so english speaking countries refuse to show depictions of muhammed after all

I'd like to provide a little context here.

There is nothing that justifies the use of violence against reporters. Nothing, ever, period. That doesn't change the fact that those cartoons never should have been published, and I'll tell you why.

There is a legitimate sense of fear and distrust in the middle east towards the west. The west has, for the last 60 years, supported brutal tyrants and repressive monarchies in the middle east - and middle eastern people know that. Westerners like to forget about the fact that Saddam was America's puppet, or that the CIA trained Bin Laden - but they know that stuff in the middle east. They haven't forgotten.

The USA likes to brag about their support for the coup in 1953 that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, for example. The CIA still brags about it as an example of a perfectly executed operation.
The brutal, US supported monarchy that replaced Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown in 1979, and now we have the Iran of today. People in the middle east know that, they haven't forgotten, and they aren't happy about it.

Many people in the middle east tend to know that the USA sent money and weapons to support the savage regime of Saddam Hussein. They know the USA supports the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, another brutal and repressive monarchy. They know the USA supported Mubarak in Egypt. People know these facts. They know the west has a history of almost uniformly supporting dictators and tyrants in the middle east.

People also know that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan. The USA invaded Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden, so their invasion was launched under a bullshit pretext. Soon after that invasion, another invasion, in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - that's the second invasion of a middle eastern country launched for no good reason inside 10 years.

So for the last 60 years the west been supporting brutal tyrants in the middle east. In the last 15 years the leader of the free world, the USA, has committed two major war crimes by invading two middle eastern countries without the backing of the United Nations and without a proper pretext.

Maybe American's don't care about international law, but weaker, more defenseless countries *do*. People in those regions become especially enraged when the west breaks international law in a way that causes pain to their families.

Now they see western newspapers mocking their prophet, their culture and their entire belief system. Those newspapers should never have printed those cartoons - and not because "it's wrong to offend Islam", but because given the context we're operating in here, it's extremely distasteful to print trite garbage like that. It's like shooting someone and stealing their things, then mocking them and spitting on them.

Those newspapers had every right to print those cartoons consequence free, but they should never have printed them in the first place, for the reasons I listed above.

Muhammad+was+a+pedophile+_28708bbc01c692716dab3e051bd32362.jpg


Crybaby_Muhammad.jpg


porky.mohammed.jpg
 
From what I heard, the CIA had absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden's group. His funding all came from the Saudis and Pakistan. Even back then he was a hardline extremist.
 
National post in Canada posted some of the original cartoons, not sure about the new one.
 
I'd like to provide a little context here.

There is nothing that justifies the use of violence against reporters. Nothing, ever, period. That doesn't change the fact that those cartoons never should have been published, and I'll tell you why.

There is a legitimate sense of fear and distrust in the middle east towards the west. The west has, for the last 60 years, supported brutal tyrants and repressive monarchies in the middle east - and middle eastern people know that. Westerners like to forget about the fact that Saddam was America's puppet, or that the CIA trained Bin Laden - but they know that stuff in the middle east. They haven't forgotten.

The USA likes to brag about their support for the coup in 1953 that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, for example. The CIA still brags about it as an example of a perfectly executed operation.
The brutal, US supported monarchy that replaced Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown in 1979, and now we have the Iran of today. People in the middle east know that, they haven't forgotten, and they aren't happy about it.

Many people in the middle east tend to know that the USA sent money and weapons to support the savage regime of Saddam Hussein. They know the USA supports the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, another brutal and repressive monarchy. They know the USA supported Mubarak in Egypt. People know these facts. They know the west has a history of almost uniformly supporting dictators and tyrants in the middle east.

People also know that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan. The USA invaded Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden, so their invasion was launched under a bullshit pretext. Soon after that invasion, another invasion, in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - that's the second invasion of a middle eastern country launched for no good reason inside 10 years.

So for the last 60 years the west been supporting brutal tyrants in the middle east. In the last 15 years the leader of the free world, the USA, has committed two major war crimes by invading two middle eastern countries without the backing of the United Nations and without a proper pretext.

Maybe American's don't care about international law, but weaker, more defenseless countries *do*. People in those regions become especially enraged when the west breaks international law in a way that causes pain to their families.

Now they see western newspapers mocking their prophet, their culture and their entire belief system. Those newspapers should never have printed those cartoons - and not because "it's wrong to offend Islam", but because given the context we're operating in here, it's extremely distasteful to print trite garbage like that. It's like shooting someone and stealing their things, then mocking them and spitting on them.

Those newspapers had every right to print those cartoons consequence free, but they should never have printed them in the first place, for the reasons I listed above.

Well said, you speak the truth and I agree.
 
I'd like to provide a little context here.

There is nothing that justifies the use of violence against reporters. Nothing, ever, period. That doesn't change the fact that those cartoons never should have been published, and I'll tell you why.

