Actually, it'll be interesting to see which papers in the UK decide to bite the bullet and reprint the images - or what tortured justifications they use for not doing so.
A couple of the images seem calculated to cause offence, but the others just seem kind of lame or pointless. Two (the ones with the orange in the turban and the one with the kid pointing to the blackboard) actually don't depict Muhammad at all and actually seem intended to mock the 'controversial' paper in which they originally appeared.
The one with the virgins jest is closest to 'funny' but fairly poorly executed and any insult behind it is not so much directed at Muhammad as at suicide bombers; certainly, the portrayal of Islam is fairly crude, but no worse, I'd have said, that what's regularly doled out to Christians in Western media and - particularly - to Jews in papers throughout the Middle East.
I don't know. The whole farce is, for me, summed up by the reaction of nutters in Palestine, who seem to think the best way to protest about western caricatures of Islam is by surrounding the relevant embassies with masked gunmen. Yeah, classy.
Question is:
Should British papers publish the cartoons to show 'solidarity' with Danish and French editors?
OR
Would publication of the 'offending' images be a cheap act of provocation against a community that already feels under seige? Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
They've been making Jesus jokes for years, they often poke fun at vicars, priests the church and Rabbis for years so I think it's fair game.
Fuck 'em if they don't have a sense of humour.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Those are some shit cartoons. Reproducing them isn't a blow against extremists, is it? It's not like the cartoons were of Mohammed in bondage gear sucking shit from the bum of a Jew or anything. Or Mohammed getting raped by a pig. Or Mohammed's mum rimming him while he injected heroin into his scrotum and spunked smack all over her beard.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
You know, I don't even care any more. I'm so bored of religion. The cartoons are offensive..the reaction is offensive...nobody wins.
[ 02.02.2006, 13:46: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Once again our Islamic friends are hopping about madly. That said, if a newspaper had produced similar cartoons of a vampiric, bloodsucking Jewish arachnid all hell would have broken loose - and the 'government condemnation' would have been faster than the rat that scurries up the drainpipe in Fritz Hippler's most famous cinematic release.
Frankly, I am in favour of free speech on these things - or, at least, some consistency in how we look at this issue; an issue that is perhaps even more of a talking point given the recent case vs. Griffin and Collett. FWIW I agree with Ben that the cartoons were in essence pretty lame, bar the 'Virgins' one that did elicit a curled upper lip.
O and Benno - what in hell are you doing using German politically incorrect websites as a source? Meh. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: That said, if a newspaper had produced similar cartoons of a vampiric, bloodsucking Jewish arachnid
I don't think any of these cartoons are comparable to that, do you?
Also, if someone can explain the joke or the point in 80% of these pictures, please do so.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Jordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reports.
"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote editor Jihad Momani.
lol
'let us all exercise caution in reproducing these cartoons,' added editor HolyCrusade Brown of the London Times
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I don't think any of these cartoons are comparable to that, do you?
One makes out that the Jew is a blood-sucking vampire, the other that the Muslim is a born terror-monger. Sounds like the same kind of deal to me.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I don't think any of these cartoons are comparable to that, do you?
One makes out that the Jew is a blood-sucking vampire, the other that the Muslim is a born terror-monger. Sounds like the same kind of deal to me.
Well, firstly none of these cartoons seem to be dehumanising the Muslim as was, for instance, the case with Nazi portrayals of Jews as lice and rats.
Secondly, maybe I've just not "got" these weak cartoons, but only one of them seems to be about terror-mongering (specifically suicide bombers -- nothing to say this includes all Muslims). The bomb-turban could be read as indicating a terror attack on Islam, just as a besuited gentleman wearing a bowler-hat bomb could be used as a stereotypical image of attacks on London. (Both would be pretty feeble.)
I understand that part of the offence is simply the portrayal of Mohammed per se], but surely to many readers, the figure in these cartoons could just be any bearded, be-turbaned Muslim?
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
As I understand it, ANY depiction of Allah or Mohammed, whether painted lovingly in oils on the ceiling of the world's finest mosque, or clumsily drawn in lame cartoons is not only offensive, but actively prohibited. So that naturally puts the Muslim caricaturisation on a different satirical level to the other religious cartoons.
Obviously the reaction is self-defeatingly over the top, but it's not particularly surprising.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
The "cartoons", which are about as funny as Leonardo da Vinci's, were published in September last year. Then, nothing till the end of October when, presumably, someone must've phoned up the Affronts To The Most Holy Hotline and asked how they felt about this shocking insult.
Even then it's taken more than three months to actually filter through to the average flag burner on the street in Islamabad or wherever. In fact, it's probably all been stirred up by the flag manufacturers. They had a surplus of Danish flags in stock, being a generally quite inoffensive country (although they are well-known producers of bacon of course).
I'd love to start a newspaper which just went round the world reporting on people not giving a toss about anything, which is the case with most of the world's population.
"Fuel prices rise: Lorry drivers threaten to shrug and just get on with it as usual"
"Christmas decorations in our town centers: fanatical Muslims say, They're lovely! Happy Christmas!" Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: As I understand it, ANY depiction of Allah or Mohammed, whether painted lovingly in oils on the ceiling of the world's finest mosque, or clumsily drawn in lame cartoons is not only offensive, but actively prohibited. So that naturally puts the Muslim caricaturisation on a different satirical level to the other religious cartoons.
Obviously the reaction is self-defeatingly over the top, but it's not particularly surprising.
Stewart Lee was on the Today programme this morning and made this point adding, very sensibly, that there was a big difference between taking the piss out of a culture of which you are a part (ie Christianity) and having a crack at someone else's beliefs from a position of ignorance.
The guy from the Muslim Council of Britain, who normally makes pretty unhelpful comments in these sorts of situation, actually made the reasonable point that the issue wasn't so much about free speech/censorship as about restraint, taste and decency - the newspapers make decisions all the time about what details to include or omit (whether text or images) from their pages. A number of the images were shown on the tv last night (in the context of a news report) and didn't cause any upset - so I guess there's a question of how intentionally provocative you're setting out to be.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
boo fucking hoo
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
i can't be bothered with this shit, but did you know the UNHCHR is investigating. Yes, really! And Syria and Saudi Arabia have withdrawn their people from Copenhagen. Because an independant newspaper in a free and democratic nation did something offensive. What is the Danish PM supposed to do? I guess Syrians and Saudis don't understand the concept of free speech, just like the beknighted Saracernie doesn't get that homophobia is as bad as Islamaphobia, but whatevs, Voltaire is dead to the liberal left.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: The guy from the Muslim Council of Britain, who normally makes pretty unhelpful comments in these sorts of situation, actually made the reasonable point that the issue wasn't so much about free speech/censorship as about restraint, taste and decency
oh ok, cool. nothing like the taste of your own medicine.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
these anti-semitic cartoons are way cool:
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
If we're serious about challenging militant Islam we surely need to do so in a bit more mature manner than publishing a bunch of second rate cartoons?
Who seems likely to benefit from this row? Hizb ut-Tahrir and the BNP I'd guess.
About the only sensible thing I've seen about Islam in the past 18 months was William Dalrymple's fascinating and moving survey of the place of music in Sufism around the world. It strikes me that the tone of sympathetic engagement that characterised that programme (Sufi Soul, it was called, if it gets repeated on More4) is probably likely to achieve and reveal a lot more than drawing battle-lines and digging Voltaire and Diderot up again.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: About the only sensible thing I've seen about Islam in the past 18 months was William Dalrymple's fascinating and moving survey of the place of music in Sufism around the world. It strikes me that the tone of sympathetic engagement that characterised that programme (Sufi Soul, it was called, if it gets repeated on More4)
I think I saw that one. Did it include the whirling dervishes? If it's the same programme I'm thinking of then it was truly lovely. I think I mentioned before, but one thing on my (very short) list of Fings To Do Before Age X is to go to the Fez Festival of Sacred Music. Where the hell the term "the Devil has all the best tunes" came from beats me. Quite the opposite.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
sorry, yeah i went a bit french / childish there. um, sympathetic engagement is obviously good. i do find it hilarious that the leaders of appalling nations like syria or saudi could in all seriousness complain about a few fucking cartoons. saudi doesn't even let jews set foot on their sweet soil or allow christians to practice their faith (this may not be factually correct, but who's counting?). man, that meeting must have been teh funny.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
hey did the press get all worked up by david irving too? is he still in prison? cuz that is absolutely disgusting too.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
(his arrest / imprisonment. not him. well he's disgusting too, but that's not the point. or rather, it is)
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: hey did the press get all worked up by david irving too? is he still in prison?
He was never in prison. Thorough and proven research by many experts has shown that Austria simply does not have the resources to imprison celebrity historians and press reports to the contrary are simply heresay and propaganda.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: adding, very sensibly, that there was a big difference between taking the piss out of a culture of which you are a part (ie Christianity) and having a crack at someone else's beliefs from a position of ignorance.
I don't think this adds up. There are, I would guess, regular cartoons published in the UK that feature Christ, God, the Pearly Gates, Hell, angels and so on. In what way are the creators of those cartoons a part of Christianity? Because Britain is officially a Christian nation and they're living in Britain? I wouldn't say that most British people regard themselves as inside a culture of Christianity -- surely most people who create mildly blasphemous or mocking cartoons of Jesus count themselves outside that culture, rather than as gentle parodists of something that belongs to them.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: The guy from the Muslim Council of Britain, who normally makes pretty unhelpful comments in these sorts of situation, actually made the reasonable point that the issue wasn't so much about free speech/censorship as about restraint, taste and decency
I got the impression people didn't agree with me though.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: This [Sikh temple] play, as I was saying, is a classic situation. It has offended a certain group of people so much that they have tried to protest about it and finally lost their patience and taken violent action. We can't condone that can we? But what if the play was about rape and violence in a tabloid newspaper office, or about routine child abuse on an Essex council estate? Would the tabloid newspapers or the residents of Essex council estates be going, "Ah, that's fine, no problem with a bit of Free Speech"? Or would they be going, "This is fucking disgusting and portrays us in a completely inaccurate way and we want it taken off right now." It's a case of defending "Free Speech" for the hell of it, which is often just plain silly when the Free Speech is just plain offensive and of no value to anyone.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
you know how sometimes the government helps out human-offal-with-british passports when they get arrested abroad? english roses caught with half a pound of smack at bangkok airport and the like. yeah? do you think the british government are lobbying to get david irving released?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I don't think this adds up. There are, I would guess, regular cartoons published in the UK that feature Christ, God, the Pearly Gates, Hell, angels and so on. In what way are the creators of those cartoons a part of Christianity? Because Britain is officially a Christian nation and they're living in Britain? I wouldn't say that most British people regard themselves as inside a culture of Christianity -- surely most people who create mildly blasphemous or mocking cartoons of Jesus count themselves outside that culture, rather than as gentle parodists of something that belongs to them.
While people may or may not identify themselves as Christians in terms of religion, Christianity is part of the warp and weft of our culture. Our calendar, art, holidays, architecture and literature are all saturated to a greater or lesser extent by the imagery and values of Christianity and the laws and moral framework - rickety though it may be - of the British run mainly along lines drawn explicitly from scripture and a myriad of precedents established in times when we were more religious.
As such, whether we like it or not, we're pretty well acquainted with Christian culture from the inside.
A Jewish comedian may not necessarily observe the Sabbath and all that, but they're no less qualified to make jokes or skits about a culture of which they're more or less a part.
[ 03.02.2006, 06:55: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Going back to ben's point about the difference between taking the piss out of your own culture and other people's...
Would it have been ok if the editor was a Muslim? Or if the proprietor was Muslim? Or is the fact that it's a newspaper in a Christian culture enough to mean that even if the entire staff were Muslim it would have been different as the intended audience weren't part of the same culture as the one to which the joke relates?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: While people may or may not identify themselves as Christians in terms of religion, Christianity is part of the warp and weft of our culture. Our calendar, art, holidays, architecture and literature are all saturated to a greater or lesser extent by the imagery and values of Christianity and the laws and moral framework - rickety though it may be - of the British run mainly along lines drawn explicitly from scripture and a myriad of precedents established in times when we were more religious.
As such, whether we like it or not, we're pretty well acquainted with Christian culture from the inside.
A Jewish comedian may not necessarily observe the Sabbath and all that, but they're no less qualified to make jokes or skits about a culture of which they're more or less a part.
Yes, because this comedian is still Jewish. Living in a country that features Christian churches and has holidays called "Easter" and "Christmas" (along with many other secular festivals like Guy Fawkes, Halloween), and whose laws are derived broadly from Christianity, does not make one a Christian by any means (you could live within this society and be a Muslim, of course) so the comparison just doesn't work.
By your argument, a British person (presumably one who hasn't declared explicitly for another religion) is automatically "inside" Christianity and so has a right to take the piss out of it and attack it.
I don't think someone who actually identified as a British Christian would feel especially forgiving towards a British atheist who drew satirical cartoons of Jesus, on the grounds that, despite being an atheist, they're somehow by virtue of their geographical location "inside" Christianity and mocking a culture they "belong" to.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Niffer: Would it have been ok if the editor was a Muslim? Or if the proprietor was Muslim? Or is the fact that it's a newspaper in a Christian culture enough to mean that even if the entire staff were Muslim it would have been different as the intended audience weren't part of the same culture as the one to which the joke relates?
I think it would definitely have been presented and received in a different way from what actually happened.
A Muslim editor and publication might have been regarded as a dissenting or extreme voice within their own community - whereas a reactionary provocateur paper having a crack at a beleagured minority was bound to produce a situation in which an us-vs-them battleground was rapidly established.
[ 03.02.2006, 09:38: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Living in a country that features [...] does not make one a Christian
I didn't say that it did - I said that British culture is so closely entwined with a Christian heritage (religion literally carved out the contours of the United Kingdