Newspapers Reprint Mohammed Cartoon

[apdst]

Good for them!

Newspapers reprint Prophet Mohammed cartoon

(CNN) -- Newspapers across Europe Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed provoked widespread outrage in the Muslim world two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday's arrests.

The image, by Morgenavisen Jullands-Posten cartoonist Westergaard, was one of 12 cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed originally published in September 2005. Westergaard's cartoon depicted the prophet wearing a bomb as a turban with a lit fuse.

Violent demonstrations erupted across the world in early 2006 after other newspapers reprinted the images as a matter of free speech. The uproar came as some Muslims believe it is forbidden by the Quran to show an image of the prophet.

Many protesters directed their ire at Denmark, prompting the closure of several Danish embassies in predominantly Muslim countries, including Indonesia and Pakistan. There were also attacks on other diplomatic missions in Iran and Syria among others.

The Danish Foreign Ministry has said it is keeping a watch on the situation at its embassies and has yet to report any incidents.


Muslim leaders in Denmark Wednesday attacked the republication of the cartoon, as well as the alleged murder plot, while calling for calm. Imam Mostafa Chendid, chief of the Islamic Faith Community, told AP his group was discussing whether to hold a demonstration before parliament, adding: "We are so unhappy about the cartoon being reprinted."

"No blood was ever shed in Denmark because of this, and no blood will be shed. We are trying to calm down people, but let's see what happens. Let's open a dialogue."

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service Tuesday said police arrested a 40-year-old Dane of Moroccan origin and two Tunisians in the Aarhus area of western Denmark following lengthy surveillance.

The Danish citizen is charged with a terrorism offense, the intelligence service said, and the Tunisians will be deported. Police have not yet released the names of the three.

The target of the plot, the intelligence service said, was the cartoonist for the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jullands-Posten, which first published the controversial drawings in September 2005. The paper identified the cartoonist as Kurt Westergaard. Watch how threats have targeted cartoonists »

"Not wanting to take any undue risks [the intelligence service] has decided to intervene at a very early stage in order to interrupt the planning and the actual assassination," the statement by Jakob Scharf, the agency's director general, said. "Thus, this morning's operation must first and foremost be seen as a preventive measure where the aim has been to stop a crime from being committed."

Westergaard has previously said that he wanted his cartoon to say that some people exploited the prophet to legitimize terror. However, many in the Muslim world interpreted the drawing as depicting their prophet as a terrorist.

"Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me," Westergaard said in a statement posted on the newspaper's Web site. "However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness."

CNN's Paula Newton said the arrests reinforced growing fears in Europe that radical Islam was trying to suppress free speech.

"More and more Europeans feel that Islam is a threat to their way of life," Newton said. A recent Gallup poll for the World Economic Forum showed a majority of Europeans believed relations between the West and the Muslim world were worsening. According to the poll this sentiment was strongest held among Danish.

Westergaard remains under police protection and does not know whether it will continue.

"I could not possibly know for how long I have to live under police protection; I think, however, that the impact of the insane response to my cartoon will last for the rest of my life," he said. "It is sad indeed, but it has become a fact of my life."


Carsten Juste, the paper's editor-in-chief, said staffers have been "deeply worried" for several months.

"The arrests have hopefully thwarted the murder plans," he said on the newspaper's Web site.

[Elrathin]

I have no problem with them printing the cartoon. It is free speech and while it is distasteful, I think it should be allowed.

However, what I find hypocritical is there are some in the U.S. that cry out the need for free speech, all the while supporting a constitutional ban against flag burning.

[apdst]

With all the ways to express ones self, there shouldn't be any need to desecrate our national colors. There's just no sense in it.

Burning the flag oughta rate right up there with publically displaying hangman's nooses. The level of hatred and offensiveness is the same.

[Elrathin]

With all the ways to express ones self, there shouldn't be any need to desecrate our national colors. There's just no sense in it.

Burning the flag oughta rate right up there with publically displaying hangman's nooses. The level of hatred and offensiveness is the same.


