View Poll Results: Do you think it was wrong of the Danish newspapers to publish caricatures of Muhammad?
- 85. You may not vote on this poll
02-17-2006, 08:05 PM
You are right no one have the right to kill People or to burn buildings, and not all muslims reaction was killing and burning, for example in my country no one get killed and no builing get burn, but we get pissed off and our reaction was "boycott".
Originally Posted by bamboozler
02-17-2006, 08:20 PM
Uhh dude. Thats totally bullshit. Political cartoons were MADE to satire touchy subjects.
Originally Posted by 1cor1313
02-17-2006, 08:35 PM
True, political cartoons are supposed to be satirical. I also believe that the press should not have been forced to apologize for their recent actions. People continually satirize American Leader George Bush, but you don't see American citizens commiting crimes of arson and homicide. Although what we're talking about here is a religious figure, I believe that the Muslims should not have acted to such an extent.
Originally Posted by martyr3810
02-17-2006, 10:33 PM
i get it and i know you all dont dislike muslims. thanks
Originally Posted by Relf
02-18-2006, 12:31 AM
Lol not even political figures
Originally Posted by darksoulzero
I mean, think of all the blasphemous jokes, comics, movies you've seen and heard about Jesus and God? You don't see Christians going all crazy about any.
02-18-2006, 12:45 AM
Yah, like that "Pearl Harbor" movie...wow, if there ever was an insult so great to an event that took the lives of so many men. And by insult, I meant bad acting.
Yet I paid 9 bucks to see that movie. Damn.
Not to mention family guy. Wow, it manages to insult like 50 different religions, cultures, and races in one fun and entertaining episode for the family.
Yet I paid 30 bucks for a box set. That one was worth it tho.
02-18-2006, 01:46 AM
First up, I just want to quickly point out that I never said that, and I hope nobody else thought I did. I said 'assault', not 'kill'. And by Assault, I meant a hit. A simple act of aggression, probably more hurtful in principle than physically. But still, no form of assault like that should be allowed, and definitely not endorsed, by an authoritative body. As for whether it's true or not... Well, I don't live there so can't say for sure, but then I don't live where any of this has been happening, so can't say any of it for sure. But I do know that I read that in a pretty well-recognised paper somewhere, though the more I think about it, I don't think it was the SMH.
Originally Posted by snake333
I have nothing against Muslims as a whole, and I hope that was obvious from my post. And I'm sure (or at least hope) most people don't. Although there are a few that have me worried. Like that alexander guy quoted by z...someoneorother earlier. That was a worry.
The Danish paper maybe shouldn't have done it. There's no question it was stupid. But then again, biggest thing that made it so stupid was the inflammatory nature of those it was likely to offend. As has been pointed out, there have been plenty of, for example, anti-Christian cartoons. You don't see a bunch of priests out there burning down buildings and boycotting entire countries. To be honest, it's pretty childish. Grow up. use more diplomatic means to get sympathy for your cause. Act like adults, not temperamental children. That's true no matter how important the figure is for you, or who you are.