Somali axe man attempts to kill 75 yr old Danish cartoonist for Muhammad cartoon

To-MAY-to . . .
To-MAH- to



Rocket River

 

This happened in Denmark and the cartoonist didn't break any Danish laws.

since you like short responses how about this one...

When in Rome.....

 

Islam is worldwide .. . unless i am mistaken

Rocket River

 

Well some posters certainly seem to be saying its appropriate when they say they are happy that the cartoonist is living in fear or even that they wouldn't mind if he was killed.

I'm not going to deny human nature especially for someone who grew up in poverty and violence that said such things shouldn't be excuses.

I'm not sure I follow your argument in regard to the financial system. If you are saying that such speech should be limited because the cartoonist is exploiting freedom of speech for financial gain you don't need to ask for censorship but can counter it with your own speech. For instance after the tsunami a NYC DJ made a very offensive parody song about Asians. Asians were understandably offended and the threat was to boycott advertisers. The station apologized and fired the DJ. In that situation both free speech was upheld as both the DJ exercised her free speech to make something offensive and Asians exercized theirs by letting the station know they wouldn't patronize advertizers that supported a station that played something so offensive. What didn't happen was a threat of violence and to my knowledge no Asians said that violence should be expected or justified for such offense.

But as long as Muslims respond with violence or condone such violence as the expected outcome the same mistakes will be repeated also. You just perpetuate a feedback looop.

I agree the cartoons are offensive and it was disrespectful of the cartoonist to draw them and the paper to publish them. Where I draw the line is to say that violence is justified, and yes as long as people continue to say that that response is expected and they personally are happy that is the expected response they are justifying it.

 

My Pastafarian laws says that everybody in the world has to eat pasta with beef and pork meatballs to show proper reverence to the FSM. All Hindus and Muslims better start eating, or be prepared to face the consequences. When I am forced to kill them all, it will clearly be their fault.

 

No Islamic law or rule in Denmark.

They are civilized there.



DD

 

I'm still skimming through much of this thread from the other day but had to address this.

The majority of the Muslim world did not applaud when the planes hit the Twin Towers. From what I remember most of the reaction from the Muslim World was shock. In fact many Muslims and Islamic countries called for prayers and even blood donations for America.

 

As an aside: HE didn't publish it in a Danish newspaper; the editor did. Those so outraged at the insult must not know what editorial cartoonists do:

They convey some sort of idea in a one panel drawing. By its nature, it's overly simplistic. By their nature -- they portray ideas in the extreme. They cannot get into nuances. I thought these ones were pretty stupid, not very insightful and probably better suited to a University paper honing the skills of the artist then a professional publication -- but not every cartoon can hit the mark. I guess these ones did -- but the wrong mark . Compared to editorial cartoons that have been published about virtually every other subject -- i thought these ones were rather tame (and very lame). But some found them offensive. Fair enough.

The target should be (IMO) the newspaper that published them and their advertisers if publishing an insulting image of Muhammad is particularly insensitive to Muslims. And the weapon should be a boycott of the advertiser or pressure to fire the publisher-- not an axe or death threat. When a pissChrist or other Christian bashing things surfaces, my anger is directed at those that fund this crap, or provide space for its display. Not at the 'artist' who I dismiss as a fool.

Those of you condoning, 'ok with' or even 'understanding' the death threat stuff are nuts.

 

So are ignorance, intolerance and violence.

 

Just for comparison sake I received an email the other day from a Sri Lankan Buddhist about something called the Buddha Bar opening in Dubai
http://www.buddha-bar.com/

Now to Buddhists and Sri Lankan Buddhist especially this is very offensive to use iconography of the Buddha to promote a business that serves alcohal and in the case of this particular one also will have prostitution going on. The email I got says that as Buddhist and people of conscious we should protest this by ecouraging boycotts of the Buddha Bar (which the developer wants to franchise) and the Le Meridian hotel where the bar will be. Also we should write letters to the government of Dubai, France (where the developer and Le Meridian Hotels are based) and the US (frankly because it is the US).

Now my question though is if a Sri Lankan in Dubai were to attack the propierter of this bar should that be expected and should Buddhists be OK with that happening? Also should that be expected and OK when you consider that most Sri Lankans in Dubai are very poor, have been exploited, and also that for much of recent history Sri Lankan was engaged in a civil war along with devestated by the tsunami?

