Reply to: It's alright siblings he's sorry.........

[The Lone Gunman]

You misunderstand and misrepresent me chaps.

Read some of my previous posts on this board, you may then see where I am coming from.

(edited due to my tulip typing in the first place)

[Dundeegeorge]

Errmmm

First off, I think we should congraturlate the guy for having the guts to apologise (even if we suspect an ulterior motive).

I don't think so. Oh, I'm really sorry I flew those aeroplanes into your buildings. I now understand that it was wrong and I apologise if I offended anyone.

Second, for those who dont know. Under Islam it is a sin (even blasphamous) to make pictures of Allah or his prophet. As such it is insensitive for non muslims to do so. Muslims have every right to be upset. Portraying either as suicide bombers or fanatics is taking things too far.

**** off. Your imaginary friend has got nothing whatsoever to do with me. I will not be constrained by your irrational beliefs.

Having said that, I understand that the artist in question did not actualy say they were pictures of the above characters, but proposed the question of could they be (correct me Threaded if the translation I read is wrong) and therefore it is the protestors themselves who have made the link and not the artist, which I think was his intention.
See previous

This goes to show the level of intelligence of all those protestors who have seen the pictures and misunderstood them. I know they have seen them as Allah forbids Muslims from passing comment or making judgement of things they have neither seen nor understood, it says so in the Koran!
Ho ho ho, very good indeed

[eternalnomad]

Under Islam it is also a sin (punishable by death) to be a drug trafficker or persistent drug user......selective use of when Isalmic rules apply and when they dont if you ask me.

Publishing those images may have been insensitive but perhaps not quite as insensitive as parading through various cities of the world demanding and threatening beheadings to the "inifdel".(for "infidel" this means you, your family and anyone else who happens to not wish to become a muslim.).

Imagine how the family of the 7/7 victims felt seeing that ferking moron dressed up as a suicide bomber.

[The Lone Gunman]

First off, I think we should congraturlate the guy for having the guts to apologise (even if we suspect an ulterior motive).

Second, for those who dont know. Under Islam it is a sin (even blasphamous) to make pictures of Allah or his prophet. As such it is insensitive for non muslims to do so. Muslims have every right to be upset. Portraying either as suicide bombers or fanatics is taking things too far.

Having said that, I understand that the artist in question did not actualy say they were pictures of the above characters, but proposed the question of could they be (correct me Threaded if the translation I read is wrong) and therefore it is the protestors themselves who have made the link and not the artist, which I think was his intention.

This goes to show the level of intelligence of all those protestors who have seen the pictures and misunderstood them. I know they have seen them as Allah forbids Muslims from passing comment or making judgement of things they have neither seen nor understood, it says so in the Koran!

[threaded]

Yes, but it appears that the cartoons these people are getting so upset about weren't the ones published by Jyllands Posten.

Furthermore it looks like it was some rabble rousing muslim cleric who created the cartoons that people are getting so upset about.

Which adds it's own black humour to this story.

[AlfredJPruffock]

As I understand it Alf it was only one Christ cartoon that was not published - others have been in the past. Also one could argue that the Jews did little to provoke the Nazi's reactions - it could be argued that the same was not necessarily so with Muslim extemists

My understanding is that he did not publish any of the various cartoons of Christ three years ago,on this basis

As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them

But if you have a source which shows that he did publish previously images of Christ I would be interested to read that also.

But the fact remains he refused to publish these images for fear of provoking an outcry but had no compunction with the images of the Prophet.

Maybe he should have went for Taoist images instead !



The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the email: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

"I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."

He said that he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.

But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, told MediaGuardian.co.uk that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

"The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

[John Galt]

I didnt say it should be illegal, its a matter of good taste and respect for what others consider sacred.

Thats the crux of the matter.

Do you agree with the Nazis publications of cartoons of Jews protrayed as criminals as demons as a crude means of inducing hatred?

I hope not.
Had he published the images of Christ then he would have had crediblity in my eyes, but he didnt, so he is a rank hypocrite.

As I understand it Alf it was only one Christ cartoon that was not published - others have been in the past. Also one could argue that the Jews did little to provoke the Nazi's reactions - it could be argued that the same was not necessarily so with Muslim extemists

[Mordac]

He's back in prison

According to the Beeb. Bubba will be pleased...

[AlfredJPruffock]

That the editor of a Danish newspaper might have double standards in no way excuses the burning of embassies and calls for people to be killed. It is a privately run newspaper and he can publish or not publish whatever he likes. It makes not a jot of difference even if he is a foaming at the mouth anti-Islamic nutcase. What he did was completely legal and because it causes some other nutcases to get upset doesn't mean we should make it illegal.

I didnt say it should be illegal, its a matter of good taste and respect for what others consider sacred.

Thats the crux of the matter.

Do you agree with the Nazis publications of cartoons of Jews protrayed as criminals as demons as a crude means of inducing hatred?

I hope not.

Had he published the images of Christ then he would have had crediblity in my eyes, but he didnt, so he is a rank hypocrite.

[Lucifer Box]

That the editor of a Danish newspaper might have double standards in no way excuses the burning of embassies and calls for people to be killed. It is a privately run newspaper and he can publish or not publish whatever he likes. It makes not a jot of difference even if he is a foaming at the mouth anti-Islamic nutcase. What he did was completely legal and because it causes some other nutcases to get upset doesn't mean we should make it illegal.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Not really, Alf, no. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to go to a Rangers match, shout "God bless the IRA", and then get my head kicked in for it? These guys are saying you shouldn't be allowed to criticise their religion.

You are allowed to go to a Rangers Match and say that, but I doubt you would live to tell the tale

Dont try this at home kids


They are saying do not blaspheme something by publication, which to them is sacred.

I happen to respect that, others may not.

But then again not much in our society is sacred, is it?

Finally the notion that this Danish newspaper had earlier refused to publish cartoons of Christ for fear of upetting its readers, really says it all.

Utter hypocrites, in my view.

[Fungus]

Its a good job that he was wearing the traditional muslim fanatic dress, that of a suicide bomber. Had he dared to go into London disguised as a Brazillian bloke the old bill would no doubt have pumped him full of lead.

Also, isn't that a police van he is stood next to?

Yes. They were kind enough to give him a lift to the march. Aren't the British police wonderful.

Fungus

[Lucifer Box]

Oh, and don't forget guys and gals, free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like.

Never has done LB.

Speech that is inflamatory and offensive will have repercussions.

Dont think so ?

Try going to a cinema and shouting FIRE.

Try going to a Rangers football match and shout GOD BLESS THE IRA

See what I mean?

Not really, Alf, no. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to go to a Rangers match, shout "God bless the IRA", and then get my head kicked in for it? These guys are saying you shouldn't be allowed to criticise their religion.

[BoredBloke]

Its a good job that he was wearing the traditional muslim fanatic dress, that of a suicide bomber. Had he dared to go into London disguised as a Brazillian bloke the old bill would no doubt have pumped him full of lead.

Also, isn't that a police van he is stood next to?

[eternalnomad]

Oh, and don't forget guys and gals, free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like.

Never has done LB.

Speech that is inflamatory and offensive will have repercussions.

Dont think so ?

Try going to a cinema and shouting FIRE.

Try going to a Rangers football match and shout GOD BLESS THE IRA

See what I mean?

Or, go to the streets of Dewsbury and shout "This is a secular country where freedom of speech and the rights to hold personal religions and beliefs were hard won"