I'm Norwegian and I have nothing against Islam

**Jujumon** · 02-02-2006, 03:24 PM

yea, maybe they could've just burn the papers. then every one would b happy

**admedia** · 02-02-2006, 03:28 PM

Personally I think kidnapping or beheading makes more of a statement than flag-burning.

**PAlexC** · 02-02-2006, 04:24 PM

Considering the bomb threats, I thought flag burning would be a welcome form of protest.

**Visionray** · 02-02-2006, 04:47 PM

so let's get this straight. "gunmen" are mad at a cartoon that portrays Islam in a violent/negative way, and the response is to start a riot, search apartments and hotels for foreigners, chant "death to Denmark" (don't think I've ever heard that before) and threaten kidnappings? Pretty ironic if you ask me. Islamic law prevents idolatry, but last time I checked, Scandanavia isn't ruled by Islamic law.

**PAlexC** · 02-02-2006, 04:50 PM

Don't try to reason or make sense of radicals of any type.

The silver lining in this is that the pure irrationality of their actions might further segregate them from the mainstream Muslim population who just want to live, work and raise their kids like everyone else.

**jAQUAN** · 02-02-2006, 05:21 PM

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Give these people gameboys! Just fly over and do gameboy drops.
They only get uppity because they are booooored! Give them something to do, and threaten to reward peace with new games every month.

**hanratty21** · 02-02-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by jAQUAN

*edited by hanratty21*
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Give these people PR0N. Just fly over and do PR0N drops.
They only get uppity because they are booooored! Give them something (PR0N) to do, and threaten to reward peace with new PR0N every month.

**flipsideguy** · 02-02-2006, 06:35 PM

so let's get this straight. "gunmen" are mad at a cartoon that portrays Islam in a violent/negative way, and the response is to start a riot, search apartments and hotels for foreigners, chant "death to Denmark" (don't think I've ever heard that before) and threaten kidnappings? Pretty ironic if you ask me. Islamic law prevents idolatry, but last time I checked, Scandanavia isn't ruled by Islamic law.

Now you go and generalize and say that everyone of those muslims who got mad at the cartoons are "gunmen".

Just face it, there's a lot of anti-islam sentiments in the world right now. The barrel of the gun points both ways in this case. While some western countries resort to actual war in their persecution of muslims, others resort to defaming their religion through media. Either way it's wrong.

This doesn't mean that I condone the threats, kidnappings etc.

/Flip

**ViRGo_RK** · 02-02-2006, 06:37 PM

I'm a tad curious who ran the most recent crusade, Flipside? And wasn't it over several hundred years ago?

**PAlexC** · 02-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by flipsideguy

Just face it, there's a lot of anti-islam sentiments in the world right now.

I don't want to sound cold, but given the actions that are carried out in the name of Islam, are you surprised?

Threatening to blow up a newspaper office, taking hostages at gunpoint demanding an apology over an editorial cartoon in a country not governed by your laws. That's good PR?

The barrel of the gun points both ways in this case. While some western countries resort to actual war in their persecution of muslims, others resort to defaming their religion through media. Either way it's wrong.

I really find it hard to see this as a persecution of Muslims.

Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. Iraq wasn't the greatest idea, if you're for it it's easily about Saddam being a threat, if you're against it, it's clearly related to oil and the balance of power in oil producing nations.

But Saddam wasn't exactly a religious leader, nor was Iraq a "Muslim" nation in the proper sense. Its citizens are primarly Muslim, but in no way shape or form was Iraq run on Islamic principles.

**flipsideguy** · 02-02-2006, 06:47 PM

I don't get it, are you with me or against me? The crusades were done first and foremost by the catholic church to reclaim lands from the muslims.

I don't see how that's relevant here. My point is, the anti-islam attacks that we see these days are coming primarily from western cultures, whether through military invasion (to bring "democracy" blah blah) or through media. It's all the same in the end: To sway public opinion about a religion.

/Flip

**Markp.com** · 02-02-2006, 06:47 PM

Good programme just on the bbc here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4675098.stm Click the box in the top right corner to watch the report... I didn't realise how many "islamic" papers printed antisematic cartoons...

But you know, probably a lot of hot air sturred up by the press rather than rational minded people being offended by this kind of thing.

**Markp.com** · 02-02-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by flipsideguy

I don't get it, are you with me or against me? The crusades were done first and foremost by the catholic church to reclaim lands from the muslims.

