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 Freedom_for_sum
That's what I thought! I'm in the right place after all. We're talking about the Mohammed cartoons; which were created by a Dane and originally portrayed in a Danish publication. But you're saying these riotous Muslims are rioting because they are angry with America?
Originally posted by BaastetNoir
Originally posted by masterp
Very tue, one more LESS reason for a people with knowledge to be so Uncivilized.
I will ask again, since no one cared to answer my question:
1) why were the cartoons published?
Because they CAN be published, just like cartoons defaming the western and the Jewsih world are published in muslem countries. There is a world outside Islam you know ?
And also, because it DID show a good image of what these poepl are about, to blow up others in the name of Mohamed, so therefore Moahmed is the bomb carrier, and thats is simply what the cartoon portrayed.
2) what exactly is humourus about them?
Its not the humour, but the truth in the cartoon... I don't think it was made to be humorous, but its was made to be realistic.
What is humorous about cartoons pcituring Bush has a voltrue as showing muslems sodomizing Jews with bombs??? nothing... its really not funny at all... but they were published, even tho their only purpose was not to show truth but to justify violence.
3) why turmoil is now? the cartoons were published in September.
My honest opinion, is because Iran came out and annouced they are goingfor nuclear weapons, and this made the muslems think they have their backs cover to do as they please
Originally posted by AceOfBase
said by masterp
Well, I've never heard that the numerals we are using today are Hindu...care to share some links?
There are numerous reputable links out there.
scit.wlv.ac.uk
Hindu system is a pure place value system, that is why you need a zero. Only the Hindus within the context of Indo-European civilisations have consistently used a zero.
Our decimal system is descendent from this system.
The earliest number symbols in India
In 3000BC the Hindus culture flourished and large numbers were used (inscriptions).
From the middle of 2000BC Indo-European tribes were making their way from the N.W. towards India. They introduced Sanskrit - earliest knowledge of maths from this time.
In Sanskrit there are number words for 1-9, 10, 100 and further powers of 10 - up to 10 - definitely a decimal system.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Originally posted by masterp
I know the analogy is false, but I can not give you an example of Jesus with a bomb in his hand, because you will simply ignore it. I have to give you something that offends you in order to make you understand the problem better.
You don't get it. You cannot make me angry with offensive statements. You are impotent in this regard.
Originally by Freedom_for_sum
In any case; go ahead and show jesus having sex with his mother. I can simply change the channel!!! No need to burn down buildings and kill people over it.
Originally posted by masterp
Ok, you do not care about that. How about the american flag with a nazi symbol in it?
As a freedom loving combatant in the "war on terror" (I'm in the military) I can tell you that the state (condition) of freedom is much more important than the symbol of freedom; for with out freedom, and all its tenets (including freedom of expression), the symbol means nothing. Therefore; go ahead and befoul the flag; I would die fighting for your right to do so. Even though I may disagree with it.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Go ahead!! I don't care!! Depicting Jesus in those roles is no threat to me. It doesn't shake my beliefs. Again; I can simply change the url, the channel, or turn off the tv/computer!! It's MY CHOICE and I'm in control of those things that are important in my life. NOBODY else dictates to me what's important or how I'm going to feel. Muslims need to learn this!!
Originally posted by masterp
You simply do not care enough about religion, that's why.
It's not about whether I care about this, that, or the other. It's about whether you can make me angry with offensive statements. (You can't).
Originally posted by masterp
Many people before me and after me have made the same point: it is not religion that causes the bombings, it is people.
So you're saying that if the 911 hijackers were Christian that they still would have attacked? Are you saying that if those angry riotous Muslims were Budhists they still be angry and riot and burn buildings and call for death to those publishing offensive cartoons?
Originally posted by masterp
The mistake you do, and many others do, is to think about a religion as the problem instead of thinking bout the people as the problem.
So if I understand you correctly: (and only as an example) It's not the ideology of skinheads and white separatists that blacks should not mix with whites and all Jews should be killed; but rather, it's the skinheads and white separatists themselves? It's not the ideology of Islam but rather, the Muslims themselves? I have extreme difficulty separating the people commiting the acts of "terror" from their ideology.
We don't come out of the womb with ideology. Racism, hatred, and intolerance are learned behaviors and usually taught through ideology. You get rid of the ideology, you get rid of those things that are taught by the ideology.