Like I said, one mans cartoon is another mans flag. It's hypocritical to cry out one is irrelevant and then put value on another.

Freedom of speech, either you are for it or against it.

[Cobra]

and these people believe this picture would rank the same. Double standards, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The flag is no more special than any other symbol. There is sense in it, there is no free speech/expression without the right to it when what you stating is unpopular.

[apdst]

So, you are both opposed to laws against public displays of hangman's nooses?

[Cobra]

I am, I just had a noose as my avatar a few days ago......

[apdst]

Do you both oppose insulting portraits and articles about Jesus? Or, are your opinions based on political correctness?

[Cobra]

I am not opposed enough to insulting portraits and articles about Jesus to demand they be banned/illegal.

[apdst]

Well, I can understand that, since you have that ANV battle flag up there, now.

I remember a few lefties crying about your avatar, but didn't remember what it was.

How long before you are called a racist because of the flag?

[Elrathin]

So, you are both opposed to laws against public displays of hangman's nooses?


Depends. If you are saying that I don't have a right to put a noose on my own property, then yes I am against that.

However, banning nooses on public property (i.e. say a public park) is perfectly acceptable because you would have to have permission from the city to place that there and they are free to place limits on public property that everyone uses.

For instance, if I want to burn a flag, I can't just go out into the middle of the street and do it without prior permission from the city or by obtaining a permit (That is if I do it legally). However, if I burn the flag on my own property (as long as I am not breaking any fire safety laws) then piss off.

[apdst]

For instance, if I want to burn a flag, I can't just go out into the middle of the street and do it. However, if I burn the flag on my own property (as long as I am not breaking any fire safety laws) then piss off.

You would agree that burning an American Flag, in the street, should be illegal?

[Cobra]

I remember a few lefties crying about your avatar, but didn't remember what it was.

How long before you are called a racist because of the flag?

I don't care, prolly as soon as the cons will be calling me anti-american when I put up a burning flag as my avatar in a few weeks.

[apdst]

If you get away with something as offensive as a burning American flag, then you oughta be able to get away with the hangman's noose.

[Elrathin]

You would agree that burning an American Flag, in the street, should be illegal?


Not outright illegal no, but prior permission does need to be obtained due to traffic and safety considerations if you are going to be doing this in the street. As long as fire safety codes are being followed and they obtain prior permission to do so, then it should be allowed. But just outright burning it without any of those in mind is a safety hazzard.

Now, let's move away from flag burning for a moment because the constitutional ban that was tried wasn't just for burning, but for desecration of the flag. Desecrating the flag should NOT be illegal and can be done on a public sidewalk, etc.

To make one thing perfectly clear, I do NOT like flag desecration one damn bit. I hold the flag sacred much like someone would hold the bible sacred to them. I will not however sacrifice freedom of speech and make flag burning illegal.

I have both my grandmother's flag and my grandfather's flags from when they passed away and hold them extremely sacred. If someone were to come in and try to desecrate those (ie my property) I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if they got a good close look at Mr. Shotgun.[hr]
If you get away with something as offensive as a burning American flag, then you oughta be able to get away with the hangman's noose.


If it is on your property then yes it is not a problem. I am not aware of any laws that say I can't carry a noose on my person. There are laws that say I can't put that anywhere on public property without prior permission, but not anything that says I can't carry it on me or I can't display it on my property.

[lily]

I have both my grandmother's flag and my grandfather's flags from when they passed away and hold them extremely sacred. If someone were to come in and try to desecrate those (ie my property) I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if they got a good close look at Mr. Shotgun.

Yes, but in that case you are defending your own private property and for lack of a better word heirlooms to be passed down from generation to generation. It wouldn't matter if it was a flag, or vase.[hr]..........but going back to the OP.....in this case, re-printing the cartoon was part of the news story, an important part and it should also be noted:



Muslim leaders in Denmark Wednesday attacked the republication of the cartoon, as well as the alleged murder plot, while calling for calm. Imam Mostafa Chendid, chief of the Islamic Faith Community, told AP his group was discussing whether to hold a demonstration before parliament, adding: "We are so unhappy about the cartoon being reprinted."

