This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Kallisto's Old Cartoons Review
- What childish cartoons can you watch as an adult?
- Does anyone miss the late 90s/00s period?
- What cartoons can't you get back into as an adult?
- What child like things do you do (if any) today?
- Citing for the first time
- Worst Animated Show Characters
- Research Participants needed for a Survey on Pornography Use
- tsAny help?
- 90s Cartoon
- Any primary sources that show nationalism was the main cause of the First World War?
- films
- you guys ever feel nostalgic?
- Gravitational potential is independent of mass
- Animation at uni
- What were your favourite TV shows as a teenager?
- Language Exchange buddy
- web design and content planning
- Which is your favourite animated series?
- I want to make friends here
Cartoons
The cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten have been a source of debate ove rthe past few weeks. Half the muslim world is irritated that the cartoons were published. however, I am somewhat concerned that no British newspaper, other than a Welsh student newspaper, which was pulped, have published the cartoons.
The problem is as such: Without actually seeing the cartoons, how are the British public expected to judge for themselves whether they are acceptavle or not? Surely, they can be published as a source, showing us what it is that made everyone so angry, rather than publishing them as an attack on Islam. I think the press has been over-sensitive on this issue.
Does rebekah wade genuinely feel at risk of being beheaded? Surely, the British public should be able to see what has caused the controversy, rather than being told about twelve mystical cartoons that have caused offence, whilst being denied the opportunity to see with our very own eyes what it is that has caused the offence.
Anyhow,anyone who wants to see what all the controversy is about, you can judge for yourselves, simply by clicking here.
The problem is as such: Without actually seeing the cartoons, how are the British public expected to judge for themselves whether they are acceptavle or not? Surely, they can be published as a source, showing us what it is that made everyone so angry, rather than publishing them as an attack on Islam. I think the press has been over-sensitive on this issue.
Does rebekah wade genuinely feel at risk of being beheaded? Surely, the British public should be able to see what has caused the controversy, rather than being told about twelve mystical cartoons that have caused offence, whilst being denied the opportunity to see with our very own eyes what it is that has caused the offence.
Anyhow,anyone who wants to see what all the controversy is about, you can judge for yourselves, simply by clicking here.
Yeah, I am surprised at the number of people mouthing off about these cartoons (on both sides) on TV and radio who haven't actually seen them.
To be honest, my first thought when I saw them was that they were pretty poorly done. Perhaps all the good cartoonists were too scared to attempt such a thing?
... actually, the blacked-out eyes one isn't that bad conceptually... but the rest are pretty shoddy artwork.
What irks me is that someone has produced some fake ones, that actually would be pretty offensive. Featuring sodomy and so on... The thing is that half the Middle East believes that these ones are the original cartoons. Which is why they're madder than they might otherwise be.
Now what I want to know is, who produced them? Is it some Muslim trying to stir up the controversy, because if it is, that's remarkably impious. And dangerous. And if it's some westerner, they need to see a head doctor if they think they'll achieve anything by that.
To be honest, my first thought when I saw them was that they were pretty poorly done. Perhaps all the good cartoonists were too scared to attempt such a thing?
... actually, the blacked-out eyes one isn't that bad conceptually... but the rest are pretty shoddy artwork.
What irks me is that someone has produced some fake ones, that actually would be pretty offensive. Featuring sodomy and so on... The thing is that half the Middle East believes that these ones are the original cartoons. Which is why they're madder than they might otherwise be.
Now what I want to know is, who produced them? Is it some Muslim trying to stir up the controversy, because if it is, that's remarkably impious. And dangerous. And if it's some westerner, they need to see a head doctor if they think they'll achieve anything by that.
They're pretty strange, a lot better than the ones in British newspapers in a cartoon sense.
I can't see why it should offend so many people, it's hard to have a laugh anymore, political correctness is ridiculous and is only getting more so.
I can't see why it should offend so many people, it's hard to have a laugh anymore, political correctness is ridiculous and is only getting more so.