Originally posted by masterp
And before you say "I do not do such a thing", let me remind you something George Bush said: "if you are not with us, you are with them". By using this line of thought, if you do not care about Muslims being offended by the "cartoons", then you are ok with it.
I am having difficulty folowing your logic here. Are you asking whether I care that Muslims are offended? If so; the answer is no. I could even care less. What I do care about is the violence they are commiting.
Originally posted by masterp
But it is illogical to say "arab muslim children are abused, therefore when they grow up they become terrorists". Do you have a study to support your claims? do you have an example?
Watch the two clips of the boys and tell me this isn't abuse: (scroll down to the bottom)
times.discovery.com...#
Please explain where the one young boy learned his intolerant ideas about women and going to hell?
Originally posted by masterp
And children in America and Europe are forced to learn about "Adam & Eve", the seven days of creation, etc. Maybe they are not forced so strongly, but the trend is to be a reborn Christian these days, isn't it?
I wasn't forced. And I am agnostic; not Christian. I don't force my children to go to church and learn Christianity.
And there is no requirement in Christianity to memorize the bible.
Originally posted by masterp
You attribute economic facts on biology/race and not on history/sociology.
Not on race; on an ideology (Islam); at least the way it's applied in Islamic nations.
Originally posted by masterp
Let me give you an example to show you how wrong you are:
In the year 500 BC, most of Europe was in primitive state, with little or no written records. At the same time, Greece and Italy had developed a culture 'millenia ahead' of those people in England, Germany and the northen states.
Did that mean that Anglosaxons/Germans/Nordics etc were inferior? 2500 years later and the situation is reversed: European south is poor and does not produce any of the consumer goods you mention, whereas European North is rich and has a production of cars, airplanes, and anything you can imagine.
So, by this analogy, are you saying islam is in the dark ages? We might be in agreement there.
Originally posted by masterp
Turkey is actually 4 countries:
1) Istanbul: a huge city with 20 million people, most of them poor.
2) the western shore up to Ankara: situation similar to rest of western Europe.
3) the east part: primitive state; villages do not have electricity, computers are something they have never seen, and young daughets that had affairs are publically slaughtered by their fathers with the concesus of the local authorities.
4) the Kurdish part: same as (3), but with different culture.
...and you're calling me ignorant?
Originally posted by masterp
a) what is humorous in the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.
It's satire--not necesariily humorous. I find Muslims reaction to the cartoons somewhat humorous; as well as pathetic.
Originally posted by masterp
c) why all these months there was no problem (the "cartoons" were published in September), and the problem is now.
That's a question for the Muslims.
Originally posted by BaastetNoir
Originally posted by masterp
I know the analogy is false, but I can not give you an example of Jesus with a bomb in his hand, because you will simply ignore it. I have to give you something that offends you in order to make you understand the problem better.
That would be a totally bogus and fake cartoon... s fake as if it had Buddah in it... neither Jesus or Buddah ever called for the death of anyone... but Mohamed and Allah DO... they call for the death of Jews, Christians and all other "dorty Infidels"... its not anyones fault but their own...its their belief and religion, not anyone elses... you have to deal with what you believ in... can;'t whinne about it ervytime things don't go your way...
Originally posted by masterp
I want a reason.
Then it is not a cartoon.
No one is entitled to offend another one's symbols.
Originally posted by masterp
Ok, you do not care about that. How about the american flag with a nazi symbol in it?
Originally posted by skippytjc
You know what makes me suspicious of this whole rage of cartoon issue?
The smiles I see on the faces of these protestors in many pictures:
[...]
Go back and look at all the pictures posted on this thread. Nearly every picture has people smiling in it, what kind of outrage is that? Or are they smiling because they have an excuse to destroy and kill?
3 die in new Pakistan protests
According to authorities in Peshawar, protesters, many of them students, set fire to a KFC restaurant, a cinema and several other buildings, including a Daewoo bus terminal that contained 16 buses, as they rampaged through the city. A number of cars and motorcycles were also burned.
Originally posted by Riwka
According to authorities in Peshawar, protesters, many of them students, set fire to a KFC restaurant, a cinema and several other buildings, including a Daewoo bus terminal that contained 16 buses, as they rampaged through the city. A number of cars and motorcycles were also burned.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You don't get it. You cannot make me angry with offensive statements. You are impotent in this regard.
