Turn on thread page Beta

Should anti-Islam cartoons have been published ??? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should "anti-Islam" cartoons have been published ???
    Yes
    116
    58.59%
    No
    82
    41.41%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    These cartoons would never be published in the UK or USA. Europe has some racism, sorry but it is the truth. It exists on a larger scale in europe than the UK because countries like France have always disliked foreigners (sorry to generalise but you know what i mean) something highlighted by the success of the far right La Penn party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syntax)
    This has been said countless times, but the state controlled newspapers in Arab countries don't seem to have any problem printing anti-semitic comments or cartoons.

    There is a difference between questioning an ideology and actually being threatening to those who hold a belief in that ideology. We can question Judaism all we like, but most people don't have a problem with the religion itself. But obviously saying nasty things about the Jews as a people isn't acceptable. I do however, accept that Muslims do feel marginalised in Western countries, and especially in Denmark, so perhaps the cartoons weren't a good idea for that reason.
    So two wrongs make a right? These are questionable states. I would have thought that these newspapers in europe are unbiased and much more open in terms of tolerance/sensitivity to global religions,races and other groups.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flux)
    They were on the BBC website. Although they took them down after an hour or so I believe.
    They were there because they are a major news item, not because the BBC were making a statement, unlike the newspapers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghost101)
    These cartoons would never be published in the UK or USA. Europe has some racism, sorry but it is the truth. It exists on a larger scale in europe than the UK because countries like France have always disliked foreigners (sorry to generalise but you know what i mean) something highlighted by the success of the far right La Penn party.
    oh **** off!

    A letter in the Times today asked them to print the pictures, I don't see why not! You saying we should censor the press?!?! ?!?! :eek: :mad:

    English papers have as much right as any other to print these pictures. And I hope to god that the pictures are printed. our government panders to muslim needs every single day, they are like the ruling class of the country, it's about time we showed them that yes, we are not afraid of their little jihad. perhaps this will drive them out? then we won't need to waste money building them a 70000 capacity mosque in the centre of london.


    It doesn't reflect all that well on this religion of peace (HA!) if when someone makes a little joke they ****ing declare war on the world! :rolleyes: Really isn't doing them any favours is it?




    Again, I ask:

    Why can't muslims just refuse to look at them? Or why don't they just say;

    "yeah sure, you've drawn a pretty picture and labelled it 'mohammed' but it isn't really him you know. It looks nothing like him. It's just a picture of a man. not of mohammed."

    Someone please answer me here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aargh, this kind of thing makes my blood boil. I'm thinking of setting up a TSR Secular society, 'cos the religion thing just makes me so angry (I'm not bigoted or anything, I just believe religion should be a personal matter and it should not venture into the public domain like this). Any way, if any depiction of Mohammed is wrong, then it should be the cartoonist thats worried about it, not everybody else. Personally, I find flag burning much more offensive than any thing involved in this!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stikatoo)
    oh **** off!

    A letter in the Times today asked them to print the pictures, I don't see why not! You saying we should censor the press?!?! ?!?! :eek: :mad:

    English papers have as much right as any other to print these pictures. And I hope to god that the pictures are printed. our government panders to muslim needs every single day, they are like the ruling class of the country, it's about time we showed them that yes, we are not afraid of their little jihad. perhaps this will drive them out? then we won't need to waste money building them a 70000 capacity mosque in the centre of london.


    It doesn't reflect all that well on this religion of peace (HA!) if when someone makes a little joke they ****ing declare war on the world! :rolleyes: Really isn't doing them any favours is it?




    Again, I ask:

    Why can't muslims just refuse to look at them? Or why don't they just say;

    "yeah sure, you've drawn a pretty picture and labelled it 'mohammed' but it isn't really him you know. It looks nothing like him. It's just a picture of a man. not of mohammed."

    Someone please answer me here.

    This is obviously the post of someone who knows how to reason???

    Why cant muslims not look at them? Because the rest of the world is and it portrays a prejudiced image.

    Its just a random image labelled mohammed - best argument ive heard so far lol. It represents Mohammed and that is enough. No one knows what he actually looked like. But it is a representation that makes a statement.

    Your second paragraph is imflammatory so i dont need to argue against it.

    The Times wont print them because they have sensible editors that realise they are distasteful. The letter was probably someone from the public.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And nobody said that the press should be censored. But they should use common sense.


    By the way, i hope people understand that i am not condoning the ovverreaction of some muslims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghost101)
    This is obviously the post of someone who knows how to reason???

    Why cant muslims not look at them? Because the rest of the world is and it portrays a prejudiced image.

    Its just a random image labelled mohammed - best argument ive heard so far lol. It represents Mohammed and that is enough. No one knows what he actually looked like. But it is a representation that makes a statement.

    Your second paragraph is imflammatory so i dont need to argue against it.

    The Times wont print them because they have sensible editors that realise they are distasteful. The letter was probably someone from the public.

    And nobody said that the press should be censored. But they should use common sense.
    Or maybe it's the post of someone who's so ****ing tired of these kinds of idiots who make such a huge fuss about everything?

    No, it represents what they want it to represent. If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to think that a bunch of lines on the paper is their prophet then well...they're pretty stupid. I could draw a stick man on a piece of paper and label it mohammed. This man might have 20 heads, both sets of reproductive organs, 14 arms and 1 leg, but it would still be mohammed in my eyes. Am I forcing this on a muslim? no. the picture is whatever they want it to be.

    well yes.....letters usually are from the public. :rolleyes:

    No, you said it should be by saying they shouldn't be printed in this country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another note, i think people are using the question to answer whether the press should be censored. Clearly a different question.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the cartoons themselves were in poor taste and if I was an editor I wouldn't have published them because of their factual inaccuracy (i.e. the Prophet Muhammed wasn't a terrorist). However, each editor and newspaper have to make their own decisions and face the consequences of their actions.

