PM is distressed

[Wilber]

Better late than never BHS. Well put

[Spike22]

Too bad the muslims are such a sour bunch and have their towels in such a knot. Relax people it is only a bloody cartoon. Goes to show how easy it is to get some foks riled up.

[Spike22]

Too bad the muslims are such a sour bunch and have their towels in such a knot. Relax people it is only a bloody cartoon. Goes to show how easy it is to get some folks riled up.

[na85]

From the soldier's article:

By infringing on other people's freedoms of belief, religion or thought, as an expression of our own freedoms -- what have we accomplished? I truly hope that this isn't the kind of society that we are becoming.

He's talking about infringing on someone's freedoms of belief. That hasn't happened. As far as I know, the cartoons haven't tried to stop anyone from believing in Islam.

Is it truly an offense against freedom of religion?

[Army Guy]

Another view.

My Webpage

And who said there is no profit to be made from cartons.

My Webpage

[BubberMiley]

Doesn't that kind of article belong to the likes of Penthouse or gay mags? I was offended...especially when there was no warning at all that what I was about to read while having my breakfast was something about slurping penises.

I think that kind of article belongs in whatever publication decides to print it. Saying they can't denies them freedom of the press. But I don't think they should put penis slurpers on the front page, because I know some people are for some reason offended by that. I don't think it jeopardizes freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and take those peoples' delicate sensibilities into consideration. Same-same.

[Wilber]

Doesn't that kind of article belong to the likes of Penthouse or gay mags? I was offended...especially when there was no warning at all that what I was about to read while having my breakfast was something about slurping penises.

I think that kind of article belongs in whatever publication decides to print it. Saying they can't denies them freedom of the press. But I don't think they should put penis slurpers on the front page, because I know some people are for some reason offended by that. I don't think it jeopardizes freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and take those peoples' delicate sensibilities into consideration. Same-same.

Do you think suicide bombers take other peoples sensibilities into consideration? Get real. A cartoon about people blowing other people up and the fact people are killing and burning allegedly because of that cartoon is news. Pornography is not news, gay or otherwise unless it is someone being caught dealing in something like child pornography.

[BubberMiley]

Do you think suicide bombers take other peoples sensibilities into consideration? Get real. A cartoon about people blowing other people up and the fact people are killing and burning allegedly because of that cartoon is news. Pornography is not news, gay or otherwise unless it is someone being caught dealing in something like child pornography.

Okay, Abu Gharib is news. Do you want more bananas in prisoner's butts on the front page? (Actually updated reports say it might have been a pear.) What it comes down to, once again, is the fact that your only reason for wanting to see the cartoons printed is because you equate all muslims with suicide bombers or radical danish-flagburners, and want to instigate a fight with them. Once again, I'm equating that position with the position of those radicals (not the actions, the position): y'all just want to start a good ol' war.

[Wilber]

Do you think suicide bombers take other peoples sensibilities into consideration? Get real. A cartoon about people blowing other people up and the fact people are killing and burning allegedly because of that cartoon is news. Pornography is not news, gay or otherwise unless it is someone being caught dealing in something like child pornography.

Okay, Abu Gharib is news. Do you want more bananas in prisoner's butts on the front page? (Actually updated reports say it might have been a pear.) What it comes down to, once again, is the fact that your only reason for wanting to see the cartoons printed is because you equate all muslims with suicide bombers or radical danish-flagburners, and want to instigate a fight with them. Once again, I'm equating that position with the position of those radicals (not the actions, the position): y'all just want to start a good ol' war.

On the contrary, I can separate most Muslims from the suicide bombers. To me those cartoons are only about the suicide bombers. I don't see these people as Muslims, I see them as a fanatical group who uses a religion as an excuse for their actions. They are not the first to do so, Christianity has had it's share in the past. The war started some time ago, or didn't you notice?

Why is it you and Army Guy keep associating things with gross sexual acts. I'm starting to wonder about you.

[betsy]

Doesn't that kind of article belong to the likes of Penthouse or gay mags? I was offended...especially when there was no warning at all that what I was about to read while having my breakfast was something about slurping penises.

I think that kind of article belongs in whatever publication decides to print it. Saying they can't denies them freedom of the press. But I don't think they should put penis slurpers on the front page, because I know some people are for some reason offended by that. I don't think it jeopardizes freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and take those peoples' delicate sensibilities into consideration. Same-same.

Not in this case with the penis slurpers, I don't think it jeopardized freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and talk those people's sensibilities into consideration. I agree with you.

But this incident is not exactly the same as the cartoons being discussed here in this forum.

No one was threatening, violently protesting and demanding that it MUST NOT be published...and no one stands in what seems like morale-boosting support behind these violent protesters saying that it shouldn't be published. The circumstances and climate surrounding these two incidents are not the same.

[betsy]

Do you think suicide bombers take other peoples sensibilities into consideration? Get real. A cartoon about people blowing other people up and the fact people are killing and burning allegedly because of that cartoon is news. Pornography is not news, gay or otherwise unless it is someone being caught dealing in something like child pornography.

Okay, Abu Gharib is news. Do you want more bananas in prisoner's butts on the front page? (Actually updated reports say it might have been a pear.) What it comes down to, once again, is the fact that your only reason for wanting to see the cartoons printed is because you equate all muslims with suicide bombers or radical danish-flagburners, and want to instigate a fight with them. Once again, I'm equating that position with the position of those radicals (not the actions, the position): y'all just want to start a good ol' war.

But these are cartoons...not real photos!

Every editorial cartoons as far as I can remember are poking fun at serious issues or particular people, which can be insulting and offensive to the person being satired. They are satiricial.

[BubberMiley]

But these are cartoons...not real photos!

What? Photos are gonna jump out and bite you? You're saying people should only be concerned with what offends you and nobody else?

[Spike22]

Next you are all going to tell me porno is going to be banned. What next the koran, bible, Mad comics.

[geoffrey]

But these are cartoons...not real photos!

What? Photos are gonna jump out and bite you? You're saying people should only be concerned with what offends you and nobody else?

That is what the muslims are saying.

[BubberMiley]

No one was threatening, violently protesting and demanding that it MUST NOT be published...and no one stands in what seems like morale-boosting support behind these violent protesters saying that it shouldn't be published. The circumstances and climate surrounding these two incidents are not the same.

But if a group of radical christians protested, burned the Canadian flag, and became violent at the sight of penis slurpers in the National Post, would that be a reason to include penis slurping in all the dailies? And would it be morale-boosting to the hooligans to say "C'mon, enough with the penis slurping!"?

[Wilber]

No one was threatening, violently protesting and demanding that it MUST NOT be published...and no one stands in what seems like morale-boosting support behind these violent protesters saying that it shouldn't be published. The circumstances and climate surrounding these two incidents are not the same.

But if a group of radical christians protested, burned the Canadian flag, and became violent at the sight of penis slurpers in the National Post, would that be a reason to include penis slurping in all the dailies? And would it be morale-boosting to the hooligans to say "C'mon, enough with the penis slurping!"?

Just who was it that put penis slurping at the same level as blowing up a bus full of innocent people? I didn't know it was that dangerous.

[betsy]

But these are cartoons...not real photos!

What? Photos are gonna jump out and bite you? You're saying people should only be concerned with what offends you and nobody else?

Well I don't get it what you're really on about. I'm answering to the question you put if we want Abu Gharib butt photos....and I say, you cannot compare the two. First of all, one is real-life photo and the other one is a cartoon. Ssecond the cartoons are meant to be satirical.

Even though it is irrelevant, should the Abu Gharib torture scene as the one you described above be lampooned as a cartoon...who do you think will be more offended, insulted and ridiculed?

The reader or the one being shown with the pear?

If it does appears as an editorial cartoon, it will only support my stance that editorial cartoons and comments foster a wide discussion and various angles to be explored. You could see it now during coffee break at a staff room. One points at the Abu Gharib cartoon to co-workers but there will be various interpretations and reactions toward it.

Some would look at it as a satirical criticism showing disapproval of torture methods, others may think "oh well, they deserve what they get" ...another will shake his head in disbelief, "But that's just cartoon! It's an exageration!"...while another will say, "Oh they shouldn't print this kind of trash! I don't wanna see a pear being used that way!" And they start debating!

One will most assuredly launch an attack on Bush!

So there you go. A discussion going...the editorial cartoon did what it's supposed to do!

[betsy]

No one was threatening, violently protesting and demanding that it MUST NOT be published...and no one stands in what seems like morale-boosting support behind these violent protesters saying that it shouldn't be published. The circumstances and climate surrounding these two incidents are not the same.

But if a group of radical christians protested, burned the Canadian flag, and became violent at the sight of penis slurpers in the National Post, would that be a reason to include penis slurping in all the dailies? And would it be morale-boosting to the hooligans to say "C'mon, enough with the penis slurping!"?

But that's it, isn't it? No christians ever protested burning a Canadian or any flag and became violent at the sight of things they considered immoral...not even during circumstances where insults and ridicule were directed at our God. You don't see thousands marching and shouting in anger, threatening about bloodshed!

Whereas the most important issue you are purposefully ignoring is the fact that these radical violent protesters marching now have continually shown that they do practice what they preach....I guess those beheadings, fatwas and suicide bombings do not count?

Why are you ignoring those facts?

[Hicksey]

No one was threatening, violently protesting and demanding that it MUST NOT be published...and no one stands in what seems like morale-boosting support behind these violent protesters saying that it shouldn't be published. The circumstances and climate surrounding these two incidents are not the same.

