Happy Draw Mohammed Day!

[backscatter712]

In honor of free speech, I hereby offer my own unique depiction of Mohammed in the fine aesthetics that only ASCII art can produce:

*`O:-D

[mr blur]

1. ...

[rug]

2. In honor of free speech, I hereby offer my own unique depiction of this post

that only ASCII art can produce:

(*)

[mr blur]

8. That was almost amusing. Try again, as you're so fond of repeating. nt

[rug]

19. You're easily amused.

[backscatter712]

3. Here's a good depiction!

[CrawlingChaos]

4. childish and obnoxious

Instead of choosing to treat people with dignity and respect, you choose to go out of your way to offend people who never did anything to you.

That is NOT honoring free speech. It's just lame.

[provis99]

6. declare a fatwa, then.

[mr blur]

7. Dignity and respect need to be earned.

Wanting to kill people who draw pictures earns neither.

[CrawlingChaos]

9. and how many Muslims do you suppose want to kill people who draw pictures?

Almost none, and yet you would extend your middle finger to all of them with a childish gesture designed to offend.

Talk about not being worthy of respect...

[trotsky]

11. Actually, quite a few.

Did you not pay attention to the news?

[CrawlingChaos]

14. If you listen to corporate-owned media which represents the interests of war profiteers...

...then you believe all kinds of crazy crap about Muslims that isn't true. I'd hoped most people here weren't that naive. I mean, you have to be very gullible indeed to take any MSM story involving Muslims at face value. Are you also worried about Sharia Law coming to your state?

Soooooo, if it's lots and lots of Muslims who will come and kill a person if they draw a forbidden picture, how many dead cartoonists do we have? I mean, cartoonists can't be that hard to kill -- the bodies must be piling up, right? What's the exact number?

[Goblinmonger]

15. Yeah, there's no threat

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121828213#post22

[trotsky]

24. I suppose the pro-war, corporate-owned media just made this one up, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29

But then he was just a filmmaker, so I guess he doesn't count. We can totally disregard his murder. He probably deserved it anyway, how dare he mock someone's religion! Right?

[CrawlingChaos]

28. I was wondering when we'd get around to van Gogh

Where would the Muslim-bashers of the world - the Pamela Gellars and the Peter Kings and neo-con darling Ayaan Hirsi Ali - where would they be without that lone incident by a single disturbed person. Considering the amount of provocation thrown at Muslims, I'd say that makes them remarkably peaceful in the relative scheme of things. They are, after all, the statistically least likely group to commit a terrorist act. But don't let that stop you from getting your hate on.

Why is it OK, in your mind, to use a single incident to smear and antagonize an entire group of people? That is the very essence of bigotry.

[trotsky]

29. Who's smearing a group of people?

A religious belief is being mocked.

Do you see how those are different? Because if not, if you are going to insist that there are certain ideas that cannot ever be put forth, that some things must ALWAYS be discussed with the utmost respect, and that there should be negative consequences for those who do not follow your arbitrary rules, well that just scares the shit out of me.

[CrawlingChaos]

30. You are

You're clearly implying that Muslims are a threat and therefore deserve to be antagonized.

You're making up so much shit, I can scarcely keep up. Where did I advocate "negative consequences" for my "arbitrary rules"? What arbitrary rules? I suggested people who have not harmed anyone should be treated with dignity and respect. You apparently prefer to insult, demean and generally increase the tone of hostility Muslims already live with on a daily basis. Proud of yourself?

[trotsky]

31. I view extremist fundmentalist religion as a threat.

I don't give a shit whether it's a Muslim, Christian, or anyone else. The very thought that we should censor ourselves, or each other (either by vicious accusations of bigotry, like you're doing, or by outright legislating against blasphemy) is repulsive to me.

So take your straw man elsewhere. I'm all for treating sensible religious believers with dignity and respect. But their beliefs are fair game no matter what - especially when it's the fundies getting upset.

[CrawlingChaos]

41. Who is trying to force you to "censor yourself"?

It's an appeal to your personal conscience (a blind alley, apparently) to treat people decently - to stop and consider how it makes others feel when you deliberately insult and antagonize them. One would hope that most people (although not you, clearly) would say to themselves, no, I'm not going to be someone who treats people that way.

[trotsky]

44. You are.

By making hateful, nasty accusations - this is how some people on the left try to censor thought they don't like. It's no better than how the right censored opposition to Bush.

If you expect to make it through life unoffended, you are going to be rudely disappointed. I think we need to encourage a world where all dialog is tolerated, all ideas are up for debate. Your opinion differs on that, I suppose. Clearly there are some people you don't treat very well though.

