Fergasun Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I was just flipping through the channels and caught Wolf Blitzer interviewing the Danish PM. The Danish PM was going on about how we have freedom of speech / press but we have to be respectful to others religions, etc. Does anyone else think this is crazy? Us talking about respect, while those who are "disrespected" go around burning embassies and rioting and hurting people / countries that weren't even involved in this. I can understand if the riots targetted the editors of newspapers and were somewhat peaceful... BUT Some of the pictures and signs that I've seen and some of the actions done by the rioters are ones of absolute disrespect. Calling to behead people who don't follow your religion, calling for a 9/11 on England, even burning a the flag of another country (I know we've been de-sensitised to it, but that's got to be pretty disrespectful). Should we respect cultures who wouldn't give us the slighest bit of that courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot? Speaking about "respect" when the other side is clamoring to cut your head off doesn't seem like the wise choice to make here. I didn't hear any Imams talk about "respect" for America, Denmark, or England when the riot / protests were going on... and you sure as heck aren't going to tell me that Iran respects many other countries. How can we speak about respect when the other side doesn't care or listen? Let's just tell others to respect our freedoms and bug off, or at the very least just ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The way I see it, I think everyone needs to get a little bit of a sense of humor and settle down, and in the case of those cartoons, especially the one they're so angry about, the turban/bomb... sure, i can understand they want sensitivity, but they have got to start to open their eyes as to why that cartoon was made in the first place. if, as they say, the majority are peaceful, etc, then you'd think maybe they'd be more concerned about what is causing their "image problem" in the rest of the world. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayAction Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 No one ever gives the US any respect so I'm not too sympathetic about some offending feelings regarding a cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't think anyone is claiming that the violent response was in any way justified. That said, publishing something offensive on purpose is just poor decision-making on the editorial board's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't think anyone is claiming that the violent response was in any way justified. That said, publishing something offensive on purpose is just poor decision-making on the editorial board's part. Not really. It was a thumbing the nose at the people who cheered Van Gogh's murder and those who threaten their society from within. Those cartoons weren't made just for kicks one day. They were a response to the intimidation and the attempt to silence ANY criticism of Muslims in Europe or Islam itself, insofar as it seems to be practiced by transplants and their descendants. At some point, you STOP respecting those who show no respect. There's no point in it being one-sided. If respect isn't shown and if honor isn't accorded to faiths and ideologies that DESERVE honor, then you don't censor yourself in criticism. If the cartoons were disrespectful, what was the destruction of Bamayan Buddhas? Or Daniel Pearl, van Gogh, Rushdie, the genocide in Sudan, the 'insurgency' in Thailand, the popularity of the most savage and vicious anti-Semitic lies in the Middle East (among other things?) Where are the riots over ACTUAL crimes? Koran down a toilet and people die. Blacks murdered and raped in Sudan....*crickets* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Not really. It was a thumbing the nose at the people who cheered Van Gogh's murder and those who threaten their society from within.Those cartoons weren't made just for kicks one day. They were a response to the intimidation and the attempt to silence ANY criticism of Muslims in Europe or Islam itself, insofar as it seems to be practiced by transplants and their descendants. Yeah, that's exactly what's wrong with them. They were created to offend, and their target was a far wider community than the guilty parties. They didn't draw cartoons mocking Van Gogh's murderers. They drew cartoons mocking Muhammed. If the cartoons were disrespectful, what was the destruction of Bamayan Buddhas? Or Daniel Pearl, van Gogh, Rushdie, the genocide in Sudan, the 'insurgency' in Thailand, the popularity of the most savage and vicious anti-Semitic lies in the Middle East (among other things?) Those were hideous acts. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.