Wyclef on 4/2/2006 at 03:32
A description of ALL of the cartoons in question:
Quote Posted by "NY Times"
One cartoon depicts Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb. Another shows him at the gates of heaven, arms raised, saying to men who seem to be suicide bombers, "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins." A third has devil's horns emerging from his turban. A fourth shows two women who are entirely veiled, with only their eyes showing, and the prophet standing between them with a strip of black cloth covering his eyes, preventing him from seeing.
Three of those seem to be legitimate political comment, even if rather trite and in poor taste. The third is genuinely offensive. I'm not terribly familiar with European laws prohibiting hate speech, nor do I favor them (though Germany might be a permissible exception, given its historical trauma.) However, I think the third might run afoul of them. Consider a similar cartoon of a Jew.
(Also, computer simulation lab on a Friday night. LOL SEG FAULT)
Agent Monkeysee on 4/2/2006 at 03:57
Quote Posted by Convict
Then what about what Paul and others wrote?
Paul was a misogynistic dick and pissed on everything Jesus stood for.
Which is the problem with "the Bible says". The Bible "says" about 78 different things because it was written by different people at different times and some of those things are clearly repulsive and or anachronistic. Perhaps that makes it an easier text to pick and choose what you like then, say, the Quran but it also means that just about any "The Bible says" can be countered with another "The Bible says" making this whole thing an exercise in futility.
Uncia on 4/2/2006 at 04:14
This is interesting. A Danish friend's <A HREF="http://tailen.livejournal.com/8856.html">LJ post on the topic</A>; specifically this bit:
<blockquote><i>...
What happened was that a gang of Danish-Muslim imams travelled to the Middle East and began spreading lies and misunderstandings about these cartoons, inciting a riot throughout the Arab countries. Specifically they made 3 cartoons of their own, one with Muhammed as a pedophile, one with him having the nose of a pig and one showing why muslims pray, all cartoons that were deliberately profane and obscene and would have offended anyone. They showed these on TV claiming that this was what the Danish newspapers printed.
...</i></blockquote>
<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Additional_images">Wikipedia's take on those.</A>
Convict on 4/2/2006 at 04:23
Quote Posted by Wikipedia
On February 1 BBC World aired a story showing one of these three images, and incorrectly claimed that it had been published in Jyllands-Posten. [46]
BBC wrong? Oh noes!
Uncia on 4/2/2006 at 04:38
Convict trite? Oh noes.
Wyclef on 4/2/2006 at 05:38
Quote Posted by Uncia
<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Additional_images">Wikipedia's take on those.</A>
Okay, everyone should read the (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons) full article.
Lollin':
Quote:
An Asian-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "the editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that this Muhammed is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the man Muslims believe was a prophet. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future). According to the editor of Jyllands Posten, he didn't know what was written on the blackboard before it was published.
Convict on 4/2/2006 at 08:10
I have to say that it seems entirely hypocritical for Muslims in Europe to get violently upset at freedom of speech when it charactures the 'prophet' Mohammed and yet they use the same freedom of speech to threaten to kill people (whether this is agains the law I don't know):
Inline Image:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/04/wcart104.jpgaguywhoplaysthief on 4/2/2006 at 08:40
That pic screams of Photoshop.
Convict on 4/2/2006 at 08:48
I'd suggest that it isn't photoshopped or else the (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0XH5Q4WNTBQLNQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/04/wcart104.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/04/ixnewstop.html) Daily Telegraph (UK) would be caught out very quickly. NINJA EDIT!: Also when you look at the writing in GBM's photoshop compared to the original, all the same letters of GBM's alphabet are exactly the same, where as the above photo shows differences in characters (e.g. the position of the horizontal bar in the capital letter 'H'). Of course GBM's was only a quick one (but still pretty good IMO! lol).
Do they not see the irony in saying:
Quote:
The 400 or so protesters, including a group of women in burqas, waved placards bearing slogans such as "Behead the one who insults the prophet" and "Free speech go to hell".
