It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's an easy question to answer! We draw the line at ACTION. You can say, sing, draw whatever you like, but when you burn others' property or shoot someone or physically push someone, you've crossed the line between 'speech' and 'action'.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
I guess that means when someone incites a group or individual into 'acting' untoward, that person is free from all blame then, huh?
Originally posted by marg6043
HUmmmm. . . . Where are the Muslin Americans outrage to the situation?
I have only seen anybody else from any other country but not body yet from the US prominent muslin communities take a stance here in the US.
What is no freedom of speech in the US anymore?
Or. . . . they are scare of what the christian population in the US may do or say.
Originally posted by marg6043
Or. . . . they are scare of what the christian population in the US may do or say.
Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Maybe the fact that the Bush administration's clear stand against the cartoons has created a balance between being offended and being violent, but we wouldnt even dare to think of these as reasons now would we......
Originally posted by Kacen
Lets change this around a bit. What if hypothetically the KKK got the newspaper to publish anti-African american cartoons. Then African americans protest. Regardless of how they protest, violently or not, would you think it was okay to publish the racist cartoons in newspapers everywere to show "Freedom of speech"? I certainly woulden't.
Which is better, apologizing so they stop acting violent or publishing the cartoons everywere, perhaps making them more violent? What if they start actually hurting people? Is it really worth it in the end? I don't think so.
Originally posted by kojac
Freedom for some...here you go..
www.freemuslims.org...
Originally posted by kojac
and
www.murdoconline.net...
Originally posted by kojac
and
www.perfect.co.uk...
Originally posted by kojac
and
www.npr.org...
Originally posted by kojac
and
www.organiser.org...
Originally posted by kojac
and my favourite...
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com...
Originally posted by SportyMB
Good points were made But why apologize? They, the muslim governments and people NEED to understand that THEY have thier ways and WE have ours.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Originally posted by kojac
and
www.npr.org...
Ahhh; the infamous “Fatwa” against terrorism. First; some problems with the language. They used terms such as “innocent civilians” and “Unjust killings”. A Translatable term for “innocent civilians” doesn’t exist in Islam. There is only Dar al-Islam or Dar al Harb (House of Submission; House of War). They don’t define what “terrorism” is under Islamic definitions nor do they define what a “just” killing would be. For example, Palestinians believe that there are no “innocent” or “civilian” Jews because all Jews, men AND women, are required to serve in the military. Therefore, the killing of all Jews is “just”. While this “Fatwa” might make westerners feel good, these and other language nuances make this fatwa meaningless in the Arab world.
Also, the Fiqh Council of North America has a checkered past with several members having current or previous ties with various terrorist groups.
Originally posted by SportyMB
And anyways, surely an American Muslim that enjoys his rights and freedoms would see that there is really nothing wrong with printing the cartoons. The only crime committed is bad taste and tackiness, not worth starting a war over and killing your own people.
[edit on 7/2/2006 by SportyMB]
Originally posted by Beachcoma
That's not fair, FFS. Here we have a fatwa. A fatwa! That's as good as a decree from the Prophet himself. How others interpret (or misinterpret it) is a different matter altogether, but a decree condemning the killings of innocent civilians has already been made.
Originally posted by marg6043
Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Maybe the fact that the Bush administration's clear stand against the cartoons has created a balance between being offended and being violent, but we wouldnt even dare to think of these as reasons now would we......
Well if that makes you happy nice and dandy for you to believe.
Perhaps the reason they are quiet is not because they are Brainwashed American way but that they may be scare that their place of living and businesses become targets if they protest or become vocal.
Funny we can spin it any way we want.
[edit on 7-2-2006 by marg6043]
Originally posted by Kacen
Is it really necessary to rub anti-islamic cartoons in the face of protesters already ticked off?
What if hypothetically the KKK got the newspaper to publish anti-African american cartoons. Then African americans protest. Regardless of how they protest, violently or not, would you think it was okay to publish the racist cartoons in newspapers everywere to show "Freedom of speech"? I certainly woulden't.
Regardless, we know how these Muslims act. We can't stop them from acting. Which is better, apologizing so they stop acting violent or publishing the cartoons everywere, perhaps making them more violent? What if they start actually hurting people? Is it really worth it in the end? I don't think so.