But if a group of radical christians protested, burned the Canadian flag, and became violent at the sight of penis slurpers in the National Post, would that be a reason to include penis slurping in all the dailies? And would it be morale-boosting to the hooligans to say "C'mon, enough with the penis slurping!"?

But that's it, isn't it? No christians ever protested burning a Canadian or any flag and became violent at the sight of things they considered immoral...not even during circumstances where insults and ridicule were directed at our God. You don't see thousands marching and shouting in anger, threatening about bloodshed!

Whereas the most important issue you are purposefully ignoring is the fact that these radical violent protesters marching now have continually shown that they do practice what they preach....I guess those beheadings, fatwas and suicide bombings do not count?

Why are you ignoring those facts?

Because they aren't particularly useful to those who seek to be apologists for the lunacy over a bunch of cartoons.

[BubberMiley]

I'm not ignoring it, condoning it, or apologizing for it. I just don't see how it's relevant what a few wing-nuts do. Remember, there are well over a billion muslims in the world and most of them are quietly offended by those cartoons. I don't see how it's a big sacrifice on our part to respect their wish that it not be published, just as I would respect others' wishes to not have to be exposed to penis slurpers in the Post or Abu Gharib torture pictures.

[Army Guy]

Betsy:

But that's it, isn't it? No christians ever protested burning a Canadian or any flag and became violent at the sight of things they considered immoral...not even during circumstances where insults and ridicule were directed at our God. You don't see thousands marching and shouting in anger, threatening about bloodshed!

I'm assuming your talking about Canadain christians and not the christians mention in the Below link.

My Webpage

So when this is all over ,and said and done they are going to be sitting down trying to figure out just all this got started. and recorded in history it will read that the begining of this conflict was started with the printing of a cartoon. yes ladies and gentlemen a cartoon. And The survivors will be sitting on top of a pile of dead buddies saying we showed them bastards did'nt we. Them muslim dinks, what a bunch of cry babies. burn my church down will ya.

And we will be shouting from the roof tops, Martha grab me my shotgun were going hunting.

[Spike22]

Betsy:

But that's it, isn't it? No christians ever protested burning a Canadian or any flag and became violent at the sight of things they considered immoral...not even during circumstances where insults and ridicule were directed at our God. You don't see thousands marching and shouting in anger, threatening about bloodshed!

I'm assuming your talking about Canadain christians and not the christians mention in the Below link.

My Webpage

So when this is all over ,and said and done they are going to be sitting down trying to figure out just all this got started. and recorded in history it will read that the begining of this conflict was started with the printing of a cartoon. yes ladies and gentlemen a cartoon. And The survivors will be sitting on top of a pile of dead buddies saying we showed them bastards did'nt we. Them muslim dinks, what a bunch of cry babies. burn my church down will ya.

And we will be shouting from the roof tops, Martha grab me my shotgun were going hunting.

We have our towel hats standing by just in case.

[Wilber]

"Oh they shouldn't print this kind of trash! I don't wanna see a pear being used that way!"

OMG we'll have fruit growers rioting and burning down Safeways because they are selling pears to the US military.

I thought all this started with 9/11 or was it the first time these maniacs tried to blow up the World Trade Center back in 93. When people are more upset about a cartoon aimed at creeps who blow up loaded busses, shopping areas, night clubs, embassy's and wedding party's, than they are about those who commit these acts, it's already too late.

[Spike22]

"Oh they shouldn't print this kind of trash! I don't wanna see a pear being used that way!"

OMG we'll have fruit growers rioting and burning down Safeways because they are selling pears to the US military.

I thought all this started with 9/11 or was it the first time these maniacs tried to blow up the World Trade Center back in 93. When people are more upset about a cartoon aimed at creeps who blow up loaded busses, shopping areas, night clubs, embassy's and wedding party's, than they are about those who commit these acts, it's already too late.

Maniacs or freaks - whatever, they should be eradicated with all the rest of the vermin...

[Army Guy]

Wilber:

I thought all this started with 9/11 or was it the first time these maniacs tried to blow up the World Trade Center back in 93. When people are more upset about a cartoon aimed at creeps who blow up loaded busses, shopping areas, night clubs, embassy's and wedding party's, than they are about those who commit these acts, it's already too late

It was'nt aimed at just those radical muslims, it was aimed at all muslims and thier religion something they believe deeply in.

These cartoons are proving to be just as deadly as any bomb planted by those radical muslims. And it is being used by both sides. By the west for profits and what some think as promoting "freedom of speech" and by the radicals to incite violence and recruitment. and until one side backs down it will continue to boil over. The question is ,is it all worth it?

And if it is all worth it why wait why show control why show common sense and respect "thats for the weak" lets crank up the presses and pump this shit out every where lets really stir the pot, get them really worked up. or better yet screw the middle man lets just bomb something. Because it's all about our freedom to insult "sorry" our freedom of speech.