The cartoons were created in 2005, but were republished recently to stir up the Muslim world, and create a divide for the upcoming Iran strike.
The Bilderberg group has a connection to the cartoons being published recently.
Whats more, look at all the other news stories designed to make Muslims angry, released recently, such as the abuse photos from Iraq (they happened 2 years ago, why were they released now?).
Its all psychological warfare. Whats more, using the reason of "free speech" to defend the cartoons is ********, because if you had cartoons showing the holocaust or something along those lines, they would never make the press, but its OK to have something which insults Islam...
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.
The Bilderberg group has a connection to the cartoons being published recently.
Whats more, look at all the other news stories designed to make Muslims angry, released recently, such as the abuse photos from Iraq (they happened 2 years ago, why were they released now?).
Its all psychological warfare. Whats more, using the reason of "free speech" to defend the cartoons is ********, because if you had cartoons showing the holocaust or something along those lines, they would never make the press, but its OK to have something which insults Islam...
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.
We're allowed to see videos of terrorists beheading innocent people, but heaven forbid we see an inoffensive drawing.
Stranksy
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.
Especially not in the Tinfoil-Hats part of the world of politics.
Stranksy
The cartoons were created in 2005, but were republished recently to stir up the Muslim world, and create a divide for the upcoming Iran strike.
The Bilderberg group has a connection to the cartoons being published recently.
Whats more, look at all the other news stories designed to make Muslims angry, released recently, such as the abuse photos from Iraq (they happened 2 years ago, why were they released now?).
Its all psychological warfare. Whats more, using the reason of "free speech" to defend the cartoons is ********, because if you had cartoons showing the holocaust or something along those lines, they would never make the press, but its OK to have something which insults Islam...
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.
The Bilderberg group has a connection to the cartoons being published recently.
Whats more, look at all the other news stories designed to make Muslims angry, released recently, such as the abuse photos from Iraq (they happened 2 years ago, why were they released now?).
Its all psychological warfare. Whats more, using the reason of "free speech" to defend the cartoons is ********, because if you had cartoons showing the holocaust or something along those lines, they would never make the press, but its OK to have something which insults Islam...
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.
Oh great - "it was the dastardly Jews, trying to manufacture resentment against Iran."
Hey, look, you're an imbecile!
Where was the uproar from the Muslim world when someone was being beheaded?
robinm
You didn't answer my question.
"God Bless Hitler"
http://www.n-tv.de/634520.html
I thought they said the Holocaust never happened?
http://www.n-tv.de/634520.html
I thought they said the Holocaust never happened?
Hmm, I don't like the cartoons very much, they do strike me as being a bit racist. I'm not against them being published, people should be able to publish whatever they like. But if I see someone wearing them on a tshirt I will assume that they're a w*nk*r.
Celebrating freedom of speech? Ok, that would make sense if a group of deeply religious, anti-liberal muslims were in charge of any of our major newspapers. They're not by the way, it's mostly this right-wing Blairite Australian man...
Celebrating freedom of speech? Ok, that would make sense if a group of deeply religious, anti-liberal muslims were in charge of any of our major newspapers. They're not by the way, it's mostly this right-wing Blairite Australian man...
cheesecakebobby
Where was the uproar from the Muslim world when someone was being beheaded?
That's a good point. I don't recall Muslims going into absolute rage all over the world when Muslims in Iraq were sawing of Eugene Armstrong's head in the name of Islam. If Islam is a "religion of peace" then someone brutally beheading people in the name of Islam and posting the gruesome footage on the internet should have caused tremendous offence to all Muslims - far more so than a bunch of cartoons. It didn't though, did it?
I have posted this elsewhere about an hour ago but these are my views on the subject:
I actually support the freedom of the press issue, and believe that we should not have to tip-toe on eggshells to prevent offence to religious followers (I support a secular state and am an atheist); I myself am insulted by right-wing muslims' views on homosexuals (that they should be stoned to death etc.) but I take that offence as part of living in a free society.
