nelms Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 What law did they break? Good question. I'd like to know the answer to that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 What about the image of Mohammad in the US Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Not gonna read this all...but does anyone think they've faced enough punishment already with these attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143880&highlight=mohammed+cartoonsclick 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. Hey, I'm Jewish. Don't think that's not the first thing that popped into my head when this all started to go down. I am in no way attempting to justify the actions of the demonstrators. They have done nothing but serve to further my belief that we are the Good Guys in the cultural conflict we are currently experiencing with Muslim extremists throughout the world. However, that does not mean that it's a good idea to print something that we know is wildly offensive to an entire religion. It's a simple case of two wrongs not making a right and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Do you support censorship? Self-censorship. The press should be responsible enough to know what not to publish, to know when something is going to cause an international uproar on this scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 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. Tough call. Clinton (if this is truly him) is kind of using the "don't yell fire in a theater" logic to free discourse. But we all know the truth is that we are dealing with extremely dangerous people here, and they are not up for discourse on much of anything, least of all their religion. Bottom line is they are controlling the future of discourse through violence, and no one from that side is coming forth to even imply that they ever intend on doing otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 It's all part of a Clever Clinton Plan. Bill makes an idiot of himself overseas, and Hillary publicly renounces his idiocy. Bill will never win an election again, and Hillary gets to pretend to be a moderate. (And they both get their names in the newspapers some more.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Clinton is right, hold them accountable. If you know so little about your subject matter that you do something that is completely against their values, you need to be held accountable for your ignorance. In the US, where free speech is very important they have the gumption to not publish them. I think this is a critical thing because they use their right to free speech responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Self-censorship. The press should be responsible enough to know what not to publish, to know when something is going to cause an international uproar on this scale. Exactly. Too many people confuse the right of free speech with the need and tact to print or say anything you'd like. Just because you're allowed to say doesn't mean you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 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. You're completely missing the point. Yeah, the riots are awful. Yeah, the people rioting are ignorant, stupid, weak, etc. But so were the publishers in this case. Keep in mind, the riots aren't because of the Danish publishings. The riots are because even though the newspaper and the Government of Denmark retracted and apologized for the cartoons, some idiotic newspapers in the rest of Europe decided to publish them anyway. If you're the publishers that decided to print these cartoons after they had already been retracted and condemned in Denmark, you're either too stupid to know what was coming, or you wanted it. Either way, it's the publishers' fault, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Clinton is right, hold them accountable. If you know so little about your subject matter that you do something that is completely against their values, you need to be held accountable for your ignorance. In the US, where free speech is very important they have the gumption to not publish them. I think this is a critical thing because they use their right to free speech responsibly. I'll use an example, okay it is a bad example but an example none the less. Lets say I publish a cartoon in a sports publication that depicted the Dallas Cowboy engaged in a sexual act with another man, you know a parody of Brokeback Mountain. Inevitably I know that someone out there will be so offended by that and feel like violently reacting. What I also hope is that the person I offend realizes that my views are of no great importance. My views don't change the meaning or validity of the Dallas Cowboy in any way. Irresponsible or not, it is the responsibility of the harmed parties to display their anger in a civilized manner. That way free speach and press are protected all the way around. This is fundamental element that the uneducated protestors will never comprehend. The cartoonist did nothing wrong. He did something to be viewed as stupid but by no means did he do anything that must be met with any kind of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Hey, I'm Jewish. Don't think that's not the first thing that popped into my head when this all started to go down.I am in no way attempting to justify the actions of the demonstrators. They have done nothing but serve to further my belief that we are the Good Guys in the cultural conflict we are currently experiencing with Muslim extremists throughout the world. However, that does not mean that it's a good idea to print something that we know is wildly offensive to an entire religion. It's a simple case of two wrongs not making a right and all. i agree that it was in poor taste. but i'm not sure what the publishers should/could possibly be convicted of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 What law did they break? I'm not saying they did...PB asked what law did the artist break, but I was just correcting him in that they were going after the publishers and not the artist. What laws did they break? None. Should they be held accountable? I think its reasonable considering the effects of what happenend. If they had just published them immediately, it would be different. But they already knew the response to the cartoon from the Islamic world, and went ahead and published them anyway. If you yell fire into a crowded theatre, you are accountable for any injuries in the ensuing stampede...:2cents: If a cartoon of Christ was published in which he was breaking all 7 mortal sins while masturbating or something like that was published in a major US newspaper, do you think the Christian right would NOT be up in arms about firing the artist, publisher and disbanding the entire paper?