Author Topic: Russia will display the Cartoon images of Mohammad (Read 1572 times)

moot · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:08:25 PM »

You can find various and sundry Prophet effigies in Iranian markets.
How no politician is having a field day with the BS all over this affair... this is as bogus as ID.

T0J0 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:08:40 PM »

so using the term "muhammad it" instead of "goawdarnit" is bad?
How about "Muhammadamn you"
What a boring religion cant even blame the principle figure for everything that goes wrong... NO wonder there's so much pent up aggression involved in worshipping all day in the heat and sand...

TJ

Staga · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:10:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JimBear
Freedom of expression, freedom of speech? religious, political, sexual, positional if you cant take a joke, **** you

I wish I'd be an artist; I'd draw a picture of Jesus selling himself in Red Lights District Amsterdam wearing just a leather strings and having an huge dildo in his arse.

If you can't take the joke, **** you too

Staga · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:12:11 PM »

hmm guess it's time to learn how to use MS Paint

moot · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:16:16 PM »

Someone draws crap. Someone else sees same, then blames the painter when said image multiplies uncontrolably in their brains.
That's as rational as hammering MA's David sculpture.

indy007 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:16:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
I wish I'd be an artist; I'd draw a picture of Jesus selling himself in Red Lights District Amsterdam wearing just a leather strings and having an huge dildo in his arse.

If you can't take the joke, **** you too

Somehow I doubt that it would cause riots and Finnish embassies to get burned to the ground. I think at worst, if somehow it got famous, you'd have somebody like Pat Robertson having a hissy fit... which is okay, because most people don't like him anyways

LePaul · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:57:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
I wish I'd be an artist; I'd draw a picture of Jesus selling himself in Red Lights District Amsterdam wearing just a leather strings and having an huge dildo in his arse.

If you can't take the joke, **** you too

Your missing the obvious point. You have the freedom to do that, you have the right to be as tarded as you want without fear of loss of life.

We have *tolerance* of those who disagree with our morals, religion, politics, etc.

They, on the other hand, do not. Yet...they insist we be tolerant of their views.

Its a very one-sided argument.

Staga · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:03:35 PM »

I think it's guys like you, Le Paul, who are missing the point... If you don't get it I'm not going to point it to you

LePaul · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:05:20 PM »

Its people like you who will pull your pants down, bend over and pray you can appease them.

It wont work.

But enjoy the work LOL

Staga · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:23:10 PM »

Yeah that's it

BigGun · « **Reply #25 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:25:53 PM »

I don't see the need to insult anothers religion, but that is just me. But I also strongly agree with freedom of speach and expression, as long as it doesn't infringe on others freedoms.

To carry on, riot & behave like this is just crazy, no justification & it shouldn't be condoned no matter what someone says about Muhammad. These are just irrational, crazy, extremist people.

What is amazing is they show all this outrage about some cartoon displayed six months ago, but they don't show outrage when fellow extremist cut heads off people....or when they blow up innocent women & children. IN my view...there is something wrong with that whole culture.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:36:14 PM »

Well I took a look over on Slate (they have a link to the site with the 12 cartoons) and there is nothing massively offensive to them along the lines of being "in the red light district of amersterdam in leather garters, etc."

I find it very, very interesting that the iman who brought copies of these pictures out of Denmark (where they were published in September) also brought another 3 that were NEVER published. And these three were really offensive along the lines of what Staga said he would create.

Gateway Pundit's conservative Jim Hoft blames a Danish imam who recently traveled to the Middle East for fanning the flames: "[T]he truth is that Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, brought at least 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. They included a cartoon of Muhammad as a pedophile demon, Muhammed with a pig snout, and a praying Muslim being raped by a dog." (For more on where these extra images may have come from, read the Daily Telegraph's David Rennie.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2135604/
[/list]

Yes, it is offensive to muslims to picture Mohammed, depictions of him is against their religion. But none of the 12 pictured him like the 3 others that were brought along.

Plus, the Muslim Newspapers have done cartoons of Christians, Jews, and Hindis that are highly offensive along the lines that Staga portrays.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:39:30 PM »

Where did those three "extra" cartoons come from, that did so much to fuel the Danish cartoon row? Perhaps it is an academic point, but I, for one, am not sure I know the answer yet.

As I've written in earlier postings, the row took off after a delegation of Danish Muslim clerics and activists took themselves off to the Middle East to drum up support for their campaign against the 12 cartoons published in the Danish newspaper, "Jyllands-Posten".

They carried with them a 43 page dossier, containing not 12, but 15 images of the Prophet Mohammed. The three extras were far more obscene, depicting Mohammed with a pig's snout and labeling him a paedophile, and showing a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

The Muslim delegates insisted they made clear the three extra cartoons were not from "Jyllands-Posten", but were included to show the level of racism faced by Danish Muslims. They say the images came from hate mail sent, anonymously, to Danish Muslims.

There is certainly a problem with this account: every time Danish or foreign reporters asked to meet the Muslims sent those letters, or simply to see the original hate mail, they were told no, or promised they would be made available, only for that promise not to be kept.

To me, the case is inconclusive - definitely worth reporting, but impossible to prove either way. Other voices in the blogosphere have already made up their minds, it seems, declaring the extra three cartoons were faked by the imams themselves.

In the US, lots of bloggers have been linking to Gateway Pundit, which pins the blame on the Copenhagen-based imam, Ahmed Abu Laban, stating as fact that he "faked obscene cartoons on his trip to the Middle East."

Gateway Pundit cites an interview with Abu Laban on the US Fox News network, including the following commentary by the Fox correspondent, Jonathon Hunt: "After the publication the Imam and others toured the Middle East showing the cartoons but adding three more new ones that were far more offensive than anything the paper published.

"He [Imam Ahmad Abu Laban] told us they were from threatening letters but promising to give us copies of those letters, he never did."

Also in the States, American Thinker, says: "these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet."

The Brussels Journal, a blog which deserves credit for following the story long before the maintsream media, is slightly more cautious, posing the thought as a question. To quote from a recent posting of theirs, the original 12 cartoons were "so inoffensive in fact that alienated Danish Muslim fanatics had to add three truly offensive cartoons (of their own making?) to deliberately incite Islamic hatred against Denmark."

Another much-linked blog, the Counterterrorism blog, merely calls the extra cartoons "fabricated". Or were the images pulled from the internet - either by the imams, if they are lying, or by racist white Danes to create hate mail, if the imams are telling the truth.

One visitor to Gateway Pundit mentions an article in the Norwegian paper, Verdens Gang, which says the images were taken from "Christian fundamentalist websites in the US". This analysis is attributed to a professor at Oslo University. I do not speak Norwegian, but here is the link. More when I have it.
[/list]

From The Daily Telegraph

texace · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:43:26 PM »

And the plot thickens...

Debonair · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2006, 12:02:06 AM »

they should stick this one into Pravda also just to see how many millions they can PO in one day