"No blood was ever shed in Denmark because of this, and no blood will be shed. We are trying to calm down people, but let's see what happens. Let's open a dialogue."

[AlanC]

Buring a US flag in a foreign country would be more equivalent to what has taken place over the Dutch cartoons. It was muslims world wide trying to limit the Dutch definition of free expression.

As to this country, I don't absolutely oppose someone burning the flag, making or displaying insulting pictures of Jesus or the Christian religion. I am firmly opposed to paying for any of that though or supporting it with tax money.

Free speech is just that. But it is commonly been held by the courts that free speech may be limited in the areas of suborning treason, inciting to riot, and in calling for the violent overthrow of the government.

[jafar00]

Free speech is just that. But it is commonly been held by the courts that free speech may be limited in the areas of suborning treason, inciting to riot, and in calling for the violent overthrow of the government.


Well said AlanC. What did the papers hope to achive by reprinting the cartoons? They know the reaction from last time. Are they just childishly fishing for another reaction?

[Pookie]

Whoa! I'm with Jafar on this one. What's up with that? Were they thinking the reaction would be different or what?
Purrs,
Pookie

[apdst]

What did the papers hope to achive by reprinting the cartoons? They know the reaction from last time. Are they just childishly fishing for another reaction?

They are showing the Muslims crazies that they won't be intimidated into printing, or not printing material. I say more power to them![hr]Desecrating the flag should NOT be illegal and can be done on a public sidewalk, etc.

I see, so it would be just as ok to display a noose in public?

[Alonzo]

Maybe I should consider making a Jesus porno, I just have to figure out which Mary he fucks. Certainly each one would have an audience......hm..... maybe he should do both?

Or maybe I should go this route?

(explicit) http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/2279/jesuslegumeqw7.jpg

[apdst]

Maybe I should consider making a Jesus porno, I just have to figure out which Mary he fucks. Certainly each one would have an audience......hm..... maybe he should do both?

And I'm sure you wouldn't have to worry about being assissinated, either. But, don't you dare print anything that offends Muslims.

[Alonzo]

The guy who drew the cross in piss, as well as Bishop gene robinson, are two perfect examples of people dealing with christian death threats. Gene Robinson even hired body guards for his ordination.

[apdst]

The guy who drew the cross in piss, as well as Bishop gene robinson, are two perfect examples of people dealing with christian death threats. Gene Robinson even hired body guards for his ordination.

Were there any riots? Buildings burnt down? Actuall killings? No sir.

[Alonzo]

There weren't any in Denmark either.

Now piss of Christians in Nigeria and boy, will there be killings. There were anti-muslim riots there not long ago.

But in America Christians reserve their violence for abortion doctors. That's one job where a bullet proof vest isn't always enough.

[apdst]

There weren't any in Denmark either.

Weren't any what? Riots? or Killings?

Now piss of Christians in Nigeria and boy, will there be killings. There were anti-muslim riots there not long ago.

The Christian riots were in response to Muslim cartoon riots that left Christian churches burned and 18 Christians dead. If a buncha goofballs killed my friends, or family, over a friggin cartoon, I would go looking for some payback, too. WOuldn't you?

But in America Christians reserve their violence for abortion doctors. That's one job where a bullet proof vest isn't always enough.

That pales, in comparison to the violence we see coming from The Muslim Community. By no means do I justify that behavoir and I definitely support giving the people--regardless of religion--that committ those acts the death penalty.

[Alonzo]

The Christian riots were in response to Muslim cartoon riots that left Christian churches burned and 18 Christians dead. If a buncha goofballs killed my friends, or family, over a friggin cartoon, I would go looking for some payback, too. WOuldn't you?

A dozen christians were killed in a city in northern nigeria and the response was to go after any muslim they could find in a city in southern nigeria, killing about one hundred. Thousands of muslims also fled in the "retaliation".

A little disproportionate and not aimed at anyone who had a role.