[CrawlingChaos]

46. OK then, by your own logic...

Aren't YOU trying to censor ME by objecting to what I'm saying? Are you against free speech?!!! Are you against open dialog?! (see, I can just as easily point the finger at you using your own corkscrew logic)

Are you capable of following a simple line of reasoning? There are things you can't say without legal repercussions, such as a threat, and there are things you shouldn't say, at least if you're a decent human being, such as a bigoted insult. We make the choice not to be horrible to other human beings, or we don't. You've made your choice, and you have to live with yourself. So be it.

[trotsky]

48. Uh, you're not saying anything.

You're falsely accusing me, sure. But I'm just countering with evidence. I'm really not interested in this anymore now that you've turned to nasty insults, so clearly you have nothing left. Take care. I'll still be fighting for free speech, no matter what you say.

[CrawlingChaos]

49. Soldier on, brave freedom fighter!

So what if you can't seem to make anything resembling a cogent point -- you can still get out there and make hurtful, childish gestures like drawing offensive (if not racist) cartoons. What better way to defend free speech than by being hostile and antagonistic towards people who are different than you.


I only wish you could walk a mile in the shoes of those you seek to torment.

[trotsky]

51. And you please be careful not to offend anyone.

Don't tell a rabid anti-choicer that they're wrong, because you will be insulting their religious beliefs in a very hurtful and childish manner. Don't tell a creationist they can't have their beliefs taught in public school either - you really shouldn't antagonize them like that. No conflict, no debate on ideas, no judgment of their worth.

I only wish you could walk a mile in the shoes of someone tormented by the rabid fundamentalists you seem to care sooooo much about.

[CrawlingChaos]

52. I thought you weren't responding to me anymore (or so you said)

In any event, let's see if you can follow. The difference with rabid anti-choicers and creationists who want their beliefs taught in public schools is that they're seeking to impose their religious beliefs on me. No Muslim has done that. If people keep their religion within their private life, then it's none of my business, or yours, what they choose to believe and they certainly don't deserve to be harassed. Having trouble with these concepts?

[trotsky]

54. As long as you continue to personally insult me, you're going to continue being corrected.

By behaving uncivilly and making rude comments questioning my intellectual capacity, you are engaging in the same behavior you supposedly condemn. You are being a bully and an antagonist.

Now, returning to the topic at hand - it DOES NOT MATTER whether someone is seeking to "impose" their beliefs on you. You did NOT make that qualification until just now - you're moving the goalposts. Let's state the new groundrules then: Are you going to agree now that if someone is trying to make you follow or adhere to their religious beliefs, that those beliefs are worthy of ridicule?

Please answer with a simple yes or no.

[CrawlingChaos]

55. Yes I see. You can be rude to others but it is NOT OK for others to be rude you. LOL

Muslims have it coming - but your super-specialness exempts you from criticism. Do I have that right? And I'm a bully for challenging you, but you're somehow not a bully for mocking and harassing Muslims. Interesting how that works, but I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to you.

Now I must ask, how did I move the goalposts when it was you who brought up anti-choicers and creationists?

And no, I really don't care to ridicule people who haven't specifically done something to richly deserve it. I'm sure I have done it much more than I should, but those would not be my best moments, and I want to try to be a better person if I can.

I shudder to think where you're going with this. For the record, I'm not particularly interested, so don't feel you have to crawl out even further on that limb on my account.

[Goblinmonger]

56. If you can't see where he is going with this

you are about 1/10th as smart as you think you are. It's pretty damn clear. It's also pretty clear that you want to be able to just move the goalposts when things get uncomfortable for the position you have put yourself in.

[trotsky]

57. No, I expect that if you're going to hold me to a certain standard that you should also meet it.

Otherwise there's a name for that. Do you know what it is? It starts with the letter "h."

You've moved the goalposts because you've now put a qualifier on when it's alright to mock beliefs and when it's not.

And it's not where *I'm* going with this, but where you've gone with it. Specifically, how you've just completely contradicted yourself. The people who are upset by the cartoons are the ones who don't want anyone to draw Mohammed - meaning, they are trying to force their views on you and prevent you from doing something. By your own standards, it's OK to mock those beliefs. Congrats on sabotaging your own position so brilliantly.

This was fun - let's do it again sometime!

[CrawlingChaos]

58. You're still so confused

I'm not being an h-word because I've judged you by your own behavior, not unfairly smeared you simply because you're part of an ethnic/religous group. Have I given you a faceful of shit just because you're an atheist? No, I would never do that. If I had, you might rightly accuse me of holding a double standard. But I haven't.

Once again, I'm not the one who moved the goalposts - you did that when you shifted to the anti-choice/creationist tack. I never said anything about it being OK to mock anyone's beliefs, just that someone who seeks to impose their religious beliefs on me can expect me to push back. You're putting words in my mouth.

