet in the way that the cartoons did was designed to have the kind of reaction it did.

Still the negative reaction and threats came from a minority of individuals within the muslim community. It offended every muslim but the vast majority just got on with it. But small minded people dont recognize the majority .. they want to focus on the minority that react and they try and paint the whole community with the same brush. And to make their point they continue to insult the average moderate muslim because they feel like they have to make this ridiculous point about free speech to this extreme minority.

oscarBravo

Raspberry wrote: »

الجهاد سرب

The lingua franca of this forum is English, so translate please.

lostexpectation

more facist v fascist

lostexpectation

Denis Irwin wrote: »

Osama can kiss my Irish arse. If he thinks We'll back down over his bullying and threats he's got another thing coming.

back down on what?

SeanW

Playboy wrote: »

>Quote

Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

Its quite clear what agenda you serve. Your own words. I did not misquote you.

You did before. You paraphrased this post as:

Playboy wrote:

telling muslims to feck of back to the dark ages

First of all, you said Muslims without any other qualifying criterion when I clearly qualified my statement by saying "someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions" and secondly, I was merely pointing out that some of these origin countries are still in the Dark Ages, Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc, in fact many places where Islamic law is currently implemented.

I have no problem with the muslims, minority or majority as they may be, who just live their lives, praying, going to mosque, buying their HalAl foods or whatever, and generally don't bother anyone else. However, those are not the kind of Muslims we're talking about in this thread - and I think you know that.

Go back to post 25 before responding.

Sesshoumaru

Playboy wrote: »

So by your logic should we allow racist, bigoted, sexist cartoons be printed because some people find it funny .. After all thats what is important .. our right to be amused at other peoples expense.

I doubt many people would buy a newspaper that printed racist material. I believe it is better to let people air their views whatever they may be. Better then to challenge those views in public. Social ostracization should be the consequence for a person or publisher who says things society strongly disagrees with.

I think this is how free speech has benefited and allowed progress in Western society over time. I mean a black person sitting at the front of a bus offended a lot of people at one time! Women demanding the vote and equal rights offended a lot of people also in our past. Homosexuals parading and demanding rights sure as hell offended a lot of people. If you had granted free speech without the right to offend where would be today? Where would the gay movement be? Where would African Americans be? and equal rights for women?

The right to offend people is absolutely necessary. Thankfully I see most people here are vigorously defending this right we have inherited.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

Well imo it was poor .. I wasnt aware that I wasnt allowed to be subjective? Your appraisal that the cartoons were 'contentious' and not 'poor' is subjective is it not :rolleyes:

No, and I shall use a :rolleyes: to follow that. 'Poor' is a matter of personal perspective. 'Contentious' is recognising the reality that you will offend somebody with whatever satire it is that you choose to publish.

I have many muslim friends who I have frank and open discussions about Islam all the time. I am critical and I challenge a lot of their beliefs. I have never been threatened .. there has never even been a raised voice. The vast majority of Muslim people I have met (and i have met and have been friends with many) are very respectful and peace loving people.

I'm sure you do have many reasoned and well educated Muslim friends. As for your claims of challenging their beliefs; I will have to take your word for that although I sincerely doubt you ask them nasty questions. In fairness, such questions aren't exactly table or casual conversation themes and it's not like people just break into such topics casually for the hell of it ...

If you have a point to make to a muslim about his/her faith and you make that point in a respectful and intelligent manner and you have educated yourself in the topic then I dont see why any sane muslim would have a problem with it.

You don't see why? Faith.

Faith spurred two very well educated Muslims [doctors] attempt to drive a car bomb into Glasgow airport. Faith led 19 hijackers, who were obviously intelligent enough, to train for and carry out the 9/11 attacks; London; Madrid, etc. Otherwise reasonably intelligent people. So why do such stupid, violent things?

I'd try to include some Christians in this, but tbh most I can think of have not been that remarkably adept at showing intelligence (other than pointing a gun) and tend to be complete lunatics. But I digress ...

Faith is funny like that. Faith makes otherwise ordinarily intelligent people do very f*cking stupid things.

But .. when you are insulting to any faith in the global media then of course you are going to have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you .. and also .. you are going to offend a hell of a lot of people.

So in order to not have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you, you should say nothing at all? Is that it?