Weren't any what? Riots? or Killings?

For the cartoons neither, protests aren't riots.


That pales, in comparison to the violence we see coming from The Muslim Community. By no means do I justify that behavoir and I definitely support giving the people--regardless of religion--that committ those acts the death penalty.

Christians riot in poor countries when they don't get their way. They also rioted in Indonesia relatively recently when 3 christian murderers were executed. Then you have christian terrorist groups in northern india, and the lords resistance army in Uganda.

[Truth_and_Power]

So, you are both opposed to laws against public displays of hangman's nooses?


If the noose is a threat, I am against it. So hanging a noose from a tree in the town square in mississippi is not the same as flag burning or mohammed printing unless you are in some way threatening a violent overthrow of the u.s. government or threatening to kill muslims. You can hang up a sign saying "athiests suck" but if you hang a sign that says "kill the athiests", it's a problem.

[apdst]

A dozen christians were killed in a city in northern nigeria and the response was to go after any muslim they could find in a city in southern nigeria, killing about one hundred. Thousands of muslims also fled in the "retaliation".

The bottom line is, if the Muslims had just chilled out, none that mess would have happened.

So hanging a noose from a tree in the town square in mississippi is not the same as flag burning or mohammed printing unless you are in some way threatening a violent overthrow of the u.s. government or threatening to kill muslims.

I interpret the burning of The American Flag as a direct threat. Therefore, it should be illegal. Yes?

[Elrathin]

I see, so it would be just as ok to display a noose in public?


If I am having to use something that is public property (i.e. a tree) to either hold up the desecrated flag or a noose, that would be illegal because I do not have permission of the city to do that.

However, if I hold a noose up in public using my own arms that is not illegal. Just as desecrating a flag is not illegal as long as I don't try to display it somewhere using public property.

[apdst]

If I am having to use something that is public property (i.e. a tree) to either hold up the desecrated flag or a noose, that would be illegal because I do not have permission of the city to do that.

Your slitting hairs.

[Alonzo]

The bottom line is, if the Muslims had just chilled out, none that mess would have happened.


So the Christians, who killed over a hundred, get a free pass for killing innocent, uninvolved muslims because muslims killed about 20 christians?

[apdst]

So the Christians, who killed over a hundred, get a free pass for killing innocent, uninvolved muslims because muslims killed about 20 christians?

Gotta link to support your numbers?

[Alonzo]

16 people have been killed in northern Nigeria during protests by Muslims over the cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4728616.stm

ONITSHA, Nigeria, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Christian youths burned the corpses of Muslims on Thursday on the streets of Onitsha in southeastern Nigeria, the city worst hit by religious riots that have killed at least 146 people across the country in five days.
Christian mobs, seeking revenge for the killings of Christians in the north, attacked Muslims with machetes, set fire to them, destroyed their houses and torched mosques in two days of violence in Onitsha, where 93 people died.
"We are very happy that this thing is happening so that the north will learn their lesson," said Anthony Umai, a motorcycle taxi rider, standing close to where Christian youths had piled up the corpses of 10 Muslims and were burning them.

http://theris.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-am-so-completely-disgusted.html

[apdst]

Here's an AP article, that ran in USA Today, that tells a much different story. (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/24_dead_in_sect.html)

Sectarian Mobs in Nigeria Kill 24

By DULUE MBACHU
Associated Press Writer

LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) - Christian and Muslim mobs rampaged through two Nigerian cities Tuesday, killing at least 24 people in violence that followed deadly protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend.

In the mainly Muslim northern city of Bauchi, violent protests by Muslims targeting Christians claimed the lives of 18 people, the Nigerian Red Cross said. In the predominantly southern Christian city of Onitsha, residents and witnesses said at least six Muslims were beaten to death by Christian mobs which also burned two mosques there.

Tuesday's violence brought to 49 the total number of people killed in sectarian violence in Nigeria since Saturday, when protests over controversial cartoons published in Europe of the Prophet Muhammad turned violent in the northern Muslim city of Maiduguri for the first time, killing at least 18 people, police said.