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 i agree that it was in poor taste. but i'm not sure what the publishers should/could possibly be convicted of. Me neither. I don't think they should be convicted of anything. I was simply expaining why papers here havn't published the cartoons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 We should also not ignore the statements from the Bush White House as well. Which was esseentially the same thing Clinton said, just to a lesser degree. But the theme was the same. Eggshells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 You're completely missing the point. Yeah, the riots are awful. Yeah, the people rioting are ignorant, stupid, weak, etc. But so were the publishers in this case. Keep in mind, the riots aren't because of the Danish publishings. The riots are because even though the newspaper and the Government of Denmark retracted and apologized for the cartoons, some idiotic newspapers in the rest of Europe decided to publish them anyway.If you're the publishers that decided to print these cartoons after they had already been retracted and condemned in Denmark, you're either too stupid to know what was coming, or you wanted it. Either way, it's the publishers' fault, too. I see what you are saying, my point is that you can't worry about the reactions of others all the time. Instead you have to trust civility. You have to be able to publish your thoughts or speak your mind or else your existance on this earth is irrelevant. It is not the publishers responsibility to walk on eggshells around the Muslim world. When Al Jazeera puts out a broadcast of an American being beheaded or broadcasts a video calling for the destruction of the Western World, we don't riot. We don't protest. We simply say that is there view and until they act violently on it we will ignore them. Hell even when they do act in a violent manner we don't take to the streets and burn our own ****! I don't go over to the fallafel shop and kick an Muslim person in the face! I don't throw rocks at them! I have sense enought to know that those are the views of few, and I don't care. You can't please all the people all the time and that is something the Muslim world needs to get a grip on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 To get back on topic I guess, here is another site I found from "Muslim" Turkey. And its not Foxnews! http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20060131020310752 Clinton Slams Cartoons, Rising Anti-Islamic Feeling Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:03 AM Eastern Standard Time Former US president Bill Clinton condemned on Monday, January 30, 2005, the publication of cartoons depicting and ridiculing Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. He branded as "appalling" and "outrageous" the 12 cartoons, which caused an uproar in the Muslim world. Clinton also warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism. He criticized the tendency to generalize negative news of Islamic militancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 We should also not ignore the statements from the Bush White House as well. Which was esseentially the same thing Clinton said, just to a lesser degree.But the theme was the same. Eggshells. Leave it to Sarge to post what Clinton said about it but leave out the fact that the Bush white house said the same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 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. Don't forget how many troops we still have over in the Muslim heartland. Of course every American politician is going to side with the crazy mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 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. That would be the same "responsibility" that the NYT showed when they published the story of the top secret wire tap program, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I think what people are missing is these "riots" over whatever is the islamic protest of the day, are fanned into violence by terrorists. This is 'herd terrorism' and shouldnt be just brushed off by saying we need to bow to the will muslims. They should be met head on and told to grow up if they want to be takin seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That would be the same "responsibility" that the NYT showed when they published the story of the top secret wire tap program, right? Exactly. Too many people confuse the right of free speech with the need and tact to print or say anything you'd like. Just because you're allowed to say doesn't mean you should. This is may take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I see what you are saying, my point is that you can't worry about the reactions of others all the time. Instead you have to trust civility. You have to be able to publish your thoughts or speak your mind or else your existance on this earth is irrelevant. It is not the publishers responsibility to walk on eggshells around the Muslim world. When Al Jazeera puts out a broadcast of an American being beheaded or broadcasts a video calling for the destruction of the Western World, we don't riot. We don't protest. We simply say that is there view and until they act violently on it we will ignore them. Hell even when they do act in a violent manner we don't take to the streets and burn our own ****! I don't go over to the fallafel shop and kick an Muslim person in the face! I don't throw rocks at them! I have sense enought to know that those are the views of few, and I don't care. You can't please all the people all the time and that is something the Muslim world needs to get a grip on. Not pleasing all the people all the time and publishing a cartoon of Mohammed, let alone a cartoon of Mohammed as a terrorist, are not the same thing. These cartoons were uncalled for, and it was irresponsible to publish them, regardless of the potential reaction. Pair that with the fact that you can't trust civility amongst radical Muslims, and these publishers either knowingly cause riots or were too stupid to realize that they were going to cause riots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That would be the same "responsibility" that the NYT showed when they published the story of the top secret wire tap program, right? Boo hoo, Sarge. Why don't you go riot if your neocon religion was so offended. Exposing a shady, possibly illegal government program that may be affecting American lives (of course, we don't know because they refuse to tell us) and publishing cartoons that are horribly offensive to a group that is likely to react violently are two different things, and drawing a parallel is just immature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Leave it to Sarge to post what Clinton said about it but leave out the fact that the Bush white house said the same thing... I've already posted here on numerous occasions how disgusted I've been over Bush's ass kissing of islam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.