islamic clerics issue death warrants

for danish artists who did mohammed portraits.

i loled.

All Muslims are evil.

All Religions are evil. Christianity has just as many extremist followers waiting for their chance to kill some Pagans, except they're all pale, fat, lazy fuckers jerking off to football and Oprah. Why do you think the past Arabian wars have been so successful domestically?

Muslims just happen to be better at extremism. Jews are little different. Take a look at your average US soldier for some proof.

Yeah buddhism is totally evil. Those fuckers are just waiting for the right moment to slaughter us all.

>>4
Buddhism isn't really a religion in the traditional way we've defined a religion. It is a belief structure, but it's not necessarily supernatural or requiring reverence towards some supreme entity. This is one of the reasons why it is so pacifistic, although the Mongols did use it to wage war. But minus a God you are responsible to, a religion is really little more than a superstition or way of life.

Not only that, but the less popular a belief is the less chance there will be of speaking out about it. This is one of the reasons why Muslims are so 'introverted' in America. As a huge minority, they are not exactly a threatening force and are endangered rather than a danger. Likewise if a Christian traveled to an Arab country.

Some of those pictures were fucking up though. One of them had Mohammed wearing a turban made of a bomb.

>>6
Now that I have seen the cartoons myself I'm just about as offended as all of these Islamic "extremists." If a cartoonist were ever to portray Jesus and the foundation of Christianity as vulgarly and stereotypically as these cartoons did with Islam I'm sure the whole of the United States press would be up in arms.

These cartoons were drawn with malice, hatred, and misunderstanding. As the US courts have demonstrated through hundreds of years of cases: there is a distinction between 1st amendment rights and pornography. These cartoons demonstrate no coherent opinion, no truth, and above all they serve no purpose. They are insultory attacks against a religion as a whole, not even against religious extremism. They're mindless pulp garbage. Is this really something we want to defend the freedom of the press with, Anti-Islamic propaganda? Is that the solution?

I thought Europe was more sensible than this. I can see why there's little defense more than: we can say what we want. The Danes are withdrawing and suffering, it's unfortunate the newspaper is the only one responsible.

Cartoons translated here:
http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=133

>>7

Oh shit then I don't think you're going to like this one: http://cartoonjihad.com/muhammad.jpg

>>8
Other than the nazi symbol(overused and meaningless shock propaganda), I feel that's a very thoughtful and well structured piece. It also has certain artistic albeit cartoony merits. This piece differs from the others because it gets real issues across, real problems with Islamic society that many Islamic people want to change. In fact, that could have been drawn by a Muslim extremist for all I know.

I hope this has clarified my stance on the cartoons.

>>9
Yeah, it's a perfectly legitimate political statement to show mohammed derka derka as a bloodstained demon with hideous yellow teeth and a beard made of cockroaches standing alongside the heads of countless innocent people and the women and children he's raped and subjugated.

That's perfectly reasonable free speech, just like the NRA and Resist.com. Really, come on, people. Get your minds out of the gutter.

>>7
Right. The whole of America is up in arms against the Jesus raping the newborn picture.

>>10
Again, the distinction lies in the issues raised, not the way in which they are raised. Arabs and Hispanics burn flags in protest and Americans and Europeans raise sanctions in protest. Which inflicts more suffering? Which appears more violent?

There are plenty of political cartoons depicting George Bush as satan, and any other major political character likewise. The purpose of the cartoon as I saw it was to demonstrate that Muhammed has been transformed into a demonic figure and used as such to inflict suffering.

And yet it is clearly not his true form. No one has a body of cockroaches and skulls in their eyes. What would be despicable would be to use a 'normal' image of Mohammed when metaphorically drawing the evils of extremism.

You have to try to recognize the situation from both the perspective of Islam and the perspective of those who respect Islam but not its misuse. If you see the image as an anti-Islamic image, I think you've missed the point. The cartoon draws an extremist Mohammed wreaking suffering with extremism. An opposing cartoon might draw a more plain, human Mohammed to demonstrate his humanity and equality or some shit like that.

I think it's misguided to see this event as a for-or-against choice. Both are incorrect, and both conflict with freedom. The messages of the cartoons are the issue. If they carry a message of hate they are wrong and if they carry a message of love they are a poor political activism cartoon. The ones pictured in the paper chose blind hate, as it happened.

>>11
I'm being thrown out of my house thanks to you.

Muslims are violent.

>>14
No, you.

Muslims have the reasoning capacity of zombies.

Muslims are a problem no matter where they live. They hold many ugly, violent beliefs.

The states of Norway and Denmark should not issue an apology to the muslims offended by these drawings. It was not an official order from the governments of these countries to have these cartoons printed, the ones who printed these were independent newspapers, who do not represent the political beliefs of the people of Norway and Denmark. The Danish newspaper, Jyllandsposten, is an extremist right newspaper, and the Norwegian newspaper, Magazinet, is an extremist Christian newspaper.
If any Palestinians, who seems to be most aggravated by these cartoons, should attack Norway, a staunch supporter for a free Palestine and who provides 1% of the the national budget of the occupied Palestine, we will just leave them to be rolled over by Israel, and they can just forget about having a free Palestinian state.