 

Hate cleric on £25k benefits


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2796335/Hate-cleric-Anjem-Choudary-on-25k-benefits.html



A FATHER whose soldier son was killed in Afghanistan lashed out last night at the huge state handouts given to rabble-rousing Anjem Choudary.

The Muslim cleric's untaxed income of £25,740 is thousands more than 21-year-old gunner Jack Sadler was earning before he was blown up by a roadside bomb.

And Jack's outraged dad Ian, 60, said: "These lads don't get paid what they deserve because they sacrifice so much. Choudary just doesn't deserve the money full stop.

"Whose team is he cheering for anyway? It's appalling there are young soldiers out there serving Queen and country and they're getting a pittance while this man takes his handouts. It's wrong these people's lives are being subsidised. It's utterly galling."

The new storm surrounding hate-filled Choudary erupted as the bodies of two more fallen heroes were repatriated.

Rifleman Aidan Howell, 19, of Desborough, Northants, was killed in a bomb blast in Helmand province on December 28.

Sapper David Watson, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, died on New Year's Eve after an explosion in Sangin.

Jack, who dreamed of becoming an Army officer, was killed days before Christmas in 2007.

Ian, of Exmouth, Devon, said the Honourable Artillery Company trooper "went to Afghanistan for an adventure - but also to serve".

The dad added: "When I think of Choudary it beggars belief. Don't forget my son paid taxes, too. But this man is just biting the hand that feeds him. He doesn't treat this as his country."

British-born father-of-four Choudary is notoriously vague about whether he works or has other money coming in.

He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support and free time to spread his hatred.


Rant ... Choudary with Abu Hamza and Bakri at London rally in 2002

Asked if he worked during a radio interview this week, he replied: "Well, what I do is my business. I don't think it is important."

Choudary lives in a smart £320,000 house thought to be owned by an associate or relative whose home is on the same street in Leytonstone, East London. But his rent is paid by Waltham Forest Council.

The university-educated cleric does not claim incapacity benefit, meaning he has no physical problem preventing him from finding a better-paid job.

A benefits official said: "Choudary and his family enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in a smart home paid for by the taxes of hard- working British people appalled by his loathsome views.

"It's shocking he gets more than a soldier risking his life."

Choudary's benefits also vastly outstrip those given to war widow Shelly Dempsey, whose corporal husband Barry, 29, was killed in Helmand in August.

Shelly, 28, receives a widow's pension and handouts for fatherless children Andie, five, and Charlie, four, totalling £1,670 a month.

The mum, of Edinburgh, said: "Choudary makes me sick. What he's doing is so disrespectful." Choudary fanned the flames of controversy again yesterday by saying he would cancel his proposed march through Wootton Bassett as long as Gordon Brown took part in a TV debate with banned extremist Omar Bakri.

The PM has called the parade plan "abhorrent". Bakri, in exile in Lebanon, yesterday branded British troops "murderers".

Choudary shared a platform at a Muslim rally in London in 2002 with Bakri and fellow hate cleric Abu Hamza, now in jail.

 

In a free speech society he can say what he wants.....and hey look, no one is trying to break in and kill the guy.

I guess if those people thought like Muslim extremists they would be breaking in and trying to hatchet Choudary to death.....

Then people could say "Well, that is what he gets for spreading hate and speaking out and insulting people"

DD

 

So did the majority of Muslims in the world try to attack this guy and showed intolerance after the cartoon was published? The uneducated MINORITY showed their anger towards Danish embassies and tried to murder this guy. Islam doesn't teach intolerance, if it did, why were that majority of the Muslims in the world tolerant??? All the Muslims around us in the US, were they not tolerant? Did they act in a cowardly manner? Its just that the minority's actions are so grave that it becomes newsworthy(rightfully so) but the Muslims who show tolerance(vast majority) and stay quiet go ignored.

 

Maybe they shouldn't stay so quiet........and I said "IF".

DD

 

This thread has blown me away. Personally, I am an EXTREMELY religious person. My faith and religion help define who I am and I believe that they bring me closer to God and His individual plan for me. As a practicing and active Mormon, I am no stranger to mockery - sometimes it is lighthearted and sometimes it is mean-spirited, and if I speak honestly, it all hurts a little bit. Additionally, I feel that the way that Christ is metaphorically thrown around, spoken of disrespectfully, poked fun at, etc., is repulsive. It feels like a little part of me dies inside when it happens, and it's something I don't think I'll ever become desensitized to.

