So how do you feel about the cartoons and the embassy burnings?
I find the irony brilliant.
"Please don't say our religion condones violence. If you do we will kill you."
I honestly think that the Danish army should go down to a burning embassy and roast up some pork on the flames.
I really want to go down to the Danish embassy over here with a placard stating "Get Over It". Religion based arguments to this extent always piss me off. I might even go trot around on my non-religious high horse.
Although one of the papers (The Sun I think) had a picture of a kid with an "I <3 Al-Qaeda" hat. I think I'd like one. Then when people get pissy I can say Al is the best singer we've seen this side of 2006 and people should really open up to independent artists more.
i think the headline "Cartoon Violence" beautifully captures many aspects of the whole childish surreality of it
Posted by
WarHead, around February 2006:
Denmark has an army?
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
Anyone know where to find the 'cartoons of death'?
64.246.44.90/cartoons/Moham...
i think the one that caused the most offence was the 'bomb for a turban' one..
there was some fantastic debate going on on radio 4 this morning..
The virgins one is actually quite funny.
err, how exactly is that brussels article "reactionary"?
do you personally find it offensive when people point out that a situation is asymmetric or biased?
strange to think that i could die for having written
this:
Hail Mary, full of natural sunshine goodness
Oh this is amusing. I assume most people know that the correct translation of the christian bible's description of Mary is not virgin but young girl.
But apparently, and I'm here relying solely on the professionalism of an excellent-so-far aggregation weekly called "The Week", recent scholarly work suggests the Koran's 72 virgins awaiting muslim martyrs in heaven are actually mis-transcribed raisins.
Imagine how you'd feel: you scrape together your suicidally scattered body parts and stains then rock on up to heaven with your body in a bucket expecting some pretty full-on reward raunch, as seen on TV for infidels but now validly available to yourself in much larger quantities with the added bonus of religious self-righteousness, only to be presented with a large handful of sun-dried grapes.
Bit of a let-down, really.
There you are thinking you'll be spending the rest of your natural afterlife frolicking and despoiling like a man once dispossessed, now merely munching ruminatively on mummified wine seeds and toying with the idea that perhaps you might have done things a little differently had you known a little earlier.
and
this:
Happy birthday, Muhammed
It was the Prophet Muhammed's birthday yesterday.
So-oooo...
Where's all my presents?
I've had a good look round, checked under the tinsel & fairy lights-- not a sausage.
And come to think of it, Jesus still owes me a bike from Christmas.
What's the good of having all these dead messiahs and prophets and things lying around the place if they fail in their Holy Obligation to deliver presents to greedy^H^H^H^H^H^H deserving children?
I tell you, this is the LAST TIME you catch ME dancing on the graves of any of god's chosen representatives on earth celebrating the beginning of their brief flicker of corporeal existence, I've had it up to HERE with the ingratitude. Now, in MY day, our dead prophets knew their place. And they had a sense of fun. Ole Uncle Abraham rolling around the place ripping out classics like "Thou shalt sleep with thy daughters" and "Gomorrah's OK really, it just gets a bad press" and "Sodom's for American Imprisonment, not just for Christmas," which works in just so many ways. I'm not too certain about that last one actually, come to think of it, but then I can't find my house keys either and I KNOW I've got them round here someplace or I wouldn't be inside right now telling you about it, now would I?
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
The wiki picture is a bit small, and the site Frankie linked to is down =[
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
www.supportdenmark.com
=]
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
(Cal - it might be an idea to hide this thread from the nosy search engines)
Grim...: I was thinking that it'll get pretty interesting come googletime.
Here's how I currently feel about the situation as a whole. Prepare for ambiguity and assumption.
RE: The points the cartoons were intended to make.
As I understand it, the cartoons weren't requested to mock Islam and Muhammad but rather point out the absurdity behind non-muslim cartoonists following Muslim doctrine (not producing pictures of Muhammad) out of fear of an extremist backlash. This to me is nonsensical and is, I hope, the point the original Danish paper was going for. Like in the article Frankie links to, it's akin to not eating beef for fear of Hindus going bollywood kung fu on you.
RE: The cartoons themselves.
Not very funny bar the virgins one which, as I said, tickled me. The Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, however is going too far and took the context of the peice from "There's no need to be scared. We can co-exist" to "Mohammad == Bad guy". While a satirical work mocking those that threaten us is one thing, mocking a whole faith through disgracing their founder is another. It's a shame because it started out as a very good point to make.