I don't see how that's relevant here. My point is, the anti-islam attacks that we see these days are coming primarily from western cultures, whether through military invasion (to bring "democracy" blah blah) or through media. It's all the same in the end: To sway public opinion about a religion.

/Flip

No, its all about control of a finite resource...

**TallGuyLittleCar** · 02-02-2006, 06:50 PM

I would rather have a cartoon made of my "god" than have a gun pointed at me.

but just through some fuel on the fire.. check out what's going on with muslims in thailand... who the hell could have a problem with thailand?

**ViRGo_RK** · 02-02-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by flipsideguy

I don't get it, are you with me or against me? The crusades were done first and foremost by the catholic church to reclaim lands from the muslims.

I don't see how that's relevant here. My point is, the anti-islam attacks that we see these days are coming primarily from western cultures, whether through military invasion (to bring "democracy" blah blah) or through media. It's all the same in the end: To sway public opinion about a religion.

/Flip

My point was that your claim that a war has taken place to persecute muslims is ridiculous.

**PAlexC** · 02-02-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by flipsideguy

I don't see how that's relevant here. My point is, the anti-islam attacks that we see these days are coming primarily from western cultures, whether through military invasion (to bring "democracy" blah blah) or through media. It's all the same in the end: To sway public opinion about a religion.

If that were true, Muslims in America would have it pretty bad right now.

While I don't think everything the U.S. does is exactly noble or honorable, I think your disdain is misguided, generalized and paranoid.

As far as the Crusades, you're talking about hundreds of years ago. The Catholic Church was more a political institution than a religious one and had essentially its own Roman Empire. Very un-Jesus-like. Fortunately, things changed. More so, two wrongs don't make a right.

When the Pope starts calling for action against others based on religion, you can complain about the Crusades again.

**flipsideguy** · 02-02-2006, 06:58 PM

Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11, I agree, but there are many benefits that come with it. Same with Iraq. (Explanations below) It's all about the expansion of American culture, economy and military presence in that region.

For a long time the Middle East has been able to resist those things (except for economy). The US has sought to change that many times. Today their vision is close to becoming a reality, if it weren't for Iran.

American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is strategically important for the US. Both countries neighbor one of the most anti-American countries in the world - Iran (and on the other side, Syria). So happens that both these countries were included in Bush's so called Axis of Evil.

The Project for a New American Century being served whether you're hungry or not.

Ok, sorry to hi-jack the thread, as this is about the cartoons. My conclusion is that the purpose of the cartoons were most probably to defame Islam. If the artists knows enough about the religion to depict its prophet as a terrorist, then he/she should have known that the depiction of Mohammad is not allowed.

/Flip

**admedia** · 02-02-2006, 07:03 PM

I believe it's considered a sin to say the name of God "Yahweh" out loud in the Jewish faith.

If someone were to say "Yahweh" or depict him in a cartoon, I hardly think there would be this type of reaction.

Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban refused to hand over Osama, not to expand Western culture... give me a break

**TallGuyLittleCar** · 02-02-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by flipsideguy

Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11, I agree, but there are many benefits that come with it. Same with Iraq. (Explanations below) It's all about the expansion of American culture, economy and military presence in that region.

For a long time the Middle East has been able to resist those things (except for economy). The US has sought to change that many times. Today their vision is close to becoming a reality, if it weren't for Iran.

hey now we got a thread for that kind of talk. But I have to add, that western culture is pretty strong in the mid east in some ways.... especially in iran.

**PAlexC** · 02-02-2006, 07:05 PM

It's an editorial cartoon. The guy's allowed to state an opinion in it. I haven't seen it, it could be that he's saying Mohammad was a terrorist, it could be he's saying terrorists are making Mohammad into one by their actions, I don't know. People can choose to reject or accept that opinion. Here's a crazy thought, maybe a LOT of people have that opinion and he's simply reflecting that. There's probably a lot of non-Muslims who saw it and thought it was over-the-top hogwash, you'll never know. I bet there were more than a few, and I bet their actions consited of little more than a few angry letters to the editor.

As far as the caricature not being allowed, I'm sorry that doesn't cut it. If the cartoonist was a Muslim he'd be breaking one of the rules he follows, that's both his decision to do and his problem to deal with.

If the cartoonist isn't Muslim, that's just too bad. Should I not eat pork because it's forbidden by an ideology I don't subscribe to and that has no political power over me?

The point is if something is done that's insulting to your beliefs, how do you respond?

Thread: I'm Norwegian and I have nothing against Islam

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions