Danish Embassy burns

[lada]

Originally posted by Fishu
Lets see if Syrian leaders will apologize in the behalf of their citizens.
No muslim or property was harmed with the cartoons.

because symbol whitch has been attacked might be more important for them that house or car ?

ummm ?

[lada]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I've been fed up with caving in to "their beheading demands".   Those who are silent and Muslim in the world, support the act, so F**k em.  I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

Karaya

hehe ... you are nice example of typical islamist extremist.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by lada
hehe ... you are nice example of typical islamist extremist.

No, I think we should deal with "Islamic Terrorists" that way the KGB dealt with some issues in the past.  I'm sorry but the "silent majority" of Islam that ignore these "extremist acts" are supporting it.  

But, nice try there lada.

Karaya

[lada]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
No, I think we should deal with "Islamic Terrorists" that way the KGB dealt with some issues in the past.  I'm sorry but the "silent majority" of Islam that ignore these "extremist acts" are supporting it.  

But, nice try there lada.

Karaya

sure and silent majority of americans who dont stop killing of civilist during wars are as guilty as those killers.... i understood your statement well.

umm yes... you are same as those extremists.

"normal" people do not suggest extremistic solutions.

anyway i will be happy to hear more about KGB methods, if you dont mind to share sutch info.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by lada
sure and silent majority of americans who dont stop killing of civilist during wars are as guilty as those killers.... i understood your statement well.

umm yes... you are same as those extremists.

"normal" people do not suggest extremistic solutions.

anyway i will be happy to hear more about KGB methods, if you dont mind to share sutch info.

Civilians are an unfortuante part of war lada.  War is ugly, but you are clouded.

No, I am not the same, just tired of the excuses, they come with.   Seems to me, the Iraqi's are killing more civilians than the "occupying force".   But I'm sure you already knew that.

Karaya

[eagl]

Oh piss of thrawn.

It's a humours way to point out that while a huge number of Muslims are outraged beyond reason over a cartoon, we Americans barely notice when an islamist radical beheads people who were there in non-combat, civilian, or international aid roles.

Where is our outrage?  Well, we don't get outraged.  But their behavior is still intolerable in my opinion, so I propose that for every person murdered on camera by the islamist radicals, we take one islamist radical and publically humiliate him by rubbing his nose in western culture.  Is taping a porn pinup to an Imam's shirt torture?  If so, by god I hope if I'm ever captured, my captors "torture" me by disrespecting my culture in front of me.  Oh, the horror.

Take your moral superiority and shove it up your bung.  I'm sick of the apologists who are so damned intent on saying we must be ever so careful not to offend a group of radicals who are offended by everything including our mere existance, while it's OK for them to burn down embassies, send death threats, and behead innocent aid workers and civilians simply because it's in their nature or a core religious belief of theirs.  If their core religious belief means that they have to kill anyone who draws a cartoon of mohammed, then I propose that belief is not legitimate in a modern civilization.

Killing them isn't working...  So how about a little ridicule?  Laugh at these mental midgets that get all worked up over cartoons eh?  Except that the muslim man on the street doesn't really think about it all that hard because he's been conditioned from birth to obey the imams.  So our targets for correctional influence must be their religious leaders, because it's their religious leaders that are telling them that they must kill and burn things over every little insult, verbal, or whatever perceived offense that occurs anywhere in the world.

As it is now, if an Imam notices my hometown newspaper prints something offensive to Islam, a huge number of people are saying that it's perfectly legitimate for thousands of Muslims 5000 miles away to burn down an embassy because the little newspaper published something offensive.  I strongly think that we are horribly wrong if we let those radicals dictate what we talk about, print, or publish in our country, and we must FIGHT to retain the rights.  One of those rights is the right to live without the threat of death from religious extremists watching your every move, but that's where we're heading if we let these islamists dictate what we say, think, and print.

Yea thrawn, I take my oath to the constitution seriously.  Who or what did you swear to protect?  The right for islamic fundamentalists to not be offended?  They're offended by EVERYTHING WE DO, and they need to get over it.  Their religion will NOT shape my behavior.  I'm not a Muslim and I think they're quite literally insane to expect me to comply with their religious rules when I'm not in their country or under their law.  To state that people in other countries should die/burn/whatever because they broke islamic law is likewise insane, and our constitution is specifically set up to directly oppose that kind of dangerous thinking.