Do you think Monty Python should have never written either 'The Quest for the Holy Grail' or 'The life of Brian' ? Do you think Galileo should never have defied the accepted teachings of the Vatican? Do you think the Irish Catholic church's stance on divorce, abortion, and paedophilia (and it's obstruction of investigation) should have remained unquestioned? In all of the above members of a faith were insulted and perceived their religion to be under attack.

To be perfectly honest, I could turn around and insult your favourite football team tomorrow and you might take it to heart and try and swing a punch at me. Whose fault would it be that you swing a punch because someone says something and you have so little control over yourself that you have to resort to violence?

There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. A lot of them live in poverty in 3rd world countries and have little or no education. What you are asking is quite impossible for the time being.

For the time being? Do you think that the Islamic world will suddenly just change overnight? Christianity didn't, nor did most other sects of religion I'm sure.

The issue of poverty is central to the cynical exploitation of many Muslims; by those pushing their own agendas twisting the Qur'an for their own means and using so many Muslims as pawns. I see that as nothing short of disgusting and what irks me is that we do not hear many Muslims speaking out and challenging such people. I'm sure there are those who do speak out, they just don't seem to get the attention they rightly deserve.

However I think you will find that Muslims living in the western world with a decent education like you and I are just normal people who do question their 'own' belief structure ... whatever that belief structure may be. You do know that Islam is not a centralized religion like the catholic church and there are mny different interpretations of the religion and the sharia law. Your sweeping statements are utter codswallop.

Just like your own sweeping statements are utter codswallop.

There are many different interpretations; some obscure; some very predominant. The current sect that is creating much of the negative press for Islam in general is Wahisbm - exported from Saudi Arabia by the wealth of the country's oil business. And as I understand it, many Muslims from other sects view Wahisbm as somewhat ... primitive/extreme. And vice versa Wahisbm views most other sects in an unfavourable light, and non-Muslims in an even less favourable light.

Not true. Mohammed appeared on South Park where he was running around saving people alongside Jesus, Buddha and Krishna. There was no uproar about that .. the episode has been repeated many times on european television. Why no uproar?

Because it probably slipped under the radar. How many Muslims watch South-Park? What demographic of Muslim is most likely to watch South-Park? Compare and contrast with the general demographic likely to pick up and read a newspaper or watch the evening news.

The only reason the Danish cartoons caused the uproar they did was because a bunch of clerics with an agenda did a tour of the ME to stir up hatred and outrage. Otherwise it would have been a near non-entity except perhaps locally in Denmark.

Who is this large sub group that are demanding? Have you done a survey that Im not aware of. I think that its fair game for anyone in a civilized society to feel that they should not have to put this sort abuse. Would it be acceptable if this were racism? Why is there different standards. Peoples religion is fair game but race isnt? The fact is that you probably could not do something more insulting to the muslim community .. potraying their prophet in the way that the cartoons did was designed to have the kind of reaction it did.

This large perceived sub-group is the Muslim community by your own words. You claimed that they were integrated into Western society and are feeling insulted and aggrieved by this. So I must assume that you have done a comprehensive survey yourself and are prepared to publish it for all to scrutinise.

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

No, and I shall use a :rolleyes: to follow that. 'Poor' is a matter of personal perspective. 'Contentious' is recognising the reality that you will offend somebody with whatever satire it is that you choose to publish.

Look any judgement you make is a subjective judgement. If you judge the 'satire' to be contentious then that is your subjective opinion. If you want to argue the point then start a thread on the philosophy forum.

Lemming wrote:

I'm sure you do have many reasoned and well educated Muslim friends. As for your claims of challenging their beliefs; I will have to take your word for that although I sincerely doubt you ask them nasty questions. In fairness, such questions aren't exactly table or casual conversation themes and it's not like people just break into such topics casually for the hell of it ...

For instance? Honor Killings, female circumcision, domestic abuse, the age of Mohammeds wives, stoning, 911, extremism etc etc. ? I have discussed all of these and have never had a problem with anyone I talked to. On the contrary I learned that I held a lot of mistaken beliefs and ill informed opinions. If you like I can ask any number of muslims to answer any questions you might have via email. You could also take a trip to the Islam forum and ask the people there.

Lemming wrote:

You don't see why? Faith.

