At least 82 killed as gunmen rampage in India city

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

shiznit770 said:
I couldn't find any source to back up your claim. The sites I found supporting your claim were clearly biased and placed the cartoon in Egypt's newspapers in October 2005, which would actually be two weeks after the danish newspaper's publication. Those biased sources also fail to address the context in which the cartoons were put in the Egyptian newspaper. They were condemning the images.

I don't know whether the cartoons were published in Egypt prior to being published in the Danish publication. What I do recall, though, and what I think is more important, is that some of the cartoons presented to the Arab street were not published in the Danish publication. They were created by the very clerics brandishing the actual cartoons throughout the Middle East in order to stir up resentment and anger.

I'll try to find a link, but while the Danish publication publisged 12 cartoons, the set of cartoons distributed by that islamic group in Denmark included 15 cartoons.

Here we go.

Another.

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

shiznit770 said:
The reason you haven't a clue, in regards to the response to the cartoon vs terrorism, is because you, and many other more conservatives, choose to view this as having primarily a religious causation. The racist and disrespectful cartoon singled out Muslims and Arabs by race and religion, two broad terms which made it easy to unite on a global level.

Oh? So these terror attacks are not motivated by religion? The flavor of the day grievances cited by these terrorists don't have any religious component to them whatsoever? So when OBL declared that the presence of American troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia justified his terror attacks against the US, that was what? Bin Laden giving us a head fake? Bin Laden lying? Bin Laden never said such things?

Well?

If you insist on putting religion to the fore and settling for the easy explanation, you will continue to be confused when Muslims rise up against direct attacks on their religion and stereotypes while ignoring politically motivated terror.

Hmmm, so you believe that burning embassies, taking hostages, murdering three people suspected of being Christians and/or Danes, shooting at Danish soldiers helping children in Iraq, marching through London with banners threatening further bomb attacks on the city, and attacking and beating people whom they suspected of some vague connection with, well, with Europe or Christianity to be a justified response to cartoons?

Seriously?

Invayne · Dec 1, 2008

SquareMelon said:
Can you source this? Thanks

Cartoons in Egypt: Last October | The Brussels Journal

You can google Mohammed cartoons in Egyptian paper and get more sources.

Invayne · Dec 1, 2008

shiznit770 said:
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I couldn't find any source to back up your claim. The sites I found supporting your claim were clearly biased and placed the cartoon in Egypt's newspapers in October 2005, which would actually be two weeks after the danish newspaper's publication. Those biased sources also fail to address the context in which the cartoons were put in the Egyptian newspaper. They were condemning the images.

Oh come on. Wiki? Talk about unreliable sources!

Laila · Dec 1, 2008

Invayne said:
Did you know that those "racist and disrespectful" cartoons were shown in an EGYPTIAN newspaper about 3 months before the Danish showed them, and no one got upset? Why was that? Sounds like the Muslims crying for blood are the racist ones.

I was disgusted at the cartoons.
But i felt physically ill when the cartoons was supressed by the Media.
The same rights that allow me to sit here and speak my mind should equally protect those bashing any religion they please.

Thats freedom and some European Muslims do need to realise they cannot have it both ways. They cannot benefit from those freedoms when it suits them without respecting those rights even if its something they do not like being said.

The Governments let me down as a moderate Muslim for not telling those Muslims protesting violently to shut up and sit down and if they do not like it; to get out of Europe.

DeeJayH said:
do muslims have no understanding of the term REVOLUTION?
plenty of peoples have done it
and guess what, it will cost blood and treasure
but as long as you sit on your hands, you are equally to blame, for what is done in your name

Revolution?

I personally feel that soon there will be a clash between moderate Islam and the Extreme version. Both cannot exist at the same time :/

Laila · Dec 1, 2008

cherokee said:
First you recognize they exists like you have just done...
Many Muslims sites wont even do that.

A good start would be to make more noise then they do.

Yeah right, make more noise?

Mainstream media hates Moderate Muslims.
We condemn almost all forms of attacks but do FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY show it? Hell no.

