French Mohammed cartooons

[Col. Crackpot]

I hope those people crying out freedom of speech realise that while France allows the magazine to publish satirical drawings, it DOES NOT allow protests against the film.
I find it ironic they don't want a conflict that "doesn't concern France" to come into their country (fair enough) yet this is what is happening when they draw satirical cartoons.

Rank hypocrisy anyone?

Clear hypocrisy that has no place in a democratic society. Agreed.

[Flagg]

For fucks sake, again you lying troll piece of garbage? Listen, you dumb motherfucker I'll put it as plainly as I can: When people disparage Mohammed, other people die. This is a fact now. Does the fact that the people doing the killing are poor, subject to collateral damage at any time, and often under the direct rule of asshole dictators appointed by us excuse them? No, and no sane person in this thread has said it does. We are simply saying, when you have a pissed off polar bear you don't throw shit at it because if you do, you know very bad things will happen. Likely to someone alot closer to the bear than you are. So criticism of the people making the videos and criticism of the assholes who raided an embassy are not mutually exclusive.

Fucking Americans, man. Assholes, the lot of us.

Again your analogy is shit we are going nowhere.

We're going nowhere because you are a lying cocksucker. The analogy is actually pretty fitting. The "filmmakers" got exactly what they wanted, a violent reaction to their garbage. And best of all, they didn't get killed! It was innocent victims who died for their dickery. They threw the peanuts and the bear killed the closest person to it. Only this time it was 4 people, and who knows how many idiot religious fanatics shot by police.

[Flagg]

I once got punched in the mouth by a school bully for calling him out for being a jackass. I knew he had violent tendencies, so I guess I was just trolling huh? What an instigating shit stirrer I was!

Right, because these attempted anonymous film makers were just standing up for themselves. That's why they redubbed a bunch of the dialogue in the movie to make it even more offensive. How brave of these daring people who allow others to die for their brave, brave anonymous acts! Hail them!

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You have said, in this thread and the previous, that Muslims reacting to mockery with extremism is totally understandable, and to quote you verbatim:

Its not as simple as "grow up"

Religion is one of the few things these guys have, the entire area is poor, there is little education, religion gives them a sense of community, a sense of focus. And this guy deliberately shit on it with the intent to cause problems. The rioting isn't a surprise, it's not even difficult to understand.

Sure, so when do we start helping? It took centuries for Christian's to lose these attitudes, so this might be a long road but surely we can assist by funding education, increasing their standard of living and throwing in some health care.

You literally said "It's not their fault, they're poor and stupid." And you've also said that any continued outrage against the rioting is apparently "feeling smug", so we should "help them" and "fund education" and only then can we actually criticise the violent religious extremists.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, you're just saying some really dumb shit.

[Col. Crackpot]

We're going nowhere because you are a lying cocksucker. The analogy is actually pretty fitting. The "filmmakers" got exactly what they wanted, a violent reaction to their garbage. And best of all, they didn't get killed! It was innocent victims who died for their dickery. They threw the peanuts and the bear killed the closest person to it. Only this time it was 4 people, and who knows how many idiot religious fanatics shot by police.

So ban peanuts for everyone because the professionally butthurt don't kill people. Got it.

[Aaron MkII]

Do know the difference between understanding an action and not agreeing with it?

In fact if you go read what I posted in that thread I even said it was wrong.

[Flagg]

We're going nowhere because you are a lying cocksucker. The analogy is actually pretty fitting. The "filmmakers" got exactly what they wanted, a violent reaction to their garbage. And best of all, they didn't get killed! It was innocent victims who died for their dickery. They threw the peanuts and the bear killed the closest person to it. Only this time it was 4 people, and who knows how many idiot religious fanatics shot by police.

So ban peanuts for everyone because the professionally butthurt don't kill people. Got it.

