Sarge Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Clinton agrees with radical islamist mullahs and abortion clinic bombers! And you did it all while overseas! Way to go bubba. :doh: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\18\story_18-2-2006_pg1_7 Saturday, February 18, 2006 Clinton urges EU to convict publishers of caricatures Staff Report ISLAMABAD: Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers. Talking to reporters after meeting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad, Clinton said he disagreed with the caricatures and that the publication was against religious and ethical norms. Clinton said he had no objection to peaceful demonstrations being held worldwide, but this was not the time for violence. He said it was the time to promote inter-faith harmony and stand together on the issue. He said the people’s religious convictions should be respected at all costs and the media should be disallowed to play with the religious sentiments of other faiths. He said the media could criticise any issue including governments and people, but nobody had the right to play with the sentiments of other faiths. Clinton said people in the US had also condemned the publication and were deeply concerned over it. He said they respected Islam, as it was the fastest growing religion in the US. Clinton also called on President Pervez Musharraf and both men discussed the India-Pakistan peace process and Afghanistan’s peace and stabilisation process. Musharraf underlined the centrality of the Kashmir issue in the Indo-Pak peace process and the importance of moving towards the conflict resolution stage. Clinton praised Musharraf’s efforts to promote peace and stability in the region. Musharraf thanked Clinton for the support extended to the Pakistani government by the Clinton Foundation for the HIV/AIDS programme. He also expressed the gratitude of Pakistanis to the relief and reconstruction assistance provided for the earthquake victims by the US. Earlier, Aziz told Clinton that Pakistan was working towards peace and stability in the region through a strong economy, effective diplomacy, credible defence and promotion of inter-faith harmony. He said Pakistan was also making efforts to ensure peace in the region by settling disputes in an amicable way. He said Islam was a religion of peace and Muslims had been hurt by the publication of the caricatures, which reflected the ignorance and insensitivity of the western media. Clinton praised the role played by Musharraf and Aziz in achieving a high degree economic growth and wide-ranging structural reforms besides pursuing peace in the region and across the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 While the rioters have to account for their actions, the people who caused the riots do, too. I'm not saying they didn't have the right to publish it in the first place, it's obviously protected by freedom of speech. But when the Danish newspaper retracted the cartoon and apologized, and then the Danish government apologized, it should have been a signal to rest of Europe that they shouldn't republish them. Both parties in this case were wrong in what they did, but only one is really facing any heat from the mainstream. I'm glad Clinton stood up and made it clear that you can't insult a billion people to the core and not be held responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Clinton agrees with radical islamist mullahs and abortion clinic bombers! And you did it all while overseas! Way to go bubba. :doh: Its really rather unfair to make it sound like Clinton agrees with their tactics. Remember, he is the one most righties claim is to much of a ***** to fight and now you claim he believes in blowing up buildings? I'm sure there is a at least one point you agree on with these people too (even if it is something like 'we love our children') yet to say you agree with them is a stretch and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 While the rioters have to account for their actions, the people who caused the riots do, too. I'm not saying they didn't have the right to publish it in the first place, it's obviously protected by freedom of speech. But when the Danish newspaper retracted the cartoon and apologized, and then the Danish government apologized, it should have been a signal to rest of Europe that they shouldn't republish them.Both parties in this case were wrong in what they did, but only one is really facing any heat from the mainstream. I'm glad Clinton stood up and made it clear that you can't insult a billion people to the core and not be held responsible. DO you think NBC was wrong in their portrayal of Jesus in "The Book of Daniel" TV series? What about Dan Brown's novel "the Da Vinci Code"? I find both objectionable and insulting to my religion of Christianity. Are they wrong for making these? Is Ron Howard and Tom Hanks more wrong for making it into a movie? What do you think? Better yet what about you Bill Clinton?PS. You don't see me burning the NBC flag in front of Rockefeller center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 DO you think NBC was wrong in their portrayal of Jesus in "The Book of Daniel" TV series? What about Dan Brown's novel "the Da Vinci Code"? I find both objectionable and insulting to my religion of Christianity. Are they wrong for making these? Is Ron Howard and Tom Hanks more wrong for making it into