However I personally do not agree with some of the threats that appeared at the radical demonstrations in London. Those were as bad as the BNP's views.
I also personally do not agree with the BNP view on ending immigration, especially if they use such riots of extremists as a reason for ending it.
Anyway the reason I was spurned to post this thread was that just because the BNP have jumped on the bandwagon of the free-press because it temporarily helps them support their views (by making load noises and brandishing all Muslims as killers), does not mean that the Freedom of the Press should not be fought for by those who really believe in it as a principle.
And for all those supporters of the BNP: you weren't too happy when the BBC, as part of the free press, exposed the BNP as rascist prats in last year's documentary were you? Did you support the free-press then? I think not!
I actually support the freedom of the press issue, and believe that we should not have to tip-toe on eggshells to prevent offence to religious followers (I support a secular state and am an atheist); I myself am insulted by right-wing muslims' views on homosexuals (that they should be stoned to death etc.) but I take that offence as part of living in a free society.
However I personally do not agree with some of the threats that appeared at the radical demonstrations in London. Those were as bad as the BNP's views.
I also personally do not agree with the BNP view on ending immigration, especially if they use such riots of extremists as a reason for ending it.
Anyway the reason I was spurned to post this thread was that just because the BNP have jumped on the bandwagon of the free-press because it temporarily helps them support their views (by making load noises and brandishing all Muslims as killers), does not mean that the Freedom of the Press should not be fought for by those who really believe in it as a principle.
And for all those supporters of the BNP: you weren't too happy when the BBC, as part of the free press, exposed the BNP as rascist prats in last year's documentary were you? Did you support the free-press then? I think not!
Onlya few of the cartoons could be viewed as anti-Islamic.
The one of the cartoonist drawing mohammed could be construed as being prophetic, based on the fact that the cartoonists are all living under police guard at the moment.
And the one with the identity parade is a nice bluff. Mohammed is in there somewhere, but which one is he? I think of that one as an artful critique - If someone were to draw mohammed, how could you tell who he is?
I pretty much agree with johnny on this issue. (I'm secular, want a secular state, and that the violent demonstrations are bad.) If you ask me, "Behead those who insult islam" is a rather offensive sign to carry. Particularly when you can see how easy it is to inadvertantly insult Islam these days. (Although the cartoons were actually intended to be provocative, there have been cases where Muslims have been offended where no offence was intended.)
The one of the cartoonist drawing mohammed could be construed as being prophetic, based on the fact that the cartoonists are all living under police guard at the moment.
And the one with the identity parade is a nice bluff. Mohammed is in there somewhere, but which one is he? I think of that one as an artful critique - If someone were to draw mohammed, how could you tell who he is?
I pretty much agree with johnny on this issue. (I'm secular, want a secular state, and that the violent demonstrations are bad.) If you ask me, "Behead those who insult islam" is a rather offensive sign to carry. Particularly when you can see how easy it is to inadvertantly insult Islam these days. (Although the cartoons were actually intended to be provocative, there have been cases where Muslims have been offended where no offence was intended.)
BlackpoolCraig
The cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten have been a source of debate ove rthe past few weeks. Half the muslim world is irritated that the cartoons were published. however, I am somewhat concerned that no British newspaper, other than a Welsh student newspaper, which was pulped, have published the cartoons.
The problem is as such: Without actually seeing the cartoons, how are the British public expected to judge for themselves whether they are acceptavle or not? Surely, they can be published as a source, showing us what it is that made everyone so angry, rather than publishing them as an attack on Islam. I think the press has been over-sensitive on this issue.
Does rebekah wade genuinely feel at risk of being beheaded? Surely, the British public should be able to see what has caused the controversy, rather than being told about twelve mystical cartoons that have caused offence, whilst being denied the opportunity to see with our very own eyes what it is that has caused the offence.
Anyhow,anyone who wants to see what all the controversy is about, you can judge for yourselves, simply by clicking here.