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

[Zadius]

Giving a giant middle finger to fanatics who bully and intimidate you is trolling and trying to stir shit up? No, we need more magazines and newspapers publishing pictures of Mohammad, because giving in to intimidation is like paying a ransom: it only ensures that the behavior will continue. They should increase protection for the cartoonists because defending that freedom is one of the purposes of government power. Oh, I forgot, defending our freedom is only a catchphrase used to justify stupid wars, it doesn't actually mean we should defend our freedoms.

Except the people who are attacking the embassies aren't even bullying or threatening you until you provoke them!

Bull-fucking-shit! A drawing is not a provocation you unbelievable fuck! It's a drawing!! I guess, in order not to provoke them, I have to adopt their beliefs and revere what they revere, huh?

All the effort to moderate the rise of Islamic influence in the newly formed governments post-Arab Springs will come to nil thanks to all the provocation of some idiots who want to stroke their sense of ego.

If a drawing can collapse an emerging democratic society back into anarchy, then I guess they're fucked. Luckily, I don't believe that. These fanatics are getting violent precisely because the opposite is true. They are seeing their society becoming ever more secular, and so they ratchet up their outrage. If they were confident in the power of Islamic fundamentalism they would consider a slight criticism or irreverence toward their religion as inconsequential.

The ONLY thing we have to gain by such acts of provocation is to somehow stroke your sense of ego about how awesome you are by exercising your right to freedom of speech. There is nothing positive about abusing your rights in such a manner.

Right, because drawing a picture is an abuse of my right to freedom of speech. What fucking planet are you from and why do you allow radical Islamists define what is abusive?

[Col. Crackpot]

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

and by doing so you restrict legitimate political speech. How is that so fucking hard for you to understand?

[Aaron MkII]

Do know the difference between understanding an action and not agreeing with it?

In fact if you go read what I posted in that thread I even said it was wrong.

Actually, fuck it, I'm done. Take it as a concession or whatever you want.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

And again, where do you draw the line? If deliberately mocking Islam with the intent to provoke violence and mocking Islam just because you think the religion is goofy both draw the same fucking reaction, why should we care about the motive of the speaker? It's the person reacting to the speech who is the problem.

Do know the difference between understanding an action and not agreeing with it?

In fact if you go read what I posted in that thread I even said it was wrong.

My point is I don't think it is understandable. Reacting to criticism or mean words with violence is never understandable, or justifiable. Only savages and idiots do that, and the vast majority of Muslims are neither. We should not capitulate to those who are, we should not call their actions "understandable", because that in itself validates their actions. A savage bear mauling people who taunt it is understandable, because a savage bear is non-sentient and does not know any better. The same is not true of Muslims. They do know better, but some of them think they can get their way with violence. The correct response is to show them otherwise.

I guess I may have over-reacted and slightly misinterpreted what you meant, but I still largely disagree.

[Flagg]

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

and by doing so you restrict legitimate political speech. How is that so fucking hard for you to understand?

Listen you liar, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT SPEECH BE RESTRICTED. I made that nice and big because you may have vision problems. See an eye doctor.

[CaptJodan]

I'm still trying to figure out how this is somehow different than the other examples brought up. Peanuts=blacks marrying whites, Mathew Sheppard, etc. Bears, racists and extremist Christians.

If a mixed race couple gets married in a known small, intolerant town in America, then gets beat up by the locals for their trouble, should the message be "they shouldn't have gotten married because it offended the townsfolk"?

[Zadius]

I once got punched in the mouth by a school bully for calling him out for being a jackass. I knew he had violent tendencies, so I guess I was just trolling huh? What an instigating shit stirrer I was!

Right, because these attempted anonymous film makers were just standing up for themselves. That's why they redubbed a bunch of the dialogue in the movie to make it even more offensive. How brave of these daring people who allow others to die for their brave, brave anonymous acts! Hail them!

Well, this thread is about the drawings of Mohammad by a magazine who's editor is publicly known. Previously Lars Vilks of Sweden drew a picture of Mohammad in solidarity to the Danish cartoonists; he has since had his house and his person physically attacked. This French publication has been threatened my Islamists previously for "offenses" against Mohammad.

As for the video, I haven't seen it, but it's been reported that it portrays Mohammad as a blood-thirsty, womanizer, and child molester: all of which are arguably true. Even is the video is totally stupid and wrong, I don't give a damn. Once the threats and violence begin, I'm on their side.

[Aaron MkII]

My point is I don't think it is understandable. Reacting to criticism or mean words with violence is never understandable, or justifiable. Only savages and idiots do that, and the vast majority of Muslims are neither. We should not capitulate to those who are, we should not call their actions "understandable", because that in itself validates their actions. A savage bear mauling people who taunt it is understandable, because a savage bear is non-sentient and does not know any better. The same is not true of Muslims. They do know better, but some of them think they can get their way with violence. The correct response is to show them otherwise.

I guess I may have over-reacted and slightly misinterpreted what you meant, but I still largely disagree.

Fair enough, I apologize for my behaviour, kinda over reacted as well.

[Zwinmar]

At the same time some people are going to want to fight no matter what is said, they are just looking for an excuse.

[Col. Crackpot]

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

and by doing so you restrict legitimate political speech. How is that so fucking hard for you to understand?

Listen you liar, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT SPEECH BE RESTRICTED. I made that nice and big because you may have vision problems. See an eye doctor.

Very well then, please restate.. is this video protected speech and should it be in your opinion?

[Flagg]

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

And again, where do you draw the line? If deliberately mocking Islam with the intent to provoke violence and mocking Islam just because you think the religion is goofy both draw the same fucking reaction, why should we care about the motive of the speaker? It's the person reacting to the speech who is the problem.

I agree that the main problem is that if you insult their religion the extremists will go apeshit. But that's the reality of the world we live in. We cannot control them. We've tried. Twice. Hasn't worked worth a shit. We can either deal with the real world and the FACT that if you produce a video that insults Mohammed people will die, or we can pretend live in Wald Disney's America where nothing bad happens unless it's by the evildoers who hate us for our freedom and we end up with another unwinnable Mid-East clusterfuck. Over a bad video.

[Zadius]

He doesn't want it legally restricted, he just wants massive political and social pressure to cow them into shutting up because offending Islam is such a grave offense.

[Flagg]

and by doing so you restrict legitimate political speech. How is that so fucking hard for you to understand?

Listen you liar, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT SPEECH BE RESTRICTED. I made that nice and big because you may have vision problems. See an eye doctor.

Very well then, please restate.. is this video protected speech and should it be in your opinion?

Of course it is. I never said any different. Shit is there no differentiation in your mind between "can" and "should"?

[Flagg]

He doesn't want it legally restricted, he just wants massive political and social pressure to cow them into shutting up because offending Islam gets innocent people killed.

Fixed that for you.

[Jub]

We should be able to use our free speech as we see fit without having to worry that some nut job will kill people over it. If we can't the government needs to deal with the cause of these threats it its citizens until we're once again free to speak as we wish. Any man who can be so enraged by words or images that he would kill a man who has done him no wrong, is not a man; he is a rabid animal.

[Zadius]

He doesn't want it legally restricted, he just wants massive political and social pressure to cow them into shutting up because offending Islam gets innocent people killed.

Fixed that for you.

OK, so if hostages are taken during this violence, you'd pay the ransom?

[Flagg]

He doesn't want it legally restricted, he just wants massive political and social pressure to cow them into shutting up because offending Islam gets innocent people killed.

Fixed that for you.

OK, so if hostages are taken during this violence, you'd pay the ransom?

Fuck no, I'd send in SEALs. There's a difference between not kicking a hornets nest and allowing terrorism to go unanswered. Because the embassy attack was terrorism, even if it wasn't a plot.

[Akhlut]

I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with how France has treated the Muslim nations under its benevolent leadership in the past two hundred years. :V I mean, all those Algerians surely deserved to have car batteries hooked up to their genitals when they wanted to be considered fully French citizens instead of a bunch of subjects with no real rights afforded them!