Similar protests broke out in Bauchi city soon afterward, leaving seven dead Monday and another 18 dead Tuesday, Adamu Abubakar, secretary of the Red Cross in Bauchi, told reporters.

Mobs ran through Bauchi's streets wielding machetes and sticks, Abubakar said.

"I am just coming back from Gombe Road, where we carried two dead bodies, both badly mutilated, and just at Boni Haruna Street near the Specialist Hospital, two of my staff were attacked and are seriously wounded," Abubakar said. "So, the situation is still delicate."

Among the dead there were a man, his wife and their daughter killed on Gombe Road and six other bodies burnt beyond recognition.

Violence in the southern city of Onitsha appeared to have been sparked by Saturday's killings in the mainly Muslim northern city of Maiduguri, where thousands of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches.

In Onitsha on Tuesday, residents and witnesses said Christian mobs burned two mosques and beat at least six Muslims with origins in the north to death.

Christian protesters in Onitsha also attacked Muslim northerners and their properties.

"The mosque at the main market has been burnt and I've counted at least six dead bodies on the streets," Izzy Uzor, an Onitsha resident and businessman, told The Associated Press by telephone. "The whole town is in a frenzy and people are running in all directions."

Another Onitsha resident, Isotonu Achor, said one badly beaten Muslim man ran into his office from the streets to escape the violence.

"There is blood all over him and I'm scared they'll come for him here. If he doesn't get urgent treatment he will die," Achor said.

Police and government officials were not immediately available for comment.

Nigeria, Africa's most populous country of more than 130 million people, is roughly divided between a predominantly Muslim north and a mainly Christian south. Thousands of people have died in religious violence in Nigeria since 2000.

Saturday's protest over the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in Maiduguri marked the first violent demonstrations over the issue in Nigeria. Police say at least 18 people, most of them Christians, died then, and 30 churches were burned down. The Christian Association of Nigeria said at least 50 people were killed in the violence.

Powerful Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola said in a statement earlier in the day that it was disturbing that cartoons published in Denmark "could elicit such an unfortunate reaction in Nigeria" and alleged it was part of a plot by unnamed people to Islamize Nigeria.

"It is no longer a hidden fact that a long standing agenda to make this Nigeria an Islamic nation is being surreptitiously pursued," Akinola said. He warned that Muslim leaders had no monopoly of violence, adding that it may no longer be possible to restrain restive Christian youths.

Akinola could not be reached for comment on the outbreak of anti-Muslim violence in Onitsha.

The cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, have set off sometimes violent protests around the world. One caricature shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with an ignited fuse.

Islam widely holds that representations of Muhammad are banned for fear they could lead to idolatry.

A Danish newspaper first printed the caricatures in September. Other newspapers, mostly in Europe, have reprinted the pictures, asserting their news value and the right to freedom of expression.

[Alonzo]

ap, that article says 24 on tuesday alone. My article is from the previous day and is not dividing it by day.

Other than that I don't see the discrepancy, and that wasn't a discrepancy.

[apdst]

ap, that article says 24 on tuesday alone. My article is from the previous day and is not dividing it by day.

That article says 24 total, Christian and Muslim.

[Alonzo]

ap, read your own article please:

Christian and Muslim mobs rampaged through two Nigerian cities Tuesday, killing at least 24 people in violence that followed deadly protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend.

They rampaged tuesday killing at least 24 in violence that FOLLOWED deadly protests over the weekend.

[apdst]

Well, again, if the Muslims has played it cool, the deaths would have been nonexistant. That the long and short of it.

[Alonzo]

So christians get a pass for killing muslims because muslims killed christians first, in much lower numbers on top of that?

Sad, you can't even find it in yourself to condemn murderers because they're Christian.

[apdst]

IT WOULDN"T HAVE HAPPENED IF THE GODDAMN MUSLIMS HAD CHILLED OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

How hard is that to understand?

There's a huge difference between reacting to the murders of your own fellows vs. murdering someone because you didn't like a particular cartoon.