As to the last point - ONE MORE TIME - no one is forcing you to draw or not draw Mohammed. No one's proposing legislation to make it illegal to do so, and you're perfectly free to draw away. What it is, however, is a clear 'fuck you' gesture to Muslims no matter how you slice it. Just look at the depictions in the thread - Mohammed as a grotesque, leering monster, and in another, a pedophile bear. If those were anti-semitic caricatures, would you be able to see the problem?

You are FREE to do it, but it's an asshole move. It accomplishes nothing but to hurt people who have already suffered so much.

[trotsky]

59. I'm very sorry you feel the need to attack me personally.

I guess that's how you concede the point.

You have admitted it's OK to ridicule when someone attempts to force their beliefs on you. You have thus admitted it's OK to draw Mohammed, because the people who oppose those cartoons want to restrict what I can do. They're forcing me to adhere to THEIR beliefs.

Wiggle all you want, and please throw some more personal attacks at me if it makes you feel better, but you've just been (as the kids like to say) hoisted by your own petard.

[CrawlingChaos]

62. Your debate strategy is hilarious!

Spew a bunch of non-reality-based gobbledygook - then throw your hands up and declare yourself the winner. Ta-da!

I must say though, my favorite thing about this exchange has been your over-the-top righteous indignation at being treated uncivilly, when this whole thread is about promoting incivility. And you have, like, ZERO self-awareness. Ah well, par for the course I suppose.

[trotsky]

67. I'm sure you wouldn't like it,

since it points out that you're engaging in the same behavior you claim to oppose.

And the personal attacks continue. Please, can we pull this out of the gutter?

[CrawlingChaos]

69. Right, because we can see how you always take the high road (LOL)

Don't mock ME for mocking others or I will stamp my foot repeatedly at the injustice of it all! LOL!

You dish it out but you sure can't take it, to put it mildly. Why do you think you should be treated with more courtesy than you're willing to extend to others?

[trotsky]

70. I respond as deserved.

In fact, given your nasty personal attacks on me, I'd say I could have responded much worse.

Are you ready to get out of the gutter yet and join me in exploring your contradictory statements? Or will you choose to insult me again?

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Very peaceful - discounting the riots which killed people, the axe attack, and the firebomb

And the ongoing trial for a planned attack on the newspaper:

Weapons expert Per Stougaard said that he never seen any thing quite like it in 25 years of police work. The bullets jammed, the magazine fell out and although the weapon was technically a machine gun, it was nearly impossible to get it to fire more than one round at a time.

“It can shoot, but it is not a good weapon,” said Stougaard.

That gun, along with another pistol and several hundred rounds of ammunition, was found in a backpack hidden in a rented Toyota Avensis that three of the suspects were driving when they were apprehended outside of Copenhagen in late December, 2010. The fourth suspect was rounded up at an apartment he had rented in Herlev.
...
A female Säpo agent said that she had directed an operation code-named 'Aqua' that gathered evidence that the four suspects were plotting to storm Jyllands-Posten's Copenhagen office with assault weapons. Evidence in the trial indicated that the 2010 Årets Fund, a high-profile sports awards ceremony that is held in the building, was the suspect’s likely target.

http://cphpost.dk/news/national/prosecution-rests-case-terror-trial

Or the Indian state cabinet minister who offered a 10 million dollar bounty for the beheading of a cartoonist.

At least five people have been killed in Afghanistan as protests against European cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad swept across the country.

Two people died when protesters turned on the US airbase at Bagram - although the US has had no involvement with the images, which originated in Denmark.

Meanwhile in Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4684652.stm

In September 2005, the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was asked by his newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to draw the prophet Muhammad "as you see him". He did, and it changed his life. The resulting cartoon was deemed blasphemous by hardline Muslims around the world and drew death threats. More than four years later, after Westergaard had already been forced to spend a harrowing few months on the run with his wife Gitte, a 28-year-old man of Somali origin forced his way into their home last Friday evening wielding an axe and a knife.

At the time, Westergaard was looking after his five-year-old granddaughter, Stephanie. He was confronted with a terrible choice: risk being killed in front of his granddaughter, or trust that the PET, Denmark's security and intelligence service, knew what they were talking about when they had told him terrorists usually don't harm family members but stick to their target.

Westergaard chose to escape into his bathroom, which had been specially fortified as a "panic room", while Stephanie was left sitting in the living room. From the bathroom he alerted the police as his assailant reportedly battered the reinforced door with the axe, shouting, "We will get our revenge!"

"Those minutes were horrible," Westergaard recalled yesterday. "But I think I have got through this fairly well – and so, it seems, did my grandchild. That, of course, is the main thing. I would not have been able to live with myself if something had happened to her."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/danish-cartoonist-axe-attack

The offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris have been destroyed in a petrol bomb attack.

It comes a day after the publication named the Prophet Muhammad as its "editor-in-chief" for its next issue.

The cover of the magazine carried a caricature of the Prophet making a facetious comment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350

Oh yes, remarkably peaceful, wouldn't you say?