Faith spurred two very well educated Muslims [doctors] attempt to drive a car bomb into Glasgow airport. Faith led 19 hijackers, who were obviously intelligent enough, to train for and carry out the 9/11 attacks; London; Madrid, etc. Otherwise reasonably intelligent people. So why do such stupid, violent things?

Assumption. You think it was faith .. how do you know? Maybe it was politically motivated. Whatever the case in any religion you are going to get some extremists or lunatics. You have all sorts of crazy christians and jews too you know killing people for religious reasons.

Lemming wrote:

Faith is funny like that. Faith makes otherwise ordinarily intelligent people do very f*cking stupid things.

It can also make them do some quite wonderful and extraordinary things like devoting your life to charity.

Lemming wrote:

So in order to not have extremists and lunatics climbing out of the woodwork to threaten you, you should say nothing at all? Is that it?

Look Im starting to think that we are arguing around each other or you are not understanding my point.

By all means mock and insult .. that is your right. Personally I find that sort of thing irresponsible esp in the political climate at the moment. What I do object to is people attacking Islam and then accusing all Muslims of being violent when in fact it is only a tiny minority that react to this kind of thing. What purpose do these cartoons serve? What are they trying to achieve and who are they insulting.

Put yourself in the position of a regular Muslim. You live in the west and you work hard and try and live a good life. You are deeply religious and you religion is precious to you. You see cartoons mocking and offending your religion. You are upset but dont do anything. Then you see some extremists attack and kill people because of this .. something that also makes you sad because this goes against your religion. Then you have to deal with the cartoons being reprinted repeatedly and you have to listen to people and the media demonize your faith and your brothers because of the actions of some extremists. You probably even have to put up with people insulting you to your face because the media has created such a warped image of your faith.

The only people that are getting hurt in all of this are regular muslims .. most of who live good lives. Why should we insult a section of our society, be it gay, muslim, black, irish or whatever.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

Look any judgement you make is a subjective judgement. If you judge the 'satire' to be contentious then that is your subjective opinion. If you want to argue the point then start a thread on the philosophy forum.

Satire pokes fun at its subject in an attempt to get at it. Someone, somewhere is always going to be offended by it. Most probably the subject of the satire. That isn't a judgement. That's cold, stark reality.

Deciding whether the satire was good, poor, or indifferent is a matter of personal judgment.

Assumption. You think it was faith .. how do you know? Maybe it was politically motivated. Whatever the case in any religion you are going to get some extremists or lunatics. You have all sorts of crazy christians and jews too you know killing people for religious reasons.

We are both making assumption since we'll never really know. In reality it all boils down to hatred and nothing more, but the groups responsible claimed to be doing it for their faith. Whomever manipulated those people into doing what they did out did so by exploiting their faith. Those acts were carried out in the name of faith.

I choose the example of Muslim extremists since that is fairly central to this discussion. And I have already said there are extremists in other religions already.

It can also make them do some quite wonderful and extraordinary things like devoting your life to charity.

Indeed it can. I also know quite a few non-religious people who have devoted considerable amounts of their time to charity as well. What's your point? That only the religious are good people? Personally speaking, I've met religious people who would make your skin crawl. I also have a childhood friend who had very religiously inclined family members enact appalling circumstances upon him because of his sexual preferences (all within the last 10 years I might add ... ). Like most things in life, there are nice people and there are not nice people and it doesn't matter what background they have.

Look Im starting to think that we are arguing around each other or you are not understanding my point.

Oh I understand full well the point you're trying to make. It completely misses the point of what we consider within our society to be a central core principle.

By all means mock and insult .. that is your right. Personally I find that sort of thing irresponsible esp in the political climate at the moment. What I do object to is people attacking Islam and then accusing all Muslims of being violent when in fact it is only a tiny minority that react to this kind of thing. What purpose do these cartoons serve? What are they trying to achieve and who are they insulting.

Personally, I find not speaking out when you really should to be even more irresponsible. Anyone who mocks and insults for the sake of it is being an arsehole. Satire however serves a purpose as a vehicle of discussion. And currently, whether you like it or not, Islam is being given a bad reputation within the West currently by a bunch of extremists both at home and abroad stoking the fans of hatred. Even seemingly innocent acts become great mole-hills. A teddy bear anyone, for example? How about the charity worker who was married to an Iraqi and had lived there for 30 years who was then kidnapped and beheaded by Al Queda in Iraq a couple of years back? Margaret Hassan I think? There are a couple of incidents (at least one of which is still on-going) related to Dublin but I wont mention them in case I step in a legal minefield.

How do your friends reconcile with the reality of radical clerics gaining prominent posts in Mosques in the West and preaching hatred for the very countries that have sheltered them; preying in the young and impressionable to indoctrinate? Would they challenge the "teachings" of these people? Or turn their backs and simply quietly go about their business and hope it goes away?

How would your friends reconcile with knowing someone in the same neighbourhood is an known Al Queda operative/fundraiser granted asylum and laundering money through claimed Islamic charities?

How would your friends reconcile the knowledge that a teacher narrowly escaped physical beatings and had to be smuggled out of a country for fear of being beaten to death by a lynch mod in the name of Islam for allowing the children in her class hold a vote on a teddy bear's name?

So as you can see, Islam is a hot-topic so to speak. Maybe next week it'll be the Mahon tribunal and some satire about Bertie. Maybe the week after that it'll be the cocaine-snorting socialites of Dublin, etc. etc.

Put yourself in the position of a regular Muslim. You live in the west and you work hard and try and live a good life. You are deeply religious and you religion is precious to you. You see cartoons mocking and offending your religion. You are upset but dont do anything. Then you see some extremists attack and kill people because of this .. something that also makes you sad because this goes against your religion. Then you have to deal with the cartoons being reprinted repeatedly and you have to listen to people and the media demonize your faith and your brothers because of the actions of some extremists. You probably even have to put up with people insulting you to your face because the media has created such a warped image of your faith.

Oh, I sympathise for ordinary Muslims caught in the middle of all this. I really do. And to be honest, being half-Scot and catching some flack for my Irish-side once or twice I can appreciate some of what they perhaps have to deal with. To answer your question; I'd be more angry with the b*stards doing horrendous things in my name (when I never said so) than the people who react angrily.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

If we want freedom of speech, we have to allow for people being offended. That is the sacrifice.

So it's ok to make jokes about blacks, disabled people, etc etc. It's ok for English comedians to constantly take the piss out of Irish people?

Raspberry wrote: »

Why is it that you feel we should trim our opinions in an effort to try and avoid offending a bunch of people due to a ridiculous belief they have?

If you didn't like the mother of some guy you worked with, if you thought she was a slut who sleeps around, would you draw a cartoon taking the piss out of her and stick it up on the office noticeboard? No you wouldn't. Why? Because he would get extremely upset with you. Depend on the type of person he was he would not every talk to you again or maybe he would beat the life out of you. So if you would not do this, then why would you draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad which would cause similar feelings of hurt for billions of Muslims around the world? I just don't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing unless their real motive is to cause division between Muslims and non-Muslims.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. I have issues with Islamofascism. I don't want to live under an extremist Sharia jackboot. Full stop.

You misquoted me. I said Muslims in the West who feel that their religion is in direct conflict with the native laws and norms of the Western country they occupy, should - instead of introducing Sharia law to the United Kingdon which is what some were trying to do - go piss off to some place like Saudi Arabia which does have Islamic law and is already in the Dark Ages.

Where are you getting this idea that Muslims in the UK want to introduce Sharia Law to the UK???? That is totally untrue. Muslims in the UK want the option to be able to settle certain family issues, such as divorce cases according to Muslim law (Jews already have these rights in the UK). This will in no way replace the existing UK laws on divorce. It will just allow a Muslim couple who want to get divorced according to Islamic law to do so. And both the husband and wife have to agree to handle the divorce in this way. If either disagree then it is settled using the standard UK divorce laws. You could think of it as when you have a small car accident. Standard procedure is that you should notify your insurance company and make a claim off the other persons insurance. However you my decide, if the other person agrees, to settle the problem without going through the insurance company. This is all Muslims want the right to be able to do. Currently a divorce takes 3 years to process in the UK. If Muslims were able to settle their divorce using Islamic rules, this process could be completed in a few months.

Raspberry

irishconvert wrote: »

So it's ok to make jokes about blacks, disabled people, etc etc. It's ok for English comedians to constantly take the piss out of Irish people?