[Thrawn]

I apologise, I thought you were serious.

[eagl]

Ok.  Sorry for going on in my second post.

[lada]

Originally posted by eagl
Oh piss of thrawn.

It's a humours way to point out that while a huge number of Muslims are outraged beyond reason over a cartoon

huge ?

I bet all my money, that when US invaded Iraq there were 10x more people in the streets all around the world.

[xrtoronto]

Danish embassy in Beirut torched

link

[eagl]

And when the planes crashed into the WTC towers...  Victory parades instead of protests.

Some Muslim regions are "calmly outraged" (?) but they're still outraged and demanding government intervention against the free press.  And some media sources have caved in, placing a radical Islamic freedom from being offended over their own freedom of press rights.  Some (CNN) can likely justify their position by pure market considerations since publishing the pictures could reasonably hurt their profit margin, but that's only applicable to certain huge media giants and it's certainly a slippery slope.  Are we in an age where news sources in America determine what they do and do not publish based on threats from radical religious groups?  Apparently we are, and apparently radical religious groups in other countries will dictate the behavior of news organizations in the U.S.  And here we thought the media thought freedom was a good idea, when in fact they're just looking out for the fiscal bottom line.

[moot]

8 O'clock news Anchor:  (Introes Foreign Affairs Minister) Where does caricature stop?

Minister:  Quite so. Well then, caricature is excess, by definition.

Therefore, by definition, it has no limit.

Anchor: Right, total freedom, then?

Minister: Quite so.

Anchor: But, if like today, extremists threaten repraisals against countries that caricature freely?

Minister: Well then, in fact, in that case, we stop right away, and stop caricature.

Anchor: Eh? Ah.. so, total freedom, except if people aren't happy?

Minister: Well, yes!

Anchor: But, that's an open door to censorship, isn't it?

Minister: Not at all, no.. We must caricature, with intelligence, with finesse, critique, yes, but of quality.

Anchor: In other words?

Minister: Quite so, I'm getting to it.  See, here, this morning in "Humanity" [well known rag]..

Anchor: You read Humanity, you?

Minister: Well, yes, I'm communist... uh, I'm communist, aren't I?

Anchor: Uh, no.

Minister: Ah, all the same to me.. Anyway, see here, this comic strip in Humanity.. there.  It's corrosive, incisive, huh? Of an unheard of violence!

Anchor: Uh.. yeah..

Minister: Ah, well, it is!
[shot of comic strip: 3 frames, minimalistic elements, actors are: , with snow hats]
   See, here, the dog says:
      <>
   The cat, there, answers:
      <>
   ..and there, the dog runs out of the frame, grabs a snowball, and throws it, as we can see, with violence, in the cat's face!!..
      <>, he tells him.

Anchor: Mhm.. yeah.. And what's corrosive about that?

Minister: But that's obvious! Everybody knows that dogs don't like cats! Who can doubt, here, that this drawing isn't anything else than a metaphor of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict?

Anchor: Uh.. Me!..

Minister: But come on, it is, in fact!  Look:  There, the cat has a beanie, he's therefore a palestinian!  And the dog, there, with his long ears that hang low, there, it's the Payots of an Orthodox-Jewish Israeli!  It's obvious!

Anchor: [Meh]..

Minister: And the snowball, thrown.. who can doubt that it's an evoquation of Intifada?

Anchor: Uh.. Me?..

Minister: Yes, but that's because it's a fine caricature, and that because of it, you don't grasp the significance.  What do you see?

Anchor: Uh, me?  Uh.. Well, just a bogus gag in [Peanuts].

[lasersailor184]

What is that from?

[moot]

http://www.canalplus.fr/index_popup.php?1=1&pid=1&cid=22211&tpl=108&init=1&mess_page=9
Login with:
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=www.canalplus.fr
"Valider"

Vendredi 3 Février 's video, about halfway into it.

[LePaul]

Clearly religious tolerance is a one way street.  We tolerate theirs, they will not tolerate ours.  And clearly this is the difference between a civilized world and the Muslim world, where logic, reason and the sort go out the windows with religious banter being the winner everyday.

We should immediately ship all ACLU staff to the mideast so they can sue these people senseless.