But at the core of my belief set, I believe that one of the greatest gifts that God has given all of us is the ability to choose for ourselves how we will worship, and that we will respect others in the ways that they worship. One of the Articles of Faith in my religion states "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I understand, though almost certainly not to the same extent as many within Islam, how demeaning and hurtful insults to one's faith and beliefs can be - particularly when they come from individuals that we might perceive as ignorant of our beliefs themselves. However, to defend the "axe man" or to speak out against the cartoonist in this story is completely astonishing to me. I do not express SURPRISE that this happens, and I do believe that the cartoonist is foolish if he didn't think something like this might happen as a result of his depiction, but that doesn't for one second make him any less entitled to his right to express his opinion. He is absolutely upheld by the law, and therefore must be protected by it. Just because people do things that many of us might perceive as stupid - even if that number of people numbers in the millions or billions - it does not change the fact that he MUST be upheld and protected as an individual with his own right to expression.

I found Mathloom's description of how it is extremely challenging for those within Islam to NOT have an image or depiction of Muhammad, an individual they clearly revere and hold in the highest of esteem, to be very fascinating. It is indeed something I had never really considered, but it makes sense. However, be that as it may and how disrespected they must have felt by the cartoon and its seeming inconceivable irreverence with which it dealt with the subject matter - but it in no way justifies what happened in this instance. Those who can defend the "axe man" individual in any way or say that the cartoonist's death would represent "getting what he deserved" are completely irrational and delusional in this respect.

I understand that there are many individuals in the world (and many on this board ) who frown upon religion, and feel like it is something that exists to hold the masses down and exert power over them. Honestly, I can understand where some of that frustration comes from and in many cases that has been the case over history. But I love my religion, I love the closeness it offers me to my Father, and I will hold to it forever. I want to share what I've found with others and help them feel of the happiness that I feel, but I must always remain tolerant of others and how they speak or believe, no matter how much it may offend or hurt me.

Sorry for the soapbox, but this thread has been completely amazing to read. I just can't believe what many have said.

 

DD, you're missing the whole point as usual. This isn't about whether Islam is right or wrong. No one cares about that. Literally, this whole discussion has nothing to do with that. Again, you don't have to respect Islam. Who cares? Whether you like to believe it or not, during their time, people did respect the Greeks, and the Summarians, and the Egyptians. So, your point is moot. In addition, numbers equal validation. It is the reason why presidential candidates so highly value "the latino vote" and others like it. I also think you're defining respect differently than I am too. Respect doesn't equal a liking of something, or agreement with it. But it does equal not trying to abase the integrity of its followers.

This is the definition of a personal opinion. While you may believe that it has done nothing to earn respect from non believers, you have zero right to speak on the behalf of everyone else. Just because you dislike it does not mean that everyone else does. I'm not even going to sit here and try to prove to you the accomplishments of the religion. Saying that it has done nothing to earn respect is a complete asinine, and quite frankly uneducated comment to make. Whether you like it or not, through history Muslims have contributed laregely to such areas as, but not limited to: architecture, math, science, and others. You're doing a great job of proving your point. You not caring is great. It's not about your opinion. Facts can't be ignored.


No one is asking you to respect a person's belief. What you claim to do by respecting a person's right to believe is good enough. However, Your belittling of anything related to the religion clearly shows that you do not.

I'm sorry great instructor. Please, explain to me how it is hypocritical for a Muslim to not want to draw the Prophet? I'm a bit lost on that. Before you try to lecture me about free speech, try to understand that it does not relate to that. A muslim can obviously not stop someone else from doing it. Everyone has a right to express their opinion. However, does that mean that they cannot expect for people to at least be courteous and refrain from doing so?

You really think this is only my opinion. Come on DD! I thought you were an idealist. Aren't you the guy who openly admonished and even condemned using profanity on the bbs? It's a little bit hypocritical of you to say that it's okay to chastise and disrespect people, no?