a movie? What do you think? Better yet what about you Bill Clinton?PS. You don't see me burning the NBC flag in front of Rockefeller center. You're missing the point. The action in question isn't the insulting of a religion, per se. It's knowingly publishing something that's going to cause this kind of reaction. The people reacting are to blame, sure, but these newspapers had to know the reaction that they would get, and they published it anyway. That is blameworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Both parties in this case were wrong in what they did, but only one is really facing any heat from the mainstream. I'm glad Clinton stood up and made it clear that you can't insult a billion people to the core and not be held responsible. When the "artist" Robert Mapplethorpe submerged Christ's cross into a jar of urine and put it on display as "art", you didn't see thousands of Christians rioting and burning down buildings. The only ones that should be held responsible are the Muslims committing the violence. It was only a cartoon and if that is so offensive to the Muslim religion, then there's something wrong with that religion. These people need to grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 No direct quote from Clinton in that piece. That's pretty weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 When the "artist" Robert Mapplethorpe submerged Christ's cross into a jar of urine and put it on display as "art", you didn't see thousands of Christians rioting and burning down buildings. The only ones that should be held responsible are the Muslims committing the violence. It was only a cartoon and if that is so offensive to the Muslim religion, then there's something wrong with that religion. These people need to grow up. I agree with you 99%. The people rioting do need to be held responsible. They do need to grow up. And yeah, I do have a problem if Islam calls for them to act this way (which I don't believe it does, but who knows, it might). However, I also have a problem with the notion that they're the only ones to blame. When you know that the reaction is going to be such, you don't purposely elicit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 You're missing the point. The action in question isn't the insulting of a religion, per se. It's knowingly publishing something that's going to cause this kind of reaction. The people reacting are to blame, sure, but these newspapers had to know the reaction that they would get, and they published it anyway. That is blameworthy. They're just burning down there own buildings, so eff them. The phrase "don't **** where you live" applies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Has anyone actually seen these cartoons? It seems like it's a huge story but American newspapers haven't published them at all. The Washington Post ran an editorial by the Danish publisher last week, but the cartoons themselves are nowhere to be seen. Does anyone else think that's kind of weird? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 They're just burning down there own buildings, so eff them. The phrase "don't **** where you live" applies here. Yeah. I never understood why rioters destroy their own neighborhoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Has anyone actually seen these cartoons? It seems like it's a huge story but American newspapers haven't published them at all. The Washington Post ran an editorial by the Danish publisher last week, but the cartoons themselves are nowhere to be seen. Does anyone else think that's kind of weird? No. The American press is smart enough to know not to run them. With a freedom of the press comes a responsibility of the press, and for all the press in this country is, they do hold up their responsibilities relatively well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Its really rather unfair to make it sound like Clinton agrees with their tactics. Remember, he is the one most righties claim is to much of a ***** to fight and now you claim he believes in blowing up buildings? I'm sure there is a at least one point you agree on with these people too (even if it is something like 'we love our children') yet to say you agree with them is a stretch and wrong. This is what Sarge does -- he uses the very sensationalist tactics his beloved Fox News tries to spring on us as well. Clinton does not agree with their tactics, and he definitely does not agree with abortion clinic bombers. :doh: :doh: :doh: Sarge, I have an idea; go into a crowded movie theatre and then yell fire at the top of your lungs. When the police arrive, tell them you did it, and see whether or not they arrest you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 They're just burning down there own buildings, so eff them. The phrase "don't **** where you live" applies here. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "don't **** where you eat," because everyone ****s where they live...otherwise, where would you ****? Go to the gas station down the street every time you need to drop deuce?? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Has anyone actually seen these cartoons? It seems like it's a huge story but American newspapers haven't published them at all. The Washington Post ran an editorial by the Danish publisher last week, but the cartoons themselves are nowhere to be seen. Does anyone else think that's kind of weird? The reason people are mad is due to the fact that a picture of Muhammed was published. Period. The bomb-turban bit was just insult to injury, but simply dipicting Muhammed in print at all is highly offensive to Muslims. That includes re-printing the cartoons, even within the context of 'We don't think this, but this is what made everyone so mad.' The fact that some European papers either didn't understand this, or did understand it and didn't care and re-printed the cartoons anyway, is part of the reason the rioters are rioting. While I think the rioting is completely nuts and out of line, I do understand why we aren't publishing the cartoons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 When you know that the reaction is going to be such, you don't purposely elicit it. Do you support censorship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 2 questions: #1 Convict the artist of what? What law did he break? #2 Where does the ACLU stand on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I believe the phrase you're looking for is "don't **** where you eat," because everyone ****s where they live...otherwise, where would you ****? Go to the gas station down the street every time you need to drop deuce?? :laugh: Neighbors yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 While the rioters have to account for their actions, the people who caused the riots do, too. I'm not saying they didn't have the right to publish it in the first place, it's obviously protected by freedom of speech. But when the Danish newspaper retracted the cartoon and apologized, and then the Danish government apologized, it should have been a signal to rest of Europe that they shouldn't republish them.Both parties in this case were wrong in what they did, but only one is really facing any heat from the mainstream. I'm glad Clinton stood up and made it clear that you can't insult a billion people to the core and not be held responsible. Why, Freedom of Speech means that you can voice your thoughts knowing that the people you oppose can't come against you in a violent manner. The cartoonist wrote this in Denmark. He didn't go to Town Square in Islammabad and do this. Reasonable people don't react to something they disagree with in a violent manner. Unevolved, uneducated, ignorant, weak, stupid people react to such a thing as a cartoon in a violent manner. You think Muslim cartoonist never depicted Jesus in a blastphemist light? You think Muslims don't slander Jews every time they have the chance? I am tired of the minority of the Muslims who are a disgrace to the entire human race. The saddest thing of all is that they make a very proud dignified religion look like a mob of savages. As someone else brought up in another thread, the non violent Muslims need to step it up. They need to be squashing these people. If they keep it up they will eventually get the war the want. Anyone who thinks that the World will not engage itself in another global war is crazy. It is history, we are doomed to repeat it. Right now the Muslim World seems to be the Catalysts. As for Clinton, shame on him. Makes me wonder how hard he would have really fought for right to free speach and press here at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 2 questions:#1 Convict the artist of what? What law did he break? Its not the artist, its the publishers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 The reason people are mad is due to the fact that a picture of Muhammed was published. Period. The bomb-turban bit was just insult to injury, but simply dipicting Muhammed in print at all is highly offensive to Muslims. That includes re-printing the cartoons, even within the context of 'We don't think this, but this is what made everyone so mad.'The fact that some European papers either didn't understand this, or did understand it and didn't care and re-printed the cartoons anyway, is part of the reason the rioters are rioting. While I think the rioting is completely nuts and out of line, I do understand why we aren't publishing the cartoons. http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143880&highlight=mohammed+cartoons click on the link in the first post. there have been many a mohammed caricatures over the years, and none have accomplished what this one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 2 questions:#1 Convict the artist of what? What law did he break? #2 Where does the ACLU stand on this? If the ACLU was consistent at all, they would support the right of any media outlet to publish these cartoons. I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Its not the artist, its the publishers. What law did they break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I believe the phrase you're looking for is "don't **** where you eat," because everyone ****s where they live...otherwise, where would you ****? Go to the gas station down the street every time you need to drop deuce?? :laugh: :laugh: You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Now excuse me, while I go drop a deuce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Its not the artist, its the publishers. Ok, the question still stands. Seriously, im curious. If the ACLU was consistent at all, they would support the right of any media outlet to publish these cartoons. I'm not holding my breath. I agree, and im not either. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.