[CrawlingChaos]

47. Yes, I stand by that statement

I said, "remarkably peaceful in the relative scheme of things".

You mean to tell me that given the amount of extreme provocation thrown at Muslims that the number of violent incidents isn't surprisingly small? If you say otherwise it will be impossible to take you seriously.

And I couldn't be less impressed with your links. First of all, the official accounts are going to be wildly spun to cast Muslims in the worst possible light. Second, do you think it's really just about cartoons? You've got one story there about protesters at Bagram, where countless Muslims endure unspeakable torture at the hands of westerners. I guess you think they should just take it quietly and complacently. I wonder how you'd react if you'd seen your family tortured and killed, or even lived with daily harassment and hostility for that matter. You wouldn't know what that's like, I'm guessing. Do you even care?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. You appear to be saying there is an 'offical' conspiracy against Muslims

"First of all, the official accounts are going to be wildly spun to cast Muslims in the worst possible light. "

It is I who cannot take you seriously, with a conspiracy theory like that.

"Second, do you think it's really just about cartoons?"

Yes, that protest at Bagram only happened because of the cartoons. Yes, they care more about the cartoons than about the torture. All I have listed is purely about cartoons - the Danish ones, or the Charlie Hebdo cover. The BBC news story also lists 2 deaths in Afghanistan but not at Bagram, a death in a Somali riot, petrol bombs in Denmark, an attack on the Austrian embassy in Tehran, the Norwegian embassy set on fire in Damascus, and an attack on the Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut. No, I do not call that 'surprisingly small'. There's a lot more - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy .

You think drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is "extreme provocation"? If you think a typical reaction would be violent, then your opinion of Muslims, or maybe of humans in general, is appallingly low.

[CrawlingChaos]

53. That's right, officials would never, ever lie to you (LOL)

Are you for real?

Here's my favorite part: "Yes, they care more about the cartoons than about the torture." As though the cartoons exist in a vacuum...

Honestly, you've left me speechless. Rarely have I read anything so patently absurd (and within this thread, that's saying a lot).

[Silent3]

60. What exactly are you calling a lie?

Are you claiming that these news accounts are fabricated?

Is the supposed "lie" a matter of emphasis? There aren't enough news reports of Muslims opening hospitals and feeding orphans to counterbalance the stories of planned armed raids on newspaper offices, thus a "lie" is created?

[CrawlingChaos]

61. I think it's pretty obvious what I meant

To give your facetious question more of an answer than it deserves...

All news stories from corporate-owned media should be viewed critically, but if they involve Muslims - particurly Muslims presented as a threat - they should be viewed with the highest degree of skepticism. It would be ridiculous to deny that MSM doesn't have an extreme anti-Muslim bias, and it would be equally ridiculous to claim that officials don't lie like rugs (i.e. FBI manufactured "terror plots&quot . This is the way war is sold to the public. You'd have to live in one hell of a denial bubble not to know this.

In those stories linked above, all of the deaths, if I'm not mistaken, were actually police killing people. But of course the stories are presented as "Muslim violence". We have no way of knowing what actually happened. So often we find out much later that official accounts were complete crap. Once you know a source is not trustworthy, their information is worth less than nothing.

I've heard Soviet citizens cultivated the skill of learning to sift bits of truth out of the massive sludgepile of lies and propaganda that was their news media. It's a skill we Americans desperately need to discover.

[Silent3]

63. No, it's not obvious what you meant

There's healthy skepticism, but there's also excessively conspiratorial thinking, and I think you've gone a bit beyond basic healthy skepticism.

Saying that you don't believe something doesn't tell me what you believe instead of the thing you disbelieve.

If you believe that people can safely draw Mohammed as much as they like, and display those image far and wide, and the only negative consequence will be the hurt feelings of offended but peaceful Muslims, you're living in a fantasy world.

[CrawlingChaos]

64. OK then, obvious to most reasonable people

I've said corporate-owned media is in the business of fearmongering and has shown it cannot be trusted as an accurate source for news, and you call this "excessively conspiratorial thinking". I've said official sources are proven serial liars, a statement which is demonstrably true, and you've called this "excessively conspiratorial thinking." I would say what you're displaying is authoritarian thinking, which is what the powers that be count on from the public in order to continue getting away with their crimes.

This statement strikes me as particularly ridiculous: "Saying that you don't believe something doesn't tell me what you believe instead of the thing you disbelieve." If I say I don't believe something (with entirely rational reasons for not believing it), why is it necessary for me to be able to insert some alternate theory for my skepticism to be valid? Talk about a non sequitur...

As to your last statement, why would anyone believe that drawing deliberately offensive, demeaning caricatures and flaunting them in the face of their intended target be an entirely safe activity? When has it ever been completely safe to taunt and insult people? I believe most reasonable people would say it's just stupid.