Face it. Crazy Muslims shouting about killing Americans or Jews are better for their rating than Muslims preaching peace.

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

Laila said:
I was disgusted at the cartoons.

That's a fair reaction. But did you find the original 12 that revolting or only the additional three that the clerics shopping this story around the Middle East created?

B

ut i felt physically ill when the cartoons was supressed by the Media.
The same rights that allow me to sit here and speak my mind should equally protect those bashing any religion they please.

Too bad many Muslims disagree with you as we saw when they took to the streets to burn embassies, riot, and murder those they merely perceived to be westerners.

People like Theo Van Gogh would agree with you but he was stabbed to death by some Muslim for daring to make a provocative film about Islam. So, too, would Ayaab Hirsi Ali agree with you, and she is now under permanent police protection since radical Islamist terrorists have threatened to kill her too.

This whole issue started when this Danish learned that illustrators were refusing to provide illustrations for a book for fear of being targetted with violence. So they printed these cartoons. Then, after these 12 and the additional three were shopped around the Middle East specifically to incite such reactions, did other publications refuse to print them. This was not suppression. It was a rational and logical response to the violence these publishers were witnessing on the part of Muslims.

These publishers refused to print this material because they rightly feared for the safety of their personnel.

Thats freedom and some European Muslims do need to realise they cannot have it both ways. They cannot benefit from those freedoms when it suits them without respecting those rights even if its something they do not like being said

But they do take it both ways. They use the broad freedoms they have to foment such violent reactions to what they perceive as offensive.

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

Laila said:
Yeah right, make more noise?

Mainstream media hates Moderate Muslims.
We condemn almost all forms of attacks but do FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY show it? Hell no.

Face it. Crazy Muslims shouting about killing Americans or Jews are better for their rating than Muslims preaching peace.

I'm sympathetic to this media bias argument. If not only because when the mainstream media was a "moderate" reaction, they pursue comments from groups like CAIR or people like Juan Cole at Michigan who act as apologists for Islamic violence. For example, CAIR was recently successful is badgering the FBI into removing "honor killing" when referencing a recent Taxes murder case.

shiznit770 · Dec 1, 2008

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Not those who carried out said policy?

Then how are your terrorist buddies "justified" in killing those who killed their cohorts?

They aint killing the policy makers.

So they are allowed to do nothing since they possess neither the means nor intuition to realize it is the policy makers making the decisions?

JMak said:
Oh? So these terror attacks are not motivated by religion? The flavor of the day grievances cited by these terrorists don't have any religious component to them whatsoever? So when OBL declared that the presence of American troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia justified his terror attacks against the US, that was what? Bin Laden giving us a head fake? Bin Laden lying? Bin Laden never said such things?

I am not claiming religion plays no role in terrorism, just that it is not accurate to put it as the cause and underlying problem. Islam has been hijacked for political ends and the sooner they are dealt with the better off everyone will be.

JMak said:
Hmmm, so you believe that burning embassies, taking hostages, murdering three people suspected of being Christians and/or Danes, shooting at Danish soldiers helping children in Iraq, marching through London with banners threatening further bomb attacks on the city, and attacking and beating people whom they suspected of some vague connection with, well, with Europe or Christianity to be a justified response to cartoons?

When you consider that the sentiments portrayed in the cartoon and newspaper in general are the exact reason for support of troops in Iraq, then the killings can be understood, not condoned or justified. Using racism and stereotyping a religion to support a war should be protested imo.

JMak said:
I don't know whether the cartoons were published in Egypt prior to being published in the Danish publication. What I do recall, though, and what I think is more important, is that some of the cartoons presented to the Arab street were not published in the Danish publication. They were created by the very clerics brandishing the actual cartoons throughout the Middle East in order to stir up resentment and anger.

I'll try to find a link, but while the Danish publication publisged 12 cartoons, the set of cartoons distributed by that islamic group in Denmark included 15 cartoons.

I would hardly consider The Brussels Journal a reliable news source and I disagree, I think the context of the Egyptian newspaper was extremely important in order to understand why there was no protest of it. I do recognize that the cartoon was utilized by some Islamic leaders to gain political support. A political reaction should not be used to criticize an entire religion.

Tashah said:
First off, I am only mildly conservative in regards to fiscal responsibility so don't even try to label me as a blanket conservative. Secondly, in Islam everything is considered to be under the purview of Allah. Thus there is no excuse to protest en-mass one form of Islamic disrespect (offensive Mohammad cartoons) and not protest en-mass a much more grievous form of Islamic disrespect (murdering hundreds of innocents in the name of Islam). Sorry, but Islam can't (either ideologically or ethically) have it both ways without being obviously and terribly inconsistent.

I did not mean to label you as a conservative, I was addressing your conservative lean on the specific issue in question. Generalizing their religion accomplishes little, Christianity is divided on countless issues, are they too inconsistent?

Tashah said:
You miss the overarching point. Any willful attacks on innocents by Muslims - and accomplished in the name of Islam - should be loudly and publicy castigated en-mass by the Muslim community regardless of whether the catalyst is either politically or religiously inspired.

And you are missing the overarching point that attacks on innocent Muslims are not loudly and publicly criticized. People are selfish, they generally only protest publicly on issues that effect them directly. They protest US collateral damage through military operations just as the US gets outraged over 9/11 and Israelis over mortar shelling. Your expectation is unrealistic and hypocritical.

Laila · Dec 1, 2008

JMak said:
That's a fair reaction. But did you find the original 12 that revolting or only the additional three that the clerics shopping this story around the Middle East created?

Any image defacing my Prophet is sick regardless if it was drawn by a European or a Cleric.

Too bad many Muslims disagree with you as we saw when they took to the streets to burn embassies, riot, and murder those they merely perceived to be westerners.

I know. I had my head in my hands watching that on the news. It was blown way out of proportion.
Oh it was so embarassing

People like Theo Van Gogh would agree with you but he was stabbed to death by some Muslim for daring to make a provocative film about Islam.

Yes i know and i hope the murderer got punished by the law. I hope he never sees light again.

So, too, would Ayaab Hirsi Ali agree with you, and she is now under permanent police protection since radical Islamist terrorists have threatened to kill her too.

Ah well, i dislike Ayaab. I think she is just after money and uses bashing Islam as a way to get it.
Im against threatening anyone or breaking the law in any form and i pity her. I just don't like her.

This was not suppression. It was a rational and logical response to the violence these publishers were witnessing on the part of Muslims.

These publishers refused to print this material because they rightly feared for the safety of their personnel.

I disagree.
Democracy and freedom should be upheld in all cases.
It does not make it better for democracy when you suppress cartoons, Newspapers/media refused to pick up on it for fear of offending Muslims!
When you start heeding to the minority of Muslims crying, then you legitimize and make them stronger

I would have told them Muslims to **** off if they do not like Democracy. We are not preventing them leaving and going to Saudi Arabia where anyone insulting would face death.

But they do take it both ways. They use the broad freedoms they have to foment such violent reactions to what they perceive as offensive.

Yes they do.
And the Government should ensure they do not take the piss.

Novel pulled from bookshops after Muslim protest | Books | guardian.co.uk

The Serbian publisher of Sherry Jones's controversial novel about the child bride of Muhammad has withdrawn the book following protests from an Islamic pressure group.

I hate what she is writing about but i would defend her right to write about it. I just will not read her filth

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

shiznit770 said:
I am not claiming religion plays no role in terrorism, just that it is not accurate to put it as the cause and underlying problem. Islam has been hijacked for political ends and the sooner they are dealt with the better off everyone will be.

If religion is not at the heart of Islamic jihad then wtf is?

When you consider that the sentiments portrayed in the cartoon and newspaper in general are the exact reason for support of troops in Iraq, then the killings can be understood, not condoned or justified. Using racism and stereotyping a religion to support a war should be protested imo.

Understood? LOL!

You haven't seen the cartoons, have you?

BTW - the war was never premised on racism or stereotyping.

I would hardly consider The Brussels Journal a reliable news source and I disagree, I think the context of the Egyptian newspaper was extremely important in order to understand why there was no protest of it. I do recognize that the cartoon was utilized by some Islamic leaders to gain political support. A political reaction should not be used to criticize an entire religion.