RE: The free press argument.
"I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
RE: The extremist backlash.
Totally wrong. Totally out of order. Calm down you bunch of cunts.
As has been pointed out everywhere, the Danish Prime Minister doesn't have, and shouldn't have, any control over his country's press. He should not be called to apologise on behalf of them.
So yeah - thems be my current feelings.
I dont know the correct way to spell Mohammed.
there IS no one single "correct" way, in english, just as there is no single correct way in english to represent "allahu akbar"
i agree with you on all points, sul, with one minor exception. i don't agree that the bomb-in-turban thing was out of order any more than it would have been for saladin to have represented christ with a sword in his belt during the crusades. the pseudo-terrorists today are presenting their posturing ego-needs as part of a holy war, a war for their god and their religion. a drawing alluding to this strikes me as merely fair comment.
me, i am primarily annoyed by the arrogant self-righteousness of the reaction, whereby the whole world is required to conform to their whims.
i'm also annoyed by the insistence that it's against their religion for anyone to depict mahomed -- this is pure fantasy. both the koran and the teachings describe mohammed's ordering his followers not to worship his image, and hence not to put his image in the mosques. game. over.
this most neatly sums up the core of the problem, from all perspectives:
Hindus consider it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.
"We are all Danes now", per the boston globe (who appear to have paraphrased a post title i've had in draft for a year now :)
I dont think we disagree even on that minor point. I too think it's no more offensive than an image of Christ bearing a sword in the crusades. But the crusades are long past and while I believe that at the time I'd feel the same about that image too, the crusades are long past and its impossible for me to really form an opinion having not known any thoroughly nice crusades era Christians wishing to follow their faith without feeling mass murder valid religious debate while condemning those that do.
But if I've mistaken it and we indeed do disagree, I'll fucking deck ya round the back of the bike sheds.
And of course the BBC should show the images. It's important now that we show the images, not as a sign of solidarity, but to show what the fuck all the fuss is about. "These are the images causing such an uproar" - not "We are printing these to show that we beleive in free speech". There are far better ways to promote that.
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
Mind you, if America can push their laws onto the rest of the world, why can't the Muslims?
Because America makes some good telly.
if we disagree at all, we have to slit each other's throats, sul. we have to because we are peace-loving
HOL EE SHIT
Fabricated cartoons worsened Danish controversy
The controversy over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed is expanding, as more Muslims join the boycott and protests against Denmark and various European newspapers decide to publish the cartoons, mostly out of solidarity with Jyllands Posten and to make a strong political stand. One issue that puzzles many Danes is the timing of this outburst. The cartoons were published in September: Why have the protests erupted from Muslims worldwide only now? The person who knows the answer to this question is Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, a man that the Washington Post has recently profiled as “one of Denmark's most prominent imams.”
Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.
On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified. In any case, the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that “mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.” And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya, Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV.
counterterror.typepad.com/t...
full booklet here:
see the pics here:
bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/0...
The irony is that in doing so the Muslims have done exactly what they accuse the non-Muslims of doing: They have broken Muslim law by reproducing, publishing and distributing drawings of the prophet. And they have managed to out-blaspheme the infidel Danes by reproducing 3 blasphemous pictures that are far worse than anything ever published in JyllandsPosten.
1st and 5th of the Comments:
if u a danish person u must to know that u are pigs & dogs,i promise the danish people and everyone who r not muslime will go to the hill of our god we will see u burning in the hill,u are whom not respect hummanity and human rights,u r whom ran out of virgins,u are like animals fuking yourself & ur sisters & doughters, one day we will kill all of u, we have a great god but u have nothing.
# posted by muslim : 12:13 PM
JUST I WISH TO TELL YOU THAT
IF YOU ARE BELIEVED OR NOT
HERE YOU HAVE TO BE IN RESPECT TO OTHER RELIGIONS TO HUMANBEANS
NO ONE DOES ANYTHING UNRESPECTABLE THINGS TO YOUR BELIEVED POSITION.
ANY HOW THATS THE ONE OF THE PERSON HE DOES NOT HIMSELF ,HE DONE TO VERY TERRIBLE THINGS AGAINIST THE ISLAMITISH COMMENTMENT
THAT IS VERY TERRIBLE. PERHAPS HE DOESNOT LIKE TO LIVE MUCH MORE. BUT THE MOSLEMS ARE BELIEVED THE GOD ,AND THEY ALL IN RESPECT OF THE GOD DONT DO ANYTHING TO HUMANS
BECEAUSE OF THAT THE GOD CREATED HUMAN MAY GOD KILL THE HUMAN.