Originally posted by masterp
You are lying. There is no man on this Earth that does not get angry with something. Just because I do not know you, you say that.
Even the most hardened zen masters can be made angry with something.
Tell me your beliefs, and I can easily make you angry.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As a freedom loving combatant in the "war on terror" (I'm in the military) I can tell you that the state (condition) of freedom is much more important than the symbol of freedom; for with out freedom, and all its tenets (including freedom of expression), the symbol means nothing. Therefore; go ahead and befoul the flag; I would die fighting for your right to do so. Even though I may disagree with it.
Originally posted by masterp
Words are easy to say...but If I came to your house and did that just outside your door, you wouldn't be very happy (if you care about that).
Originally posted by masterp
You are in apathy then! which means you have no genuine interest for anything.
Originally posted by masterp
Anybody could attack. History is littered with attacks FROM CHRISTIANS. Just because they do not do it any more, it does not mean that it is not people (and not ideas) that do the harm.
Originally posted by masterp
Indeed. One can be racist and say "I do not want to live with blacks or jews" but without wanting to kill them...but another one may want to kill all blacks and jews and proceed to do so. There is a difference.
Originally posted by masterp
Not all racists are killers; not all muslims are terrorists; not all chistians are good; not all buddhists are calm; not all americans are good, not all americans are bad; not all heavy metal music is bad, not all rap music is good etc etc.
There goes your argument....
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I am having difficulty folowing your logic here. Are you asking whether I care that Muslims are offended? If so; the answer is no. I could even care less. What I do care about is the violence they are commiting.
Originally posted by masterp
Yes. By not caring about Muslims (or anyone else) being offended, you are actually against them.
Originally posted by masterp
Caring only about your own interests only is hypocrisy (at least), since we live on a planet that your actions affect mine and vice versa.
Originally posted by masterp
How come "two clips of the boys" constitutes a study of the problem? show me a study that says "out of 100 homes, 90 homes have child abuse" and I will believe you.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I wasn't forced. And I am agnostic; not Christian. I don't force my children to go to church and learn Christianity.
Originally posted by masterp
You were not forced nowadays. Some years ago, you would be forced.
Originally posted by masterp
Satire means "humor". Greek word "satira" for meaningful humor.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That's a question for the Muslims.
Originally posted by masterp
Not really. Who notified them? have you researched that?
Originally posted by Nakash
This is *so* funny:
www.islamcomicbook.com...
Oh man, I'm laughing my ass off.
This Iranian site contains a photograph of a mural which appears to depict Mohammed (sixth picture down) on a contemporary building in Iran. The mural shows Buraq (the animal that carried Mohammed on his Night Voyage, described as being white and having the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock, which this creature does) carrying a figure who could therefore only be Mohammed.
Originally posted by ferretman2
Will someone who is against the cartoon depicting Mohammad please explain why is it isOK to have these pictures of Mohammad and why is there no outrage from these:
Dubai, Feb 15 (PTI) An Indian sailor was allegedly beaten to death by his colleagues on board a Norwegian oil tanker in the international waters off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE following an argument over the cartoon row.
A fight ensued among the seamen after an argument over the cartoon issue, causing the death of one sailor, a media report said.
Official sources confirmed the death of 31-year-old Sudheer Nonia Jagannathan, hailing from Mumbai, but refused to comment on the issue.
"We have been informed about the death. Our officials visited the Fujairah Hospital and collected the details. The investigation is going on and once it is over, the consulate will render all the help to repatriate the body," an Indian official told the 'Khaleej Times'.
Originally posted by intrepid
I looked at this picture and thought, "Is this Photoshopped?"
I asked my son too and he pointed out the same thing I saw, the guy on the right(not politically ), it just doesn't look right. He also thought that Ronald was as well but I didn't see that.
A Pakistani cleric offered a 1.5 million rupee (€28,000) reward and a car for anyone who kills the cartoonist who drew Prophet Mohammed.
Another Islamist leader was put under house detention, amid fears of more deadly demonstrations today, officials said.
The cleric did not name the cartoonist, and several cartoonists submitted images to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which first published them.