Huh? Are you for real?

You wouldn't know how to assess a publication as reliable let alone dismiss the BJ as unreliable without any explanation.

I was merely commenting that the cartoons by themselves didn't stir much controversy until after some clerics created even more offensive cartoons and then shopped them around the Middle East seeking to incite violence. That's what the citations provided. If you disagree, then feel free to submit a counter citation that demnstrates the info provided is false or at least provides an unreasonable interpretation of the issue.

Simple claiming the BJ is unreliable is, well, unreliable.

You're a joke.

Laila · Dec 1, 2008

JMak said:
I'm sympathetic to this media bias argument. If not only because when the mainstream media was a "moderate" reaction, they pursue comments from groups like CAIR or people like Juan Cole at Michigan who act as apologists for Islamic violence. For example, CAIR was recently successful is badgering the FBI into removing "honor killing" when referencing a recent Taxes murder case.

Oh jeez :doh
I never thought i'd see US accepting BS like that.

It was a honor killing. What else would we call it?

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

Laila said:
Any image defacing my Prophet is sick regardless if it was drawn by a European or a Cleric.

Ok.

I know. I had my head in my hands watching that on the news. It was blown way out of proportion.
Oh it was so embarassing

But this reaction was not atypical. This reax was typical and representative of how Muslims respond when they feel offended.

I compare that to the total lack of response anymore by Christians when our government subsidizes such art as the Piss Christ.

Yes i know and i hope the murderer got punished by the law. I hope he never sees light again.

But you see how this incident, along with Hirsi having to be under constant protection, and the Arab streets riots following the publication of these cartoons contributes to the fear that publishers had in publishing these cartoons. They weren't suppressing, they were afraid.

Ah well, i dislike Ayaab. I think she is just after money and uses bashing Islam as a way to get it.
Im against threatening anyone or breaking the law in any form and i pity her. I just don't like her.

She's just after money? Puhlease. Don't attribute bogus motivations to her because you simply disagree with her.

I disagree.
Democracy and freedom should be upheld in all cases.
It does not make it better for democracy when you suppress cartoons, Newspapers/media refused to pick up on it for fear of offending Muslims!
When you start heeding to the minority of Muslims crying, then you legitimize and make them stronger

No, the didn't print them for fear of the violent retribution they felt they would be exposed to.

But I agree with the appeasement argument. The problem is publishers aren't going to endanger their people simply to make a point about principle. We saw with this episode.

I would have told them Muslims to **** off if they do not like Democracy. We are not preventing them leaving and going to Saudi Arabia where anyone insulting would face death.

Good luck with that. Muslims have successfully instilled fear in people whether through terror attacks, rioting in the streets (in the Middle east) or in France, for example, etc. It's easy to say that. But when you have a screaming cleric in your face with real instances of murder in the recent past, well, good luck.

I hate what she is writing about but i would defend her write it. I just will not read her filth.

Why do you consider it filth?

JMak · Dec 1, 2008

Laila said:
Oh jeez :doh
I never thought i'd see US accepting BS like that.

It was a honor killing. What else would we call it?

I don't accept it. I just take note of these organizations because they are often relied on by the mainstream media to represent moderate Islamic voices.

Laila · Dec 1, 2008

JMak said:
But you see how this incident, along with Hirsi having to be under constant protection, and the Arab streets riots following the publication of these cartoons contributes to the fear that publishers had in publishing these cartoons. They weren't suppressing, they were afraid.

Inside UK, media outlets refused to publish them and yet there was still protests. Some people are never pleased.

She's just after money? Puhlease. Don't attribute bogus motivations to her because you simply disagree with her.

I dislike her as a person.
I agree with some of her views, i just still think she is just crying for attention and money.

But I agree with the appeasement argument. The problem is publishers aren't going to endanger their people simply to make a point about principle. We saw with this episode.

True, doesn't make me feel any better but appeasement of any type is a form of defeat.