[Silent3]

65. Obviously your definition of "reasonable people"...

...differs greatly from mine. You don't have to be an authoritarian to be suspicious of excessive "THEY"-are-all-out-to-get-us suspicion.

Al Franken did a good job in one of his books (I forget which one right now) describing the problems with our major news sources these days. Those problems are real, and large grains of salt are often required, but other than built-as-propaganda outlets like Fox News, there isn't a whole lot of outright long-term goal-driven fabrication of stories out there.

There's laziness, sensationalism, poor fact checking, false "balance"... but the idea that reports of Muslim violence and threats instigated in response to mere cartoons is a media fabrication, when plenty of different news sources from different countries report these stories, as if their all one THEY in collusion to create a fictitious menace... that's where you go overboard into conspiratorial paranoia and leave the company of "reasonable people" yourself.

As to your last statement, why would anyone believe that drawing deliberately offensive, demeaning caricatures and flaunting them in the face of their intended target be an entirely safe activity? When has it ever been completely safe to taunt and insult people? I believe most reasonable people would say it's just stupid.

Which leads you right to my point. You're denying the stories of this violence, then admitting such violence is to be expected. If the violence to be expected, why would stories of it have to be made up?

If simply seeing a drawing Mohammed makes a person feel "demeaned" -- or maybe just hearing from someone else that such a drawing exists -- more than half the problem belongs to the person who lets that drawing get to them so much.

[CrawlingChaos]

66. We are miles apart, that's for sure

Once more, not that it will penetrate the fog:

1. "THEY" in this instance is not an amorphous, theoretical entity. They are the war profiteers - the military industrial complex, big oil and all those who shill for them. Did the Iraq war not demonstrate vividly enough what epic liars they are, and to what extent the lapdog press will shore up their lies? Poor fact checking, my ass!

2. I did not deny that Muslim violence occurs. OF COURSE IT WOULD. I did say that all things considered, the number of incidents is suprisingly small. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? It would be so refreshing if one of you guys piling on me here would argue honestly for once.

3. When violence does occur, it is often mischaracterized by the media. The links above involve police killings - how do we know if they were actually justified, rather than authorities bringing the hammer down on protestors with lethal force, as they so often do? Violence can also be the work of provocateurs, or those seeking to villify Muslims. Use of such tactics is very, very common (look at our own FBI). It could also, of course, be Muslim instigated, but it's a very safe bet that news accounts will not be truthful, to one degree or another. News outlets will not do anything to displease their paymasters, who have an enemy to sell us.

4. The one thing we sort of agree on is that it is possible to get closer to the truth by comparing news reports from around the world, however you can't just look at the various overseas arms of the same malignant machine - you have to look at independent news sources. This is a great way to discover that, yes, the info we're being fed is usually bullshit!

5. It cannot be over-emphasized (although you pretend not to hear it) that the drawings of Mohammed which caused offense were not just depictions - they were deeply insulting caricatures. The attack on the Dutch cartoonist was the act of ONE disturbed person and no one was even hurt (except the attacker himself). Yet the "threat" is overblown to such proportions that Muslim-bashers would have us believe that savage, marauding Muslims are a powder keg waiting to go off. It never occurs to you that Muslims just want to be left in peace.

[Silent3]

68. The "THEY" I'm referring to...

...is the "THEY" where the media and "the war profiteers" are all one in the same. Not merely war profiteers influencing some media outlets to some degree, but all one, vast THEY, marching in lockstep with one unified agenda.

2. I did not deny that Muslim violence occurs. OF COURSE IT WOULD. I did say that all things considered, the number of incidents is suprisingly small.

I don't think the number of incidents is huge -- and I've formed that impression that the number of incidence isn't huge simply by reading and viewing mainstream media accounts, stories written by the people who are supposedly lying to me all the time.

The number is simply big enough and focussed enough to intimidate many, many people to self-censor when they wouldn't otherwise, out of fear of reprisal. If that's a distortion that serves the interests of "the war profiteers", it equally serves the religious extremists, who get great bang-for-their-buck out of asymmetrical warfare.

You'd have a damned hard time making an Islam-focussed equivalent to a movie like "Life of Brian", for instance. That shouldn't be true, but it is true. You think that such fears would be unwarranted? A mere product of media manipulation with no basis in reality, the risk being so small from "rare events" that the risk would not be appreciably higher than the risk of making a religion-and-politics-free movie about a cute, fluffy talking dog?

[CrawlingChaos]

74. You actually said something I agree with

This (and only this) part of your post I agree with:

"If that's a distortion that serves the interests of "the war profiteers", it equally serves the religious extremists, who get great bang-for-their-buck out of asymmetrical warfare."

If we can agree that war serves religious extremists, as it always does, why would you want to help perpetuate the bogus fearmongering that helps perpetuate the endless wars that ultimately helps the religious extremists?

