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

[jimbob27]

Why do you think they come here? To escape the dictators that we support, in many instances! If you're an immigrant, well, you might not like that the west supported Saddam but if you get the chance to escape his rule and go somewhere else, you'll usually take it. People choose to come here because we have wealth and opportunity here.

Where does our wealth come from, btw? If someone asked you "why are some countries poor and some countries rich" could you answer them? Just a question, because many, many people have a hard time answering that question.

Trade and infrastructure are what makes countries rich. The better the infrastructure the more money a country can generate so it's a self perpetuating cycle. Natural resources help but aren't necessary. Countries like Japan and Switzerland have thrived with comparatively few resources.

Poor countries either have economic sanctions fucking up their trade, hemorrhage money due to national debt, or have poor infrastructure due to war.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

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.

A French magazine and a Danish newspaper shouldn't have

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

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.

A French magazine and a Danish newspaper shouldn't have printed depictions of Muhammad because of the laundry list of American interventions in Islamic lands? Certainly, France had Algeria. But has Denmark been actively meddling and subjugating in Muslim lands? Or is "The West" all the same to you?

The thing is, all these "I'm not justifying the shooting, but" statements are sickening. They are akin to your typical, "I'm not racist, but" nonsense. The shooting was wrong. Period. If you want to slander a prophet, anyone's prophet, do it. This was France. If you don't like Western ideals that value freedom of expression, write a letter to the editor. Leave. Just don't murder a bunch of in innocent people. I'm sick of this, "it was wrong, but freedom of speech has consequences" bullshit. No. Death is not an acceptable consequence for criticizing a religion.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

This has already happened before with the danish cartoons

 

[Perfidious]

Here is Mohammed riding his mystical human-headed horse to the 'furthest mosque'

Beautiful.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

A French magazine and a Danish newspaper shouldn't have printed depictions of Muhammad because of the laundry list of American interventions in Islamic lands? Certainly, France had Algeria. But has Denmark been actively meddling and subjugating in Muslim lands? Or is "The West" all the same to you?

The thing is, all these "I'm not justifying the shooting, but" statements are sickening. They are akin to your typical, "I'm not racist, but" nonsense. The shooting was wrong. Period. If you want to slander a prophet, anyone's prophet, do it. This was France. If you don't like Western ideals that value freedom of expression, write a letter to the editor. Leave. Just don't murder a bunch of in innocent people. I'm sick of this, "it was wrong, but freedom of speech has consequences" bullshit. No. Death is not an acceptable consequence for criticizing a religion.

There is nothing that justifies the use of violence against reporters. Nothing, ever, period. I said that, first thing off the bat.

Nobody deserved to die. Nobody should die over this stuff.

I include France and Denmark under America's umbrella, they have strong cultural, military and economic ties. France is also currently fighting in Iraq. I don't consider the west to be one homogeneous group and I know there's a difference between independent media and government. Killing reporters is completely insane and savage.

I just think the West has done a lot of harm to the Middle East, and when our media sources mock them, we become a sort of alliance of nations that allow for the bombing and then subsequent mocking of a group of people who we attacked.

 

[TheyAreSurfers]

They hate the west and what it's done but yet they keep coming to our countries in the millions.

I call bs. And I hope someone arranges a mass letter drop on Muslim countries with that depiction of Muhammad and the toddler 'just married'. After all, it's true so it shouldn't be offensive.

Agree 100% with you. Well said. Should do it this way:

[YT]F3pky1rtV50[/YT]

but with Muslim Pedo Muhammad:

 

[weed]

I fucking hated those airplane/RC airplane missions in the GTA games

 

[Archon]

"Aint no fighters in england, bunch of women over there" - James Toney

 

[matburn H]

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.

Bro, you just ejaculated some truth into this conversation. Props.

And for all of you saying you don't give a shit about Muslims in the religious sense I agree, fuck religion. But the depictions of Muhammad go beyond religion and are analogous with "Islamic" culture as a whole.
The west simply cannot do what they do and expect no backlash, I mean c'mon.

 

[TheyAreSurfers]

I fucking hated those airplane/RC airplane missions in the GTA games

Fuckin' A, especially that little remote controlled plane. I was using cheats and in Mod versions and still struggled with it.

I was actually able to drown Sonny-the-boss in the last mission using mods. :icon_twis

 

[speakhandsforme]

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.

Very well said. Bravo.

 

[Arkain2K]

namely us, uk n english speaking canada.

didnt find anything on australia.

big surprise?

I AM surprised at your inability to find such plentiful resources that's apparently available to everyone else in the aforementioned English-speaking countries.

 

[guassian]

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.

Ridiculous! OBL was given shelter in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and crossed into Pakistan to escape the invasion.

If you're rustled by cartoons, just kill yourself.

 

[guassian]

 

[Waingro**]

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.

Cool story, bro. I saw that part of Bowling for Columbine, too.

If a belief system is absurd then it deserves to be mocked. Hilarity also ensues when you compare drawing a cartoon of a desert-wandering pedophile to shooting someone and robbing their dead body.

Congrats on being an apologist for growing sect whose members would joyfully abduct your limp-wristed, libtard self and then hack you to death on the outskirts of some sandblasted shithole given the opportunity before hanging you from an overpass for al Jazeera to see.

Posts like these are proof that the West is losing.

Stop trolling. Seriously.

 

[MicroBrew]

Some papers showed it and some MSM deliberately refrained form showing.

The hypocrisy of part of the "Je suis Charlie" movement is that while they claim to support Charlie Hebdo, a lot of mass media deliberately avoided showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammed or the one from Jyllands Posten. So it just comes down to people saying "Je suis Charlie" , which is just an empty saying.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Very well said. Bravo.

It's not at all surprising that a poster like yourself would sympathize with terrorists who kill people over cartoons.

 

[SirDiddymus]

They are being printet here and the magazine is even being imported and sold. But I live in Denmark, we have a proud tradition of muhammed

 

[Gervinho]

They have every right to print what they want, but every action has consequences weather we like it or not. End of the day those people are dead and no amount of praising them and condemning the attack will bring them back. We like to say they were heroes to make their families feel better, but the reality is they dead for something so meaningless in which they brought to themselves. This is just a growing trend white westernes have developed where they love to act like victims nowadays. We cant express ourselves, we dont have freedom of speech, we are called racists while the brownies dont. This is nothing more than a little game the people in power plays with the average person convincing them they have so much freedom.

Its also hilarious how the frenchies are acting like they are some sort of warriors of freedom of speech. I would like to go back to Dieudonn