Good luck with that. Muslims have successfully instilled fear in people whether through terror attacks, rioting in the streets (in the Middle east) or in France, for example, etc. It's easy to say that. But when you have a screaming cleric in your face with real instances of murder in the recent past, well, good luck.

LOL
I have said it. Many times in my Mosque, my Imam thinks im a Jew and should be cleansed :roll:

Why do you consider it filth?

Its talking about my Prophet and it is not nice allegations being levelled :/
I don't need to read it ever but i wouldn't prevent anyone else reading it.

JMak said:
I don't accept it. I just take note of these organizations because they are often relied on by the mainstream media to represent moderate Islamic voices.

No organization speaks for Moderate Muslims
They are all unelected, self appointed self serving men especially Muslim Council of Britain.

Invayne · Dec 1, 2008

Laila said:
Yeah right, make more noise?

Mainstream media hates Moderate Muslims.
We condemn almost all forms of attacks but do FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY show it? Hell no.

Face it. Crazy Muslims shouting about killing Americans or Jews are better for their rating than Muslims preaching peace.

And I hate the mainstream media for the same reasons. I don't even watch the news anymore.:thumbdown

Laila · Dec 1, 2008

Invayne said:
And I hate the mainstream media for the same reasons. I don't even watch the news anymore.:thumbdown

I still watch the news, i need to keep up to date somehow.
I just use a wide range of sources

Invayne · Dec 1, 2008

JMak said:
CAIR was recently successful is badgering the FBI into removing "honor killing" when referencing a recent Taxes murder case.

WHAT?? More PC Bull****.

shiznit770 · Dec 1, 2008

JMak said:
You wouldn't know how to assess a publication as reliable let alone dismiss the BJ as unreliable without any explanation.

I was merely commenting that the cartoons by themselves didn't stir much controversy until after some clerics created even more offensive cartoons and then shopped them around the Middle East seeking to incite violence. That's what the citations provided. If you disagree, then feel free to submit a counter citation that demnstrates the info provided is false or at least provides an unreasonable interpretation of the issue.

Simple claiming the BJ is unreliable is, well, unreliable.

You're a joke.

You're right, the cartoons were taken too far by the Danish Imams. The BJ calls for them to be put to death and claims that they created the images themselves, ignoring the fact that they are cited as being received by Muslims participating in an online debate.

The images, if they really were sent to Muslims, were probably more in anger of the Imam's demands for PCness than actual hate for Muslims and should not have been used by the Imams. Personally I choose not to read sources who distort the news with opinion to drive a predetermined point home.

SquareMelon · Dec 1, 2008

An american muslim view on the issue raised in this post about muslims not condeming terrorism enough.

Ali Eteraz: The Myth of Muslim Condemnation of Terror[/

The other, equally popular and equally absurd, idea is that Muslims do not condemn terrorism. This too makes its way into culture from the right (though judging by comments to my last post, its diffused to some members of the left). Though it is subtler, and argues from insinuation, it is no less pernicious. The implication is that every Muslim in the world who doesn't engage in terrorism is nevertheless a latent supporter, or enabler, of terrorism because he doesn't make loud proclamations against it.

First, there is something dirty with the premise of this idea because it makes terrorism a problem of the entire Muslim collective. Perhaps those individuals who make this argument were in a coma during the 20th century when most of us realized that to treat all the people of any one religion, ideology, or race, as a collective is not only bigoted, but downright dangerous.

Second, heaping an expectation on Muslims - to call out "their" criminals - is absurd when no similar expectation is placed on any other religious, ethnic, or ideological group. Is it appropriate for a white man to tell "the hispanics" to make proclamations against the drug trade? Why should a hispanic who has never even touched drugs speak out against drug lords? His abstention from engaging in the drug trade is condemnation enough. The same goes for Muslims and terrorism. If you want a Muslim to condemn terrorism, realize that he has done so by not engaging in it. Life becomes quite insufferable for Muslims if before speaking about any subject a Muslim is required to first "demonstrate" that he is not "on the side of the enemy." This has had a huge chilling effect on artistic and intellectual production by Muslim youth

Third, in our digital age, it is an act of egregious ignorance for a human being to actually verbalize the words: "Do Muslims condemn terror?" Here is a suggestion from a lowly immigrant: try this thing called "googling." Start with using the search terms "Muslims condemn terror." This was the first hit for me, how about you?

Finally, the reality is that condemnations of terrorism have been pouring in for years. The reasons that so many Americans are still ignorant about them are because they have willfully chosen not to pay attention. Having traveled internationally quite a few times since 2001, I can confidently say that our media has one of the lowest IQs about Islam anywhere in the world. It is - and should be - downright shameful that when I speak to British audiences, I am able to have intelligent discussions about complicated points of Islamic history; meanwhile, now six years since 9/11 and in the US I am still clarifying the simple point that Muslims soundly oppose terrorism

Invayne said:
Originally Posted by Invayne
Did you know that those "racist and disrespectful" cartoons were shown in an EGYPTIAN newspaper about 3 months before the Danish showed them.

Can you source this? Thanks

Invayne said:

Cartoons in Egypt: Last October | The Brussels Journal

You can google Mohammed cartoons in Egyptian paper and get more sources.

Click to expand...

Thanks. This paper ran the story describing them as a "continuing insult" and a "racist bomb". on 10/17/2005 17 days after they were published in the Danish paper not 3 months before. It showed 4 of the 13.

ReverendHellh0und · Dec 2, 2008

shiznit770 said:
So they are allowed to do nothing since they possess neither the means nor intuition to realize it is the policy makers making the decisions?
.

Who are you talking about, the terrorists you defend or the troops you besmirch, you are rather ambiguous here.

ReverendHellh0und · Dec 2, 2008

Laila said:
Yeah right, make more noise?

Mainstream media hates Moderate Muslims.
We condemn almost all forms of attacks but do FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY show it? Hell no.

Face it. Crazy Muslims shouting about killing Americans or Jews are better for their rating than Muslims preaching peace.

This is laughable.

shiznit770 · Dec 2, 2008

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Who are you talking about, the terrorists you defend or the troops you besmirch, you are rather ambiguous here.

I clarified it was the fault of policy makers for sending our troops into an offensive operation. The Iraqi's are justified in fighting what they perceive to be a foreign invasion. You are so deluded on this issue that you think any Iraqi who shows resistance to the US occupation is a terrorist. Its amazing the things you and many others can justify just by throwing that word around.

ReverendHellh0und · Dec 2, 2008

shiznit770 said:
I clarified it was the fault of policy makers for sending our troops into an offensive operation. The Iraqi's are justified in fighting what they perceive to be a foreign invasion. You are so deluded on this issue that you think any Iraqi who shows resistance to the US occupation is a terrorist. Its amazing the things you and many others can justify just by throwing that word around.

Terrorist, insurgent, man with gun shooting at Americans.... its all the same 7.62 being flung.

The iraqis have a government, if people are shooting at Americans they are illegal and should be shot.

I love how you infer US troops are duped and state that illegal combatants are justified. (there is that word better?)

PA thetic. :roll:

shiznit770 · Dec 2, 2008

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Terrorist, insurgent, man with gun shooting at Americans.... its all the same 7.62 being flung.

The iraqis have a government, if people are shooting at Americans they are illegal and should be shot.

I love how you infer US troops are duped and state that illegal combatants are justified. (there is that word better?)

PA thetic. :roll:

I never said US troops are duped, they are serving their country and submitting themselves to a higher power in service to our country. I see our continued presence in Iraq for what it is, an occupying force. With this occupation the Iraqi government will never become legitimate.

I never said we were not justified in returning fire and killing Iraqi combatants, just that they are not terrorists and the use of the word to describe all of our enemies is dangerous.

At least 82 killed as gunmen rampage in India city

JMak

JMak

Invayne

Well-known member

Invayne

Well-known member

Laila

Laila

JMak

JMak

shiznit770

Laila

JMak

Laila

JMak

JMak

Laila

Invayne

Well-known member

Laila

Invayne

Well-known member

shiznit770

SquareMelon

Member

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

shiznit770

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

shiznit770