Just saw on the news plenty of Muslims protesting the new cover and saying all news outlets deserved to be punished and will suffer the consequences.
why? all the bad publicity and other catholics not supporting them caused them to give up their violent ways. nice try though.
now you're just spewing nonsense. the pope lead the rest of the catholics to denounce their violence. as a leader people look up to him for guidance.
Yeah, the Pope denounced them in 1979 and they were still around 20 years later. Talk about spewing nonsense.
sorry if you were expecting an instantaneous change. "terrorism" in the name of islam has been around for 40 years with no signs of slowing. the point is that there needs to be a proactive approach in denouncing violence. not just saying "oh, that was a bad thing that happened" whenever innocents are murdered.
I accept your apology. "Terrorism" in the name of Christianity has been around for like 2,000 years so you seem to have a misperception of terrorism. Perhaps take some time to actually find the comments of prominent Muslims denouncing the violence rather than pretending they don't exist.
I am a little annoyed with the hyper sensitivity by the media, comes off as pandering to whiny brats. Are we always supposed to live in a state of fear and have to tiptoe around a basic freedom that should be given to each and every human? Have moderates smugly tell each other well... they had it coming. They dared to draw a picture of the prophet. Instead of strongly Oh... here is an article for those who asked. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-prophet-muhammad.html?_r=0 It's clear that the moderate islamic world still.... doesn't.... get... it. From hinted warnings to you'll get what's coming to ya... These neanderthals just... don't... get.... it. Another interesting article. What the brouha is all about. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/w...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article Many Muslims upset by the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical newspaper, argue that the issue is not free speech but the insult to a religious figure revered by roughly a quarter of the world’s population. Less clear are the precise origins of the Muslim objection to visual depictions, insulting or otherwise, of the prophet and holy persons of any faith. That objection, which Islamist militants have cited as a reason for their deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris last week, has some roots in the Quran, which discourages image-making as a form of idol worship that demeans God. But Islamic scholars and legal experts say that the Quran does not explicitly prohibit image-making, and that while the act is considered a sin in some branches of Islam, in others it is not — and certainly not one deserving of death. Moreover, these experts point to a rich history of Islamic art forms that include celebratory depictions of Muhammad.[/quote] Just another way to scapegoat the West, regardless of any kind of logical or factual backing.
Koran does not forbid images of prophet http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rZzN5ofCzHI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Did you consider that maybe some of the media doesn't want to put innocent lives at risk? It's real easy to beat your chest when you're safe at home and not in the line of fire.
If it concerns you, then perhaps you should pay closer attention. The Muslims community has denounced these attacks just like they have the others. They have done more than denounce ISIS since they are giving their lives to fight against ISIS. None of that gets the media attention, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Because you are ignorant of their efforts doesn't mean the efforts aren't happening.
But according to trustme, 1.5 billion Muslims are offended by the cartoons. Does trustme think that if 1.5 billion people are supposedly offended, someone had a right to take action?