[Alonzo]

And again, the refusal to denounce Christians as well for murdering people.

I'm noticing a pattern here. I call you on refusing to denounce your own and muslims, then you denounce muslims only. I call you again on refusing to denounce your own and muslims, and again you denounce only muslims.

So will you denounce Christians for murdering Muslims this time? Or will it be more of the same.

[apdst]

And again, the refusal to denounce Christians as well for murdering people.

What would YOU have done if a mob rolled into town and killed your friends, over a simple cartoon?

BTW, I've yet to hear you denounce the Muslims. So, there.

[Alonzo]

What would YOU have done if a mob rolled into town and killed your friends, over a simple cartoon?

I'm sensing that you support the Christians here.

What is this, 4 times I've directly asked you if you condemned them and all you do is defend the murderers and say "What would you have done?" At this point you've had every opportunity to denounce the Christians for their actions and it's obvious that you don't.

I'll remember to laugh at your comments the next time you want Muslims to condemn actions done by members of their religion. You can't even condemn Christians who murder innocent Muslims, I think that calls into question not only the nature of your opinions but even the moral fiber upon which they are built.

BTW, I've yet to hear you denounce the Muslims. So, there.

The muslims and christians who killed innocent people should be arrested and jailed for murder, and they are murderers.

Not really much to call me on considering I never dodged it.

[Elrathin]

There's a huge difference between reacting to the murders of your own fellows vs. murdering someone because you didn't like a particular cartoon.


So indiscriminate killing of Muslims is an acceptable response?

[jafar00]

what is the world coming to? So much ignorance :(

[apdst]

The muslims and christians who killed innocent people should be arrested and jailed for murder, and they are murderers.

Agreed.

So indiscriminate killing of Muslims is an acceptable response?

And the indiscriminate killing of Christians is, as well?

[Alonzo]

I just said it wasn't ap.

You seem to go to great lengths to defend the Christians in this case, and can't even muster up a simple denouncement of their actions. You dodged it so much I think your personal opinion its obvious, the question is will you denounce it now because it's the politically correct thing to denounce the killing of innocents?

[apdst]

You seem to go to great lengths to defend the Christians in this case, and can't even muster up a simple denouncement of their actions.

You didn't ask for a denouncement of their actions. You used the Christian riots in Nigeria as an example of Christians committing the same level of violence that Muslims do. I only pointed out that the Christian riots were in response to the Muslims riots. I wasn't justifying their actions.

[jafar00]

In either case, those that murdered people should be punished to the full extent of the law. Neither Islam OR Christianity condones this sort of mob rule. That is a fact.

[Alonzo]

You didn't ask for a denouncement of their actions.

I asked you if you condemn them in posts 40 and 44, and used the specific term "denounce" in post 42. I had been asking before that to, just not with those terms.

[apdst]

Alonzo,

Since that's your atittitude are you willing to denounce/condemn/damn/etc. the Muslims that rioted on account of a silly cartoon? They rioted all over The World.

[apdst]

No response??

[Alonzo]

There's a response if I see it, I didn't see you posted.

I condemn every riot engaged in that resulted in violence, murder or destruction of property.

I don't condemn peaceful protests that occurred or the protesters who did not engage in any of that or threaten to do so. But I condemn everyone who participated in violence.

[apdst]

I condemn every riot engaged in that resulted in violence, murder or destruction of property.

I'm asking specifically about the Muslim cartoon riots. Do you condemn those?

Do you agree that the Muslims that participated in those riots should face criminal charges and even a few death sentences handed out?

[Alonzo]

I was referring to those riots. I condemn any Muslim who participated in a riot during the cartoon controversy. If any Muslim engaged in violence during them, or threatened to do so, I condemn that and believe they should be arrested and face criminal charges relative to the crime they committed. If they killed they should be convicted of murder.

I don't believe in the death penalty so I don't believe anyone should be handed a death sentence. Life in prison would be acceptable if the action is one that would normally carry such a punishment.