JUST MAKE IN YOUR MIND UP..
BE CAREFULLY WE DOES NOT LİKE TO HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER GOOD HOPE PEOPLE..
WE ARE ISLAMITISH PEOPLE WE HAVE RESPECT ALL OF THE HUMANBEANS FROM BY GOD...
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
WE ARE INARSENT!
g: hah!
s: yeah, but look past the poor english-language skills to the implied threat(s), whilst proclaiming sanctity/no-responsibility
I decrypted it to mean that only God should kill man rather than man kill man. Of course that could very easily become a threat but the beginning read to me as more a promotion of peace.
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
I take it you missed "one day we will kill all of u"...
Fucking Mussies. They can stick their useless messiah up their arses. After all, he's not done them many favours so far, has he?
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
Was their a big backlash against the Green Jelly song '
Obey The Cow God'?
Grim: I meant the second guy, innit. And I seem to recall you being a mild god botherer so where do you get off telling another religion where to stick anything?
Posted by
Grim..., around February 2006:
Devils advocate, innit =]
And you're right, I have been known to go to Church. But I don't think there's anything more irritating that someone trying to shove their religion down your throat (and I include Christians in this - apart from bombing buses and burning down embassies they are among the worst).
Good spelling there, Grim...
actually, i was thinking more of the "THAT IS VERY TERRIBLE. PERHAPS HE DOESNOT LIKE TO LIVE MUCH MORE". i saw that as pretty blunt, tho expressed in a very passive aggressive way. (as is fairly typical actually: "i am peaceful! YOU are FORCING me to KILL YOU!!")
and there's no difference between a paper cut and a guillotine stroke, right? same thing, basically. ;)
i plan to have my penis tattooed with the word "religion"
that way, i can orally rape anyone i like! and THEY are morally reprehensible if they protest. huzzah!
It's those darn passive aggressors. They always sneak by me. :)
Cartoons? what a frickin joke. Violence over some damned cartoons.
Some people need to get a clue.
Posted by
WarHead, around February 2006:
Some people take their religion very seriously. Cultural differences, innit. What you and I see as a joke may not be seen as such elsewhere on the planet. In this case I think it was glaringly obvious that there would be a huge backlash from some elements of the Muslim community.
i take my cartoons very seriously. i'm off to burn down a mosque in outrage, then kill anyone i regard as not being sufficiently identical to me.
i really can't believe the incredible lack of sensitivity that muslims have shown. they have only themselves to blame for our foam-flecked screaming revenge. i am a peaceful man of cartoons, but they have flung their contempt in our faces and we have no choice but to uphold what is good and proper. these cartoon-haters must be wiped from the face of the earth. they must learn respect. for peace, for cartoons, but mostly for us.
Cartoons are a serious thing.
There was that time where they changed the look of Dennis the Menace in the Beano, (made him generally rounder in the face and body) and I went and killed all the staff and threw their families' dismembered bodies into the canal.
Some say it was an over-reaction, but only with their dying breath.
Posted by
skynx, around 11th February 2006:
of course, you don't see anyone burning down Fox Television because they pay out Christians with Ned Flanders.
Maybe some people take this "caring for other human beings" thing a bit further than others
Posted by
Grim..., around 11th February 2006:
That's a little different. But nice to see you're paying attention.
Posted by
ellipse, around 12th February 2006:
lets burn down egypt as well
egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot...
Posted by
WarHead, around 13th February 2006:
www.jesusdance.org
"You are very sick and very lucky. If you lived in a Muslim country
you'd be dead by now."
Strictly speaking I think this should read, 'If you
had lived in a Muslim country you'd be dead by now.'
Posted by
Sul_DUPE1, around 13th February 2006:
That's a good point, WH. I'm not too sure which way to go on that. Pedants - take your sides... now!
Posted by
Grim..., around 13th February 2006:
Having the 'had' doesn't really make any difference to the tense of the sentence, does it?
Posted by
komail, around 1st March 2006:
y do americans dont trust islam
Posted by
Grim..., around 1st March 2006:
Fuck off!
Oh, come on now, Grimothy. Don't be like that. Everyone is welcome on iamcal.
allahu akbar!
nice burkha