If you rearrange your priorities to place Muslims' right not to be slaughtered above your desire to see a Muslim-themed "Life of Brian" , I believe you'd see progress in all areas. That is, if your concern is sincere.

[Silent3]

76. Muslims will have to make not slaughtering each other a priority first...

...before much is accomplished. The greatest number of victims of Islamic extremism are followers of not quite the right brand of Islam. Certainly outside interests foment some of those conflicts, but if your sage advice about priorities is so great, why don't the people killing each other fix their own priorities, unite, and fight against the fomenters together?

In the meantime, I support politicians who are less likely than others to bang the war drums, protest those who are warmongers, I speak against military actions I disagree with -- short of jumping into politics or diplomacy myself, I do what I can.

In the meantime, there are real risks to people who dare offend the sensibilities of religious extremists, and a deliberate chilling effect created even when the feared violence doesn't go beyond death threats. Islamic extremists have certainly done quite a bit on their own without evil non-Islamic war profiteers having to stir them up. I don't considering recognizing facts of deliberate intimidation "perpetuating" anything.

Exactly how do you "rearrange your priorities" to stop Muslims from being slaughtered? Had much success yet? I simply understand intimidation and censorship a lot more than how to solve long-standing, very thorny problems of peace in the Middle East, problems which have thwarted smarter people with more power and influence than me. So I'm more likely to speak about what I understand more than what I don't, which is not at all the same as a prioritization of goals.

If you can record your activities for a week, measure the time spent on each, and sort the activities according to those times, see how well that sorting reflects your own priorities for world problems. I suspect you'll find you wouldn't want someone using tired old rhetorical tactics about priorities on you after you perform that exercise.

[CrawlingChaos]

79. Well that was a steaming pantload

Oh yeah right, if only they would stop killing each other... what disingenuous horseshit. I'll tell you how you rearrange your priorities - you start by being honest about the nature of the problem. You stop blaming the victim, and you stop swallowing and propagating the LIES of the aggressors. That's exactly what you're doing by suggesting that religious conflict is what's behind the persecution of Muslims. BULLSHIT. Religious conflict is a byproduct, not the root cause.

[Silent3]

80. You can't seem to help yourself from jumbling up bit and pieces that don't go together...

...until you have something to be angry about.

[ZombieHorde]

71. "the statistically least likely group to commit a terrorist act"

Less likely than Eskimos? Less likely than the Amish? Less likely than kindergarteners?

[CrawlingChaos]

72. I'm happy to clarify

When one assumes one is addressing reasonably intelligent adults, one does not normally expect to need the qualifier about Eskimos and kindergartners. But since that assumption proved bogus, the statement also does not include ballerinas, Pokemon card collectors, professional bowlers, ad infinitium.

To underscore my original point:

"The belief that Muslims are more likely than others to commit terrorism, however, is a myth. Europol reports that in 2010, out of 249 acts of terrorist violence in Europe, only 3 were attributable to Muslim extremists."

http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/salaita-dressing-like-a-terrorist.html

3 out of 249, and consider that figure along with with the incredible amount of provocation thrown at Muslims, and you'll understand why I used the term "remarkably peaceful".

[laconicsax]

73. It would do you some good to read the actual report being cited:

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf

On page 16 (PDF page 18) you can see that while there were only three Islamic terrorist acts in 2010, there were 179 arrests, 89 of which were for "preparation of terrorist attacks." So while radicalized Muslims may be unlikely to commit acts of terrorism, that rate of incidence is kept low by law enforcement intervention.

Either way, the rate of Islamic terrorist acts is immaterial to the fact that buildings were bombed, set ablaze, and stormed, over 100 people were killed, and hundreds more injured as part of the reaction to a satirical cartoon.

I find it incredibly distasteful how much you are trying to trivialize these deaths in this thread.

[CrawlingChaos]

75. Those numbers don't seem a trifle suspicious to you?

3 acts of terrorism and 89 foiled terror plots? Thats some mighty incredible police work going on there. One might say, unbelievable.

I'm not the one trivializing violent death here by displaying selective outrage. Nor am I the one advocating stupid acts of deliberate provocation. There is MUCH in this thread that is incredibly distasteful, starting with the racist imagery, which doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

[laconicsax]

78. You can't have it both ways.

The numbers I provided are from the same source as the ones you provided. Either the source is trustworthy and those are the numbers or it isn't and both my numbers and yours are wrong. You can't have it both ways.

You can't deny that some Muslims fly off the handle when it comes to cartoons and then turn around and call it an act "of deliberate provocation." Either the act of drawing an image of Muhammad has led to violence or it hasn't. You can't have it both ways.

Over 100 people died. Buildings were bombed and set ablaze. Death threats were made. All because a single person drew some cartoons.

[CrawlingChaos]

81. I'm not having it both ways

As I said earlier, because official sources and MSM are unreliable, the best you can hope to do is glean bits of information by cross-checking with other sources as best you can. It's one thing to report a terrorist attack, the occurance of which is verifiable (even if the identity of those responsible is often not), whereas it's possible to manufacture foiled terror plots all the live-long day. So if official sources say the number is 3, that's certainly the maximum number it could be. They're not going to err in favor of Muslims, that's for sure. We are constantly bombarded with anti-Muslim propaganda designed to make the public fear them and see them as an enemy.

One has to wonder why the police were so much less successful in thwarting the other 246 acts of terrorism. Where is the huge corresponding number of arrests? None of this passes the smell test.

[CrawlingChaos]

83. I heard similar things in the run-up to the Iraq war

When I called bullshit on that mess. Lots of people did.

Did you ever think your prejudices might be clouding your thinking?

And you'll note I referred to "official sources and MSM" - you might want to read before you snark.

[laconicsax]

84. *yawn*

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Instead of bitching about how unbelievable and untrustworthy everything is...

...you could perhaps provide evidence to support your claims.

You seem fairly confident in your skepticism of virtually every datum which has thus far been presented. I, and no doubt many others, would simply love to know where, pray tell, you are securing your non-mainstream, much more reliable information.

Do tell.

I wait in rapt attention.

[ZombieHorde]

77. That stat doesn't support your claim at all.

We cannot even use that stat to say, "of all the groups that committed terrorists acts in Europe, Muslims committed the fewest." If other 246 terrorists acts committed in Europe were each done by a different group, then Muslims would be committing terrorist acts 200% more often than all other groups that committed terrorist acts in Europe. Both your claim, and my hypothetical claim, are off because we are lacking the necessary info.


You misuse stats and then say I am not being reasonable? In my opinion, there is a difference between reasonable and gullible. The claim was unreasonable, and I wasn't gullible enough to buy it.

[laconicsax]

85. Don't bother, ZH.

They're way too far into the conspiratorial mindset to understand what you're saying.

[AlbertCat]

16. how many Muslims do you suppose want to kill people who draw pictures? Almost none,

Well, then... almost none will be offended if I draw a funny pic of Mohammed today, right?

So how is this offensive except to just a minority?


Besides, pointing out the absurdities of any religion shouldn't offend anyone. If your own religion offends you, maybe you should try something else.

[CrawlingChaos]

18. You would be deliberately hurtful and offensive to people who have not harmed you

And you think that's a good idea. Honestly, it's hard to know how to address that sort of ... thinking. Except to say it depresses the hell out of me.

I don't have any religion, but I would not wish to offend or belittle anyone, or support hatemongering in any of it's many forms, of which "Draw Mohammed Day" is one.

[AlbertCat]

20. support hatemongering

You don't mind calling me out on what you think is absurd about my "sort of.... thinking".
How is that different from pointing out drawing a picture of Mohammed is a stupid thing to get upset over?

Oh that's right... you know I won't care if you imply I'm a "hatemonger". Atheists never get offended, isn't that so? But please walk on eggshells around the religious! They are sooo sensitive.

[CrawlingChaos]

23. nonsensical post

So let me get this straight -- my objection to your taunting a particular group (an already hounded and persecuted group) is the equivalent of that same hurtful behavior?

I believe the word for that is sophistry (and a very clumsy attempt, I might add).

[AlbertCat]

32. sophistry

What I'm saying is I don't care if anyone draws a picture of Mohammed, and those who do need to get a life.



And I'm sure your oh-so-noble concern displayed here will make you feel just dandy.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Do you think everyone you offend wants to kill you?

That's pretty funny. If you really thought that, you'd probably be living in a bunker.

So how is this offensive except to just a minority?

I guess attacking minorities is OK with some. No bigotry there.

[trotsky]

25. Whom does blasphemy attack?

Are we to declare certain ideas and thoughts off-limits, lest someone get offended?

Is it OK to blaspheme the religion of the majority?

[Starboard Tack]

26. I guess that would depend on the one who blasphemes.

To my knowledge, only the devout can blaspheme. So, I guess they would be attacking their own beliefs.
Why would we declare any ideas and thoughts off limits? I see no reason.

You responded to a post where I was commenting on the following

So how is this offensive except to just a minority?

Do you think it is OK to be offensive to minorities?

[trotsky]

27. Your knowledge is incorrect, then.

Blasphemy is declared by the devout. One need not be devout to blaspheme. You should probably read up on that.

And now you've relabeled blasphemy as "being offensive to minorities" - well actually, you've backed off from your earlier comparison, which was "attacking minorities." Good. You're making progress.

So if Muslims become the majority faith one day, will it be OK to be offensive to them then? I'll repeat my earlier question - is it OK to blaspheme the majority religion?

[Starboard Tack]

33. I don't give a flying fuck who you blaspheme. It's your word, not mine.

Non existent gods cannot be offended. I do care about bigots who think it is OK to attack individuals or minorities based on their religious beliefs. I don't like haters, or faith baiters. How about you?

[cleanhippie]

34. Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?

You are taking this completely out of context and misrepresenting it (which some might
consider a kind of lie).

[Starboard Tack]

35. Obtuse, moi?

What would I be taking out of context? Some minorities are fair game and others aren't? Would that be the context?
I may detest people for their actions, but not for their beliefs.
Are you accusing me of lying?

[cleanhippie]

36. On second thought, it's just not worth it.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Good boy!

[trotsky]

37. We agree that gods cannot be offended.

What you don't seem to be able to understand is the difference between irreverence toward religious beliefs and "attack(ing) individuals or minorities."

They aren't the same. Though I do get a kick out of YOU using the word "hater."

[Starboard Tack]

38. I'm sure we agree on lot's of things. Damn, I would hope so, considering where we are.

What you don't seem to be able to understand is the difference between irreverence toward religious beliefs and "attack(ing) individuals or minorities."

I understand the difference very well. Do you?

Albert Cat said

So how is this offensive except to just a minority?

Now, how is that comment about religious beliefs? It clearly says that he considers it OK to be offensive toward some minorities, based on their beliefs. There are some Muslims who are offended to the point that they react atrociously. However, all devout Muslims are offended.
Hatred of others because of their beliefs, or lack thereof, is what causes so many of humanity's problems. Tolerance and acceptance of others, regardless of their beliefs is progressive. Ridicule the beliefs and the actions, not the person for his spiritual beliefs.
I'm glad you get a "kick" out of my use of the word HATER. I can't think of anyone that I hate, though I do hate the methods some resort to in order to make a point. I don't tolerate intolerance and bigotry well and am willing to point it out when I see it.

[trotsky]

40. I really don't care what someone else said, and I don't care to defend your spin on what they meant.

A cartoon insults religious beliefs, NOT people. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, nor does any religious believer. It's the price they have to pay for NOT living in a theocracy.

Why consider the threads about the Woonsocket cross memorial. The general consensus in this very forum was that offended atheists (a minority - gasp!) need to STFU and get over it. Now even though that's not so much a matter of being offended but rather being concerned about the separation of church and state, why the double standard?

"So how is this offensive except to just a minority?"

Same could have been said about the memorial. I wonder what the reaction would be then. Would you be as upset? Would anyone give a flying fuck if atheists were the ones offended?

[Starboard Tack]

42. If you don't care what someone else said, why are you here?

This is a place where most of us come to share our thoughts and listen to others, as part of our own education and growth.
It is not a place to single out individuals or groups of individuals for their faith or beliefs, except when they inject those beliefs into the public and political arena. It then becomes acceptable to criticize their actions and policies, but attacking their personal faith is counter productive. There are some here who continually resort to personal insults, mockery, ridicule and personal attacks against other members, purely because of their beliefs. Their motives seem to be more directed towards inflaming and dividing, rather than finding common ground with our political brothers and sisters.

[trotsky]

43. Ah yes, I figured it was time for you to pull out that trick.

There are definitely people who do that - who use abusive, accusatory language in a post and then refuse to edit it, even when asked. I myself have edited text when my use of a hypothetical pronoun offended, but some don't feel that need, and prefer to attack, inflame, and divide.

Now with regards to the topic at hand, I do not believe in censorship to protect the sensitivities of particular religious believers. Perhaps you do. But that is definitely not a world I want to live in.

I wonder why you had no comment about the Woonsocket memorial as it pertains to another offended minority?

Meh, have a great day anyway!

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. This is not a depiction of Mohammed

but that didn't stop some Islamic fanatics, including the leader of The Islamic Society of Denmark, blurring it and then claiming it was, as part of their campaign to stir up hatred after the Danish cartoons were published.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x359689

Fuck all those who call for violence; especially those who break their own supposedly rigid rules about the depiction of Mohammed just for the sake of inciting hate.

[Starboard Tack]

22. +1. Fuck all who call for violence

And fuck all bigots too.

[Silent3]

10. @:-D>

Can't forget the beard!

[dmallind]

12. We don't need to when Muslims have done it so well and so often throughout history

Plus - I suck at drawing.

[backscatter712]

13. I almost forgot - we need to remember Hamza Kashgari

He had fled Saudi Arabia after publishing the following tweets:

On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.
On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.
On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you've always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

When his plane made a stopover in Malaysia, he was arrested, and deported back to Saudi Arabia, where he was charged with blasphemy, which carries the death penalty.

And just for that, I'm going to post another picture...

[OriginalGeek]

17. ASCII Mohammed

is asciing for it!