[apdst]

It's like pulling hen's teeth...LMAO!

[Alonzo]

It's like pulling hen's teeth...LMAO!


ap, I have condemned the rioters, on both sides, explicitly. I have condemned the christians explicitly and the muslims explicitly. When you asked for clarification I condemned them again. Where that comment is coming from I don't know, since I haven't dodged a single question in those regards. You, on the other hand, still refuse to condemn the murders and violence committed by christians. You've continued to dodge that, and continued to show your inability to treat people as people, regardless of their faith.

Pathetic really. Pathetic attempts to call me on things, pathetic attempts at dodging, and, above all, pathetic inability to condemn the killing of innocent civilians.

[apdst]

ap, I have condemned the rioters, on both sides, explicitly.

But, before you could condemn ANYone, there had to be a, "both sides"...LMAO!

You weren't even gonna come close to bad mouthing any Muslims, till there were some Christians to bash, too.

[Alonzo]

ap, I have condemned the rioters, on both sides, explicitly.

But, before you could condemn ANYone, there had to be a, "both sides"...LMAO!

You weren't even gonna come close to bad mouthing any Muslims, till there were some Christians to bash, too.


ap, you're trying to condemn me for condemning both sides. It's almost as if :gasp: I view both sides as having equal worth!

Go right on ahead, condemn me for condemning both sides killers.

You won't denounce murderers, you only condemn the people who denounce murderers.

Again, a really pathetic argument.

[apdst]

ap, you're trying to condemn me for condemning both sides.

Not true; not true at all. I condemn you for not condemning one side, the PC side, until the least PC side has f'ed up, too.

This entire thread is about Muslims lashing out at things they don't want to be printed in the media. Oh, but you have to drag some Christians on to the scene before you can even come close to saying that anything is wrong.

[Alonzo]

ap, you're trying to condemn me for condemning both sides.

Not true; not true at all. I condemn you for not condemning one side, the PC side, until the least PC side has f'ed up, too.

This entire thread is about Muslims lashing out at things they don't want to be printed in the media. Oh, but you have to drag some Christians on to the scene before you can even come close to saying that anything is wrong.


:lmao: :lmao:


I think everything that can be said has been said. Though next time I need a punching bag I'll be sure to let you know!

:lmao: :lmao:

[jafar00]

I condemn every riot engaged in that resulted in violence, murder or destruction of property.

I'm asking specifically about the Muslim cartoon riots. Do you condemn those?

Do you agree that the Muslims that participated in those riots should face criminal charges and even a few death sentences handed out?


I agree that anyone who broke the law should definitely pay for it. But you cannot refrain from also condemning the Danes who think it's funny to stir the pot and cry free speech when the same freedom of speech is not given to non-danes.

Europe's Muslims are now the new European Jew. The latest convenient scapegoat to pin all of society's woes upon. These agents provocateur are guilty of a hate crime. To so openly attack the beliefs of Muslims like this is totally wrong.

[Elrathin]

I agree that anyone who broke the law should definitely pay for it. But you cannot refrain from also condemning the Danes who think it's funny to stir the pot and cry free speech when the same freedom of speech is not given to non-danes.

Can you tell me how the non-danes are not given Freedom of Speech?


To so openly attack the beliefs of Muslims like this is totally wrong.


Sorry Jafar, you have a right to your religion, but your religion does not have a right to be free from criticism. It is MY RIGHT to attack the beliefs of Muslims if I so choose to. You are also free to attack my beliefs as well, that is what freedom of speech is about.

The fact some Muslims feel insulted, well, tough. Just because I insult someones religion, does not give them the right to kill me over it. If Muslims want to PROTEST the paper, that's fine and dandy. I have no problem with protests. It's when death threats are issued that I take a problem with it.

I will always fight for the rights for Muslims to practice their religion as long as it doesn't break local laws, but I will not stand by and say you cannot attack Muslims beliefs because they are sensitive.

I am an equal opportunity religion basher. I think organized religion is one of the most backwards things in the world as is primarily used for control of a population through so called morality.