>>18
Finally a voice of reason! Thank You.

I have yet to hear of any death threats or flag burning or any such over this:

http://www.hedning.no/humor/jkco/jk4.gif

In fact, all the notice that mag (and the publishers, Det Norske Hedningsamfunn (the Norwegian Society of Heathens)) ever got, was a blasphemy charge that was quickly withdrawn, as the group pressing the charge realised that kind of publicity was exactly what the SoH wanted.

This shold say something about the cultural differences between Christianity and Islam.


That said, Christianity is far from blameless in Islam currently being intolerant, but that's a different (and long!) story. What matters now, is that Islam NEEDS TO LOSE THAT CRAP! RIGHT FKIN NOW!

Islam is several hundred years behind Christianity. A radical Christian will picket an abortion clinic. A radical Muslim will blow up a bus full of children and behead innocent civilians. Those bastards could not commit that shit w/o the support of the moderate Muslim community. Fuck those cameljockies!

>>21
The only difference between Islamists and Evangelists (like, half of the US if that last election is to be believed as being fair) is obese evangelists will choose sitting on you over beheading, and thin ones will use floruescent lights in creative ways. Without support from moderates they wouldn't have their snazzy little bombers and missile launchers.

>>22 You sound like a muslim because that made no sense at all

>>23
Probably a New England liberal smoking pot.

Where is the outrage over all the animes since evangelion that have failed at christianity references and blasphemed the entire religion.

muslims all suck pig feces.

>>7
o rly?

About twenty years ago an artist named Serrano used a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts to put a crucifix in a glass of his own urine and put it on display in a museum.  Google for "Piss Christ" if you don't believe me.  This took place in the US in, I believe, 1987.

This resulted in a total number of fatwahs issued, car bombs detonated, embassies burned, suicide bomb attacks, hostages taken, jihads declared, and assassinations of:  zero.

The artist got a few death threats and the TV evangelists and the Republicans all wrung their hands about it for the cameras for about a week, and that was the end of that.

>>27
Truth told, islam, there are no excuses now, I have heard no muslims issuing fatwas against osama bin laden for committing acts of terror under the "guise" of islam. Therefore islam was responsible. It isn't a minority anymore, it is clear that the majortiy of muslims are crazy fanatics and from now on I am going to interpret all those quotes islamophobes like to advertise as evidence that Islam is an offensive and evil religion, because that is frankly how you act. For the minority of muslims you legitimately are not violent thugs, stop being muslims, the religion has failed^100. At the very least create a new sect of non-crazy muslims.

or just convert to christianity. you know, the religion that's about LOVE instead of DEATH?

a majority of the people who commit themselves to zealotry are exceptionally uneducated. why are the arabs uneducated? Could it be that the Saudis own everything oil-related in the region and put dime zero back into middle easten infrastructure? but wait: why would they do that? why would they hurt their own people? what do they have to gain by allowing the middle east of villanize the westerners and not those to invite western interests?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>>29
Or athiesm, the non-religion of logic.

>>31
Actually, agnosticism is a religion of logic. Atheism is a sort of faith in itself.
But beyond that nuance, I take your point and whole-heartily agree with it.

>>29
One could argue that evo-christians in the UK or fundies in the US are just as hateful, you know. But one could also argue that they are not true christians as they use a particular interpretation of the bible to justify their hatred against several groups.

But in light of this second argument, couldn't you argue that the people stirring up hatred in the islamic community are going against the teachings of islam as well?

You'll find that all religions and creeds have some areas of ambiguity in their dogma, and you'll unfortunately always have nutters who use those to justify and amplify their hatred, spreading it to the weak of mind and heart. But surely one should judge those who manipulate the scriptures to cause hatred, rather than the scriptures themselves?

In the end, all that you have is poetically vague books that talk of love, teleology, and matters of life and death. You have those who ignore what their guiding nature to cause destruction, and garner the most media attention, and you have those who use them to lead good lives and love their neighbours.

I find it much more honest to disaprove of the people rather than the books.

>>33
well, i wasn't really serious, but one should take note that jesus taught love and forgivness, and mohammed taught rape and kill strategies.

btw atheism isn't a religion. look it up in the dictionary dipshits. it requires some amount of 'faith', but then so does everything.

>>35
Funnily enough, the dictionary isn't the ultimate source of knowledge. Very far from that, in fact.

Religion comes from the lating relegare which means to come together (supposedly under one creed). While by faith, I meant specifically the irrational form because while surely enough, you need 'faith' in basic mathematical axioms for mathematics, and you need 'faith' your what your senses tell you for physics and non-sceptical epistemology, it differs from the sort of faith that makes your swallow the holy book hook, line, and sinker.