    I think those I have seen protesting against the cartoon are showing that they are far worse than the newspapers are and are acting totally out of proportion. The British Muslims protesting should realise that these cartoons were NOT published in Britain AND that they were produced by a private, not state-owned, company, but I doubt they will. The whole thing is such a pointless farce from every angle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another question is whether such images of jews would be allowed - that didn't stop you asking it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stikatoo)
    Or maybe it's the post of someone who's so ****ing tired of these kinds of idiots who make such a huge fuss about everything?

    No, it represents what they want it to represent. If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to think that a bunch of lines on the paper is their prophet then well...they're pretty stupid. I could draw a stick man on a piece of paper and label it mohammed. This man might have 20 heads, both sets of reproductive organs, 14 arms and 1 leg, but it would still be mohammed in my eyes. Am I forcing this on a muslim? no. the picture is whatever they want it to be.

    well yes.....letters usually are from the public.

    No, you said it should be by saying they shouldn't be printed in this country.

    So all pictures of Jesus are not actually Jesus but sme random guy. Even if they are supposed to reperesent him. Similar things could be said for many historical figures of whom actual historical pitures do not exist.

    If you draw a stick man and label hims as Mohammed in a context implying the prophet, then i can only assume you are referring to him. It does not have 14 arms or legs but has an arabic appearance. Nobody is saying people are being forced to believe that is what he looks like.

    Also, about the letter, i doubt it reflects a large number of people. It was obvioulsy selected because of what it brings up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stikatoo)
    Another question is whether such images of jews would be allowed - that didn't stop you asking it.
    I believe they shoudn't. Any comment that has the effect of comicalising the holocaust is a crime in many countries.

    The Jewish community also regularly protests against many western publications.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghost101)
    You're a complete idiot. So all pictures of Jesus are not actually Jesus but sme random guy. Even if they are supposed to reperesent him. Similar things could be said for many historical figures of whom actual historical pitures do not exist.

    If you draw a stick man and label hims as Mohammed in a context implying the prophet, then i can only assume you are referring to him
    No, all the pictures that people who were intending to be Jesus are Jesus in their eyes. In Mr. Smith's eyes however, it might just be some bloke on a cross.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought all this fuss about a cartoon of Mohammed was a bit extreme.

    But to draw him with a ****ing bomb on his head and suggesting all Muslims are terrorists is really disgraceful.

    My whole politics class now say that all the Muslims must be bombed because they are all terrorists. Freedom of speech? **** off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As a Muslim, I did find the one of Mohammed (pbuh) offensive, purely due to the fact that its not allowed to draw pictures of Him, but the artist wasnt a Muslim, s why should he care?
    the cartoon above it that said "stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." was bloody hilarious!!!!

    the newspaper just showed a very bad judement, i'm pretty sure that they didnt mean for it to cause such an uproar, and the reaction has been hugely out of proportion. Get over it, people :rolleyes: stop being so bloody sensitive...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elondra)
    I thought all this fuss about a cartoon of Mohammed was a bit extreme.

    But to draw him with a ****ing bomb on his head and suggesting all Muslims are terrorists is really disgraceful.

    My whole politics class now say that all the Muslims must be bombed because they are all terrorists. Freedom of speech? **** off.
    Exactly, muslims can ignore it, but it is creating a completely prejuced impression and therefore should be challenged.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghost101)
    If you draw a stick man and label hims as Mohammed in a context implying the prophet, then i can only assume you are referring to him. It does not have 14 arms or legs but has an arabic appearance. Nobody is saying people are being forced to believe that is what he looks like.
    no no no. My picture does have 14 arms and 1 leg. He is also yellow with green hair, but still labelled mohammed.

    (Original post by Elondra)
    My whole politics class now say that all the Muslims must be bombed because they are all terrorists. Freedom of speech? **** off.
    :rofl:

    Does your whole politics class have an iq of <80 or something?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neaera)
    As a Muslim, I did find the one of Mohammed (pbuh) offensive, purely due to the fact that its not allowed to draw pictures of Him, but the artist wasnt a Muslim, s why should he care?
    the cartoon above it that said "stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." was bloody hilarious!!!!

    the newspaper just showed a very bad judement, i'm pretty sure that they didnt mean for it to cause such an uproar, and the reaction has been hugely out of proportion. Get over it, people :rolleyes: stop being so bloody sensitive...
    Yes thank you. At the time it was for satirical effect. But by having sevral newspapers across europe republish it is outrageous and clearly the papers have different motives to that of the original newspaper. Another important factor is that newspapers want the highest circulation possible and therefore by invoking nationalistic and ideolistic pride they are achieving this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neaera)
    As a Muslim, I did find the one of Mohammed (pbuh) offensive, purely due to the fact that its not allowed to draw pictures of Him, but the artist wasnt a Muslim, s why should he care?
    the cartoon above it that said "stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." was bloody hilarious!!!!

    the newspaper just showed a very bad judement, i'm pretty sure that they didnt mean for it to cause such an uproar, and the reaction has been hugely out of proportion. Get over it, people :rolleyes: stop being so bloody sensitive...
    :yy:

    .......oh my god.....a muslim with a sense of humour!!!!!! :eek: Good stuff!

    I found that one the best too :p:
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.