Yeah, it is.

irishconvert wrote: »

If you didn't like the mother of some guy you worked with, if you thought she was a slut who sleeps around, would you draw a cartoon taking the piss out of her and stick it up on the office noticeboard? No you wouldn't. Why? Because he would get extremely upset with you.

These are two scenarios are completely different and your point is rather ridiculous. Not even the logic you've used in your scenario applies to the danish cartoons. You wouldn't take the piss out of your mates mother because you have no reason to since it's on a personal level. The cartoons were highlighting the point that radical Islam is dangerous and that whilst Islam is claimed to be a peaceful religion, it is not all that peaceful. Also, as the cartoons were directed at a religion, the cartoons were not personal.

irishconvert wrote: »

Depend on the type of person he was he would not every talk to you again or maybe he would beat the life out of you. So if you would not do this, then why would you draw a cartoon of the profit Muhammad which would cause similar feelings of hurt for billions of Muslims around the world? I just don't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing unless their real motive is to cause division between Muslims and non-Muslims.

If it were offensive to a large group of people that you chose to drink alcohol whether it was in front of their face or not, would you drink alcohol? The point is that they have a ridiculous belief, and they want to impose their own rules on the rest of the world to uphold this belief.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

Yeah, it is.

But it is not, it would not be published in any newspaper here or shown on TV.

Raspberry wrote: »

These are two scenarios are completely different and your point is rather ridiculous. Not even the logic you've used in your scenario applies to the danish cartoons. You wouldn't take the piss out of your mates mother because you have no reason to since it's on a personal level. The cartoons were highlighting the point that radical Islam is dangerous and that whilst Islam is claimed to be a peaceful religion, it is not all that peaceful. Also, as the cartoons were directed at a religion, the cartoons were not personal.

They are personal, I am tying to explain to you how Muslims feel about the prophet Muhammad being insulted. It is even worse than somebody insulting your mother or wife or someone close to you. Does that make sense to you?

Raspberry wrote: »

If it were offensive to a large group of people that you chose to drink alcohol whether it was in front of their face or not, would you drink alcohol? The point is that they have a ridiculous belief, and they want to impose their own rules on the rest of the world to uphold this belief.

Look, there are over 30,000 Muslims in Ireland, over 2 million in the UK. I didn't see or hear any protests about the cartoons. People were hurt by it but just got on with their life. Why would you want to publish a cartoon when you know it will hurt and offend so many people who do not act in a violent way?

Raspberry

irishconvert wrote: »

But it is not, it would not be published in any newspaper here or shown on TV.

No, generally jokes and English comedian slagging off Ireland aren't published in daily newspapers. Keyword newspapers.

irishconvert wrote: »

They are personal, I am tying to explain to you how Muslims feel about the profit Muhammad being insulted. It is even worse than somebody insulting your mother or wife or someone close to you. Does that make sense to you?

Well you failed miserably with that example. Drawing images of a a religious figure is completely different to drawing pictures slagging off your best friends mother and posting it up in the office. Just stop with that line of reasoning all together. I'm telling you now that you're wrong.

irishconvert wrote: »

Look, there are over 30,000 Muslims in Ireland, over 2 million in the UK. I didn't see or hear any protests about the cartoons. People were hurt by it but just got on with their life. Why would you want to publish a cartoon when you know it will hurt and offend so many people who do not act in a violent way?

There were mass protests actually. People with signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" and all sorts. Hell, a number of people were killed in Pakistan and an embassy was burned to the ground in Iran. You quite obviously didn't follow this at all.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

raspberry.. seriously, marry me.

irishconvert

Raspberry wrote: »

Well you failed miserably with that example. Drawing images of a a religious figure is completely different to drawing pictures slagging off your best friends mother and posting it up in the office. Just stop with that line of reasoning all together. I'm telling you now that you're wrong.

You can't understand, nevermind.

Raspberry wrote: »

There were mass protests actually. People with signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" and all sorts. Hell, a number of people were killed in Pakistan and an embassy was burned to the ground in Iran. You quite obviously didn't follow this at all.

I am talking about the UK and Ireland. With over 2 million Muslims no violent protests. The question I am asking you is do you think it is ok to offend all these peaceful Muslims in order to try to make some point to the extremists who react violently, who are in a minority?