There is a legitimate sense of fear and distrust in the middle east towards the west. The west has, for the last 60 years, supported brutal tyrants and repressive monarchies in the middle east - and middle eastern people know that. Westerners like to forget about the fact that Saddam was America's puppet, or that the CIA trained Bin Laden - but they know that stuff in the middle east. They haven't forgotten.

The USA likes to brag about their support for the coup in 1953 that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, for example. The CIA still brags about it as an example of a perfectly executed operation.
The brutal, US supported monarchy that replaced Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown in 1979, and now we have the Iran of today. People in the middle east know that, they haven't forgotten, and they aren't happy about it.

Many people in the middle east tend to know that the USA sent money and weapons to support the savage regime of Saddam Hussein. They know the USA supports the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, another brutal and repressive monarchy. They know the USA supported Mubarak in Egypt. People know these facts. They know the west has a history of almost uniformly supporting dictators and tyrants in the middle east.

People also know that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan. The USA invaded Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden, so their invasion was launched under a bullshit pretext. Soon after that invasion, another invasion, in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - that's the second invasion of a middle eastern country launched for no good reason inside 10 years.

So for the last 60 years the west been supporting brutal tyrants in the middle east. In the last 15 years the leader of the free world, the USA, has committed two major war crimes by invading two middle eastern countries without the backing of the United Nations and without a proper pretext.

Maybe American's don't care about international law, but weaker, more defenseless countries *do*. People in those regions become especially enraged when the west breaks international law in a way that causes pain to their families.

Now they see western newspapers mocking their prophet, their culture and their entire belief system. Those newspapers should never have printed those cartoons - and not because "it's wrong to offend Islam", but because given the context we're operating in here, it's extremely distasteful to print trite garbage like that. It's like shooting someone and stealing their things, then mocking them and spitting on them.

Those newspapers had every right to print those cartoons consequence free, but they should never have printed them in the first place, for the reasons I listed above.



From that wall of text and sig, I sense a Muslim. How is the deal for 72 virgins going? :rolleyes:

I hate all religions, it's not your "given right" I should respect. It's your f*cking opinion on what happens after your brain stops working(insert a punchline).

I do not respect people's opinions who believe in thousand year old bullsh*t and nonsensical garbage.


As to Muslims getting invaded by U.S...and prior by British- that's just the way the cookie crumbles. American public is too stupid and keeps voting in MIS bribees. Religion is also a great reason for that- religion is always to blame. It lets stupid flourish.
 
Or not being allowed to depict Muhammad is an incredibly stupid idea and that it should be shown how ridiculous Muslims are for thinking that.

You're right, it's incredibly stupid to tell people they aren't allowed to depict Muhammed as a cartoon. People should never, ever be hurt for doing something like that.

It's also horrible to make up lies and use them as excuses to bomb and invade countries. (Saddam had no WMD's and Osama was not in Afghanistan.) It's never OK to use violence to invade peoples lands and take their natural resources. The west has done that, people in the middle east know that we have, and they think we're mocking and laughing at Middle Eastern culture while simultaneously pilfering the region of it's wealth. That's where a large portion of this rage is coming from, that's a good reason for news stations to refuse to publish these images.




From that wall of text and sig, I sense a Muslim. How is the deal for 72 virgins going? :rolleyes:

I hate all religions, it's not your "given right" I should respect. It's your f*cking opinion on what happens after your brain stops working(insert a punchline).

I do not respect people's opinions who believe in thousand year old bullsh*t and nonsensical garbage.


As to Muslims getting invaded by U.S...and prior by British- that's just the way the cookie crumbles. American public is too stupid and keeps voting in MIS bribees. Religion is also a great reason for that- religion is always to blame. It lets stupid flourish.

I'm a white Canadian agnostic. My quote is from the bible. If you're willing to completely dismiss 60 years of western violence and two very active and recent wars as "the way the cookie crumbles" then that is very unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see the Ultimate Stupid Death Match between the Evangelical Bible Belt and Radical Islam.
 
Yeah National Post printed the new cover as well

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...or-whats-likely-to-be-its-biggest-issue-ever/

Good for them

Also people I know everyone loves to mention how US and west supported Saddam. Some time see the order of battle in 1991 war. Notice something? Like thousands of Soviet tanks? Or Scud missiles or half the Airforce using Migs, or whole inventory of the anti tank weapons or all of the artillery pieces?
 
I'd like to provide a little context here.

There is nothing that justifies the use of violence against reporters. Nothing, ever, period. That doesn't change the fact that those cartoons never should have been published, and I'll tell you why.

That makes sense up until the point that the actions of the governments of the west have nothing to do with me or the people drawing cartoons. Imperialistic government that I disagree with and can't control isn't a reason I (or anyone else of a free mind) should sacrifice my right to express my beliefs. I believe Islam (like any other organized religion) is a bunch of bullshit and demanding nobody depict their icon is a rule that calls out to be broken. And this would be true regardless of 9/11 and the subsequent stupidity.

In short, fuck these extremists. If I could make the deal for them to stay away from my culture and me stay away from there's then I would.
 