<br>
From your posts above you have clearly shown that you are not more tolerant. Sure, you may adhere to a certain viewpoint better, but that in no way makes you more tolerant. Last time I checked I completely respected everyone's right to believe in God, no one, the sun, or even Pluto. So what is the difference between you and I? You also seem a bit dense because you seem to think that (again, can't speak for Mathloom) I am in some way advocating, or condoning the murderers actions. Even though, I have repeated over and over again that he is the one who is at fault. The axe guy is legally, morally, ethically, and socially wrong in every single aspect. Good for you that you wouldn't try to kill someone who had a contrary viewpoint from yourself. Neither would I.


On a side note, if you were truly as tolerant as you said, and actually respected their right to believe (like you say) you would not make some of the comments you have. I like your use of pseudo playful joking to sneakily express your true opininos. I wonder what you meant when you said, "No Islamic law or rule in Denmark. They are civilized there. ". Because from what I can tell, that type of thing, even though you tried to play it off as a joke by using a winky face reeks of your intolerance. So, you just called an entire relgion uncivilized. Wow.

I guess it doesn't help when people like RR try to speak for the majority and try to say that we are enforcing Islams's laws upon you. Which of course, isn't the case.

 

<br>
1. This argument has fallacy written all over it. It is also completely idealistic and a bit false.

Let me prove this to you, since you seem to not have a rudimentary understanding of how the world works.

Take the following article for example: http://www.parade.com/news/first-take/2009/0911-dan-brown.html

Keep in mind DD, this is a guy living in a society founded on freedom of speech. He's a normal caucasian guy who wrote a book! Yet, look, the very thing you say doesn't happen is happening. He lives under extreme caution and receives death threats. Awesome job proving your point.



2. In all honesty, that Choudary fellow should be ashamed of himself. He is a douchebag as well. If some extremist lunatic tried to kill Choudary, I wouldn't be surprised either. The fact that there isn't someone trying to kill him doesn't change that.

3. What's wrong with your last statement? No one should be ok with anyone spreading hate.

 

DaDa isn't arguing that these people don't suffer consequences for their actions, but rather that they shouldn't have to. There's no reason that Dan Brown should live in fear, but idiots and crazy-ass people apparently are willing to threaten him. That does nothing to diminish his right to write as many books as he likes.

Again - we're not SURPRISED that these things happen, but our lack of surprise doesn't somehow validate their actions. I'm not surprised when I see idiots doing idiotic things - but that doesn't make their actions any less idiotic.

DaDa isn't saying that people aren't wrongly persecuted for enjoying their own right to free speech - he's saying that they shouldn't be persecuted for it, no matter how inflammatory it may be, and that those who would consider doing these idiotic things are behaving idiotically. This is not difficult to understand.

So, to summarize: cartoonist = potentially bad judgment, but right to express himself no matter how inflammatory
Axe man = complete idiot.

 

<br>
You haven't been a part of this entire conversation, so it's far from fair that you are trying to speak for DD. I'm not arguing that they should have to live in fear or suffer any consequences. That is horrible and it is sad that it is happening. What a number of posters have insinuated throughout the thread is that it is a direct result of Islam. They say that Islam is infringing on the right of free speech because of the (*minority) of lunatics who commit heinous crimes. I was merely proving that it isn't nearly as limited or linear with Islam as DD is portraying. Yet, you are again trying to prove to me that I am somehow speaking against freedom of speech. When clearly, that is not the case. I've proved that point in nearly every single post I have made in this entire thread.

I am of the same viewpoint when it comes to your second paragraph and have been trying to convey that for quite some time.

On the contrary, DD is saying exactly that. He said, "In a free speech society he can say what he wants.....and hey look, no one is trying to break in and kill the guy." If that's not trying to prove that people aren't persecuted because of what they say, I am sorry. However, that is what I gained from his response, and given the previous posts, it is not hard to see why. I haven't disagreed with anything regarding free speech that DD has said. I'm just a little bit put off by his comments regarding Islam being backwards and not civilized. The only thing I am disputing with him is his notion that the religion breads intolerance and ignorance.

You basically just posted a list of facts which I completely agree with. Again, I am not even arguing that. I'm not debating the issue of free speech. That is clear as day. I honor and respect it.

 

I don't condone the violence or the death threats at all! I had a basic point which was that the death threats were to be expected (there was a perfect storm for it). The comparison you have presented above can not be considered as there are too many factors which make them different.

I think you have me confused with Mathloom, I think it's disturbing that he thinks the guy should get whats coming to him.