Agnosticism is a philosophically prudent position, while atheism is to be without god, thus making a metaphysical claim of certainty (or atleast removing god completely from your worldview, and stating that you do). Atheism is therefore a faith on the same grounds a christianity and any other dogma, as it has no justification other than the lack of proof. And it is a religion in the sense that it's pretty monolothic, so all atheists pretty much rally under the same banner.

Remember, there's a difference between not knowing/not caring whether there is a supreme being or not, and stating there isn't one.

Hey man, you learnt something today! Now you can think twice before you correct other people and end up sounding stupid.

>>36, YOU FAIL IT!

Theism is a belief in a god or gods.  Atheism (negating prefix "a-" + "theism") is a lack of any such belief.

Given that I have never heard a definition for "god" that was not either trivially provable to be nonexistent, a logical paradox, or a meaningless noise, atheism does not require faith at all.

>>36 does not know the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/strongatheism.html

PROTIP:  when you are talking about what atheists believe, maybe you should ask an actual atheist.

So, to recap, theism is the belief that one or more gods exist, and atheism is the position that theists have not proven this claim.

p.s.  37GET

>>36
you are utterly confused. hint: try looking up words if you don't know what they mean before using them.

>>36 is doing a PhD on Moral Relativism in Celsus's work at UCL, people. So I'm not going to take any shit from little wankers who did Philosophy101 or hang out on gaia or whatever the fuck you guys do with your free time aside from this and think they know how to argue.

I am fully aware of the nuances in atheism, and stand by my point with respect to that.

>>37
Lol @ guy who learns his shit from wikipedia. Wikipedia is good for trivial things, but it won't really get you that far.

'atheism' isn't trivial? are you fucking stupid?

enough with the PhDs(nobody cares if >>36 is doing a PhD on Moral Relativism in Celsus's work at UCL. So I'm not going to take any shit from PhDs who did Philosophy10001 or hang out on uranus or whatever the fuck you PhDs do with your free time aside from that and think they know how to argue.) and a/theism, assholes. Back to topic.

Mooslim << rest of the world

>>37

PROTIP: owned by >>39 & >>40

If relgions were people Islam suffers from schizophrenia, since on the one hand they are up in arms over cartoons of Muhammed and that is because any dipiction of Muhammed will suddenly lead to mass idolatary and the end of the universe as we know it.

On the other hand they all bow down to a piece of rock supposedly from the moon, which was worshiped by pagans in the area even before Islam was forced upon them.

So to summarize:

cartoon of muhammad = bad since it leads to idolatary.
worshiping a rock = good because??? I don't know I give???

>>44
Simple. Muslims are fucktard camel buggering towelheads.

>>43
PROTIP:  work on your reading comprehension skills and look at the other three URLS.

Or, as the cool kids say, LURK MOAR

>>46
PROTIP: What you've just said is roughly equivalent to "NO U!!111", rhetorically speaking. Thus, your stating of "LURK MOAR" is highly ironic.

Go back to community college, man.

>>47
Your tacit concession of the point is noted.

>>47
>>48
World4chan, where a kid can be a fucking kid, and still feel damn superior about it all.

Pretty pathetic.

hey, people
calm down a little before you start typing
your posts are turning into worthless trolls

>>49
Enjoy your fail.

>>51
I don't know about your guys but the only failing I'm doing is failing to see how the hell >>49 fails for being a mature adult about the discussion. That's more than I can say for some of you, namely people like >>50.

>>51 Hear hear.

>>12 You have to try to recognize the situation from both the perspective of Islam


No, I fucking don't.

Any religion that holds dear a practice of sexually assaulting young girls for the purpose of making sure they feel minimal sexual pleasure in the future needs to be fucking gassed from my good green earth.

>>54
Gassed, hell.  Nuke the babyfuckers.  I'm deadly serious.  It sends the right message with the right symbolism.

When the Romans had had enough of Carthaginian raids and piracy, and they started taking their wars seriously and personally, after they took Carthage they ended up burning everything that would burn.  They left no two stones standing together.  And they plowed salt into the earth where the city stood, to ensure that nothing would ever grow there again.

We have the means to accomplish the same thing right now, only in seconds instead of months:  cobalt-salted fusion bombs.  Thousands of years from now, humans will look down from orbit to see the deadly radioactive craters that used to be Mecca and Medina, and they will shiver as they ponder the fact that it is not wise to provoke a nuclear superpower beyond all endurance.

>>27

I would have loved to see that asshole get the shit kicked out of him.

>>54 Main reason why they still exist, lol.

>>55
The Romans, greatest thing since canned beer!

>>55

Well said, sir.
Islams needs to be eradicated from this earth.

I disagree, I think liberty and the war against tyranny is the answer.