The problem is as such: Without actually seeing the cartoons, how are the British public expected to judge for themselves whether they are acceptavle or not? Surely, they can be published as a source, showing us what it is that made everyone so angry, rather than publishing them as an attack on Islam. I think the press has been over-sensitive on this issue.
Does rebekah wade genuinely feel at risk of being beheaded? Surely, the British public should be able to see what has caused the controversy, rather than being told about twelve mystical cartoons that have caused offence, whilst being denied the opportunity to see with our very own eyes what it is that has caused the offence.
Anyhow,anyone who wants to see what all the controversy is about, you can judge for yourselves, simply by clicking here.
They were described. Only a moron wouldn't be able to construe what they looked like from the graphic descriptions. What, you need photos of things before you can form an opinion?
And the reason they didn't publish here is because they were offensive, and Britain is more multi-cultural than most of Europe.
If most people can form an opinion on the drawings without seeing them, then what a shame you can't.
Incidentally, you are being extremely naive if you seriously believe that every journalist in bloody Britain hasn't seen the pictures. The first thing they would have done upon hearing about them would have been getting on the net.
And do YOU think Wade didn't publish cus she thought she might lose her head? Because i'm not exactly sure that thats true.
BlackpoolCraig
The cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten have been a source of debate ove rthe past few weeks. Half the muslim world is irritated that the cartoons were published. however, I am somewhat concerned that no British newspaper, other than a Welsh student newspaper, which was pulped, have published the cartoons.
The problem is as such: Without actually seeing the cartoons, how are the British public expected to judge for themselves whether they are acceptavle or not? Surely, they can be published as a source, showing us what it is that made everyone so angry, rather than publishing them as an attack on Islam. I think the press has been over-sensitive on this issue.
Does rebekah wade genuinely feel at risk of being beheaded? Surely, the British public should be able to see what has caused the controversy, rather than being told about twelve mystical cartoons that have caused offence, whilst being denied the opportunity to see with our very own eyes what it is that has caused the offence.
Anyhow,anyone who wants to see what all the controversy is about, you can judge for yourselves, simply by clicking here.
The problem is as such: Without actually seeing the cartoons, how are the British public expected to judge for themselves whether they are acceptavle or not? Surely, they can be published as a source, showing us what it is that made everyone so angry, rather than publishing them as an attack on Islam. I think the press has been over-sensitive on this issue.
Does rebekah wade genuinely feel at risk of being beheaded? Surely, the British public should be able to see what has caused the controversy, rather than being told about twelve mystical cartoons that have caused offence, whilst being denied the opportunity to see with our very own eyes what it is that has caused the offence.
Anyhow,anyone who wants to see what all the controversy is about, you can judge for yourselves, simply by clicking here.
It would be a ****ing stupid thing to do to publish those cartoons. I don't care if we're supposed to have free speech or not, we know what happens when we publish the cartoons, so if we don't want that happening to us, we've just got to swallow our pride and not publish them. The reason British papers haven't published them yet is because they are vaguely sensible, vaguely reasonable, and vaguely polite, which clearly cannot be said of a lot of other papers around the world. It's outrageous to portray the whole of Islam as a terrorist religion, particularly given the fact that we know full well how Muslims feel about the matter, and particularly given the fact that we know full well that it is only a tiny minority of extremists who are carrying these acts out in the first place. And if people do really want to see the cartoons, they can see them on the internet as you so rightly point out.
Related discussions
- Kallisto's Old Cartoons Review
- What childish cartoons can you watch as an adult?
- Does anyone miss the late 90s/00s period?
- What cartoons can't you get back into as an adult?
- What child like things do you do (if any) today?
- Citing for the first time
- Worst Animated Show Characters
- Research Participants needed for a Survey on Pornography Use
- tsAny help?
- 90s Cartoon
- Any primary sources that show nationalism was the main cause of the First World War?
- films
- you guys ever feel nostalgic?
- Gravitational potential is independent of mass
- Animation at uni
- What were your favourite TV shows as a teenager?
- Language Exchange buddy
- web design and content planning
- Which is your favourite animated series?
- I want to make friends here
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