I'd like to provide a little context here.

There is nothing that justifies the use of violence against reporters. Nothing, ever, period. That doesn't change the fact that those cartoons never should have been published, and I'll tell you why.

There is a legitimate sense of fear and distrust in the middle east towards the west. The west has, for the last 60 years, supported brutal tyrants and repressive monarchies in the middle east - and middle eastern people know that. Westerners like to forget about the fact that Saddam was America's puppet, or that the CIA trained Bin Laden - but they know that stuff in the middle east. They haven't forgotten.

The USA likes to brag about their support for the coup in 1953 that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, for example. The CIA still brags about it as an example of a perfectly executed operation.
The brutal, US supported monarchy that replaced Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown in 1979, and now we have the Iran of today. People in the middle east know that, they haven't forgotten, and they aren't happy about it.

Many people in the middle east tend to know that the USA sent money and weapons to support the savage regime of Saddam Hussein. They know the USA supports the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, another brutal and repressive monarchy. They know the USA supported Mubarak in Egypt. People know these facts. They know the west has a history of almost uniformly supporting dictators and tyrants in the middle east.

People also know that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan. The USA invaded Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden, so their invasion was launched under a bullshit pretext. Soon after that invasion, another invasion, in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - that's the second invasion of a middle eastern country launched for no good reason inside 10 years.

So for the last 60 years the west been supporting brutal tyrants in the middle east. In the last 15 years the leader of the free world, the USA, has committed two major war crimes by invading two middle eastern countries without the backing of the United Nations and without a proper pretext.

Maybe American's don't care about international law, but weaker, more defenseless countries *do*. People in those regions become especially enraged when the west breaks international law in a way that causes pain to their families.

Now they see western newspapers mocking their prophet, their culture and their entire belief system. Those newspapers should never have printed those cartoons - and not because "it's wrong to offend Islam", but because given the context we're operating in here, it's extremely distasteful to print trite garbage like that. It's like shooting someone and stealing their things, then mocking them and spitting on them.

Those newspapers had every right to print those cartoons consequence free, but they should never have printed them in the first place, for the reasons I listed above.

but what does any of this have to do with islam? religion had nothing to do with those acts you are talking about. foreign policy is not dicated by a country's religion. these folks in the middle-east need to understand this.
 
Do you know the reasoning behind it?

Reasoning?

I think you used the wrong word.

REASONING

Definition : the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

It's a muslim law which is there for muslims to follow. Nothing to do with the rest of us and certainly nothing to do with reasoning or logic.
 
but what does any of this have to do with islam? religion had nothing to do with those acts you are talking about. foreign policy is not dicated by a country's religion. these folks in the middle-east need to understand this.

Well, my post is about how Middle Eastern news agency's are covering this tragedy. People have been criticizing them for not showing the proper mournful deference that most show after events like these.TS was also saying that English speaking papers should be printing these cartoons. I was just trying to explain that many people in the Middle East believe the west is mocking and laughing at Middle Eastern culture with cartoons, while simultaneously using violence to pilfer Middle Eastern nations of their natural resources.

Nothing justifies violence and I don't want anyone to think that's what I'm trying to say, because it isn't. I'm just trying to provide a bit of context here, there are reasons beyond "insane support for Jihad!" that help explain why this tragedy is being reported on differently by different news outlets.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see the Ultimate Stupid Death Match between the Evangelical Bible Belt and Radical Islam.

I would like to see you finish your Devry degree and move out of your moms basement.

I think your wish will come true before mine.
 
apparently it wasn't printed anywhere in australia. some cartoons were shown on sky tv on 1 show only though.
islam have been bullying the west for 14 years or so, and it's working for them.
 
The Guardian put it up, which seems to be a reversal for them .... good for them I say. They rightly say they are reporting on it as *news*, rather than endorsing its *content*, which is 100% the way it should be done. Media is not obligated to endorse Charlie Hebdo's political views, but they *are* obligated to accurately report the news and not self-censor (assuming they claim to be part of a free and responsible press).

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad
 
woow this is getting pathetic. The guy is dead....showing some silly cartoons just to piss people off isnt getting him back. Get over it already. 20 people died and people act like this is the worst tragedy in history. Its sad what happened, but its becoming to much now
 
woow this is getting pathetic. The guy is dead....showing some silly cartoons just to piss people off isnt getting him back. Get over it already. 20 people died and people act like this is the worst tragedy in history. Its sad what happened, but its becoming to much now

I'll agree to this to an extent . . .

Was in church on Sunday (the 2nd time in months) and its a huge Christian interdenominational church. The pastor brought up the Hedbo tragedy and everyone prayed silently. The irony was, right in front of me looked to be 2 recent African immigrants (of many in the church) who quite likely could have been from Nigeria. I kept waiting for the pastor to mention something regarding the thousands of recent deaths at the hands of Boko Haram and yet nary a comment. It was embarrassing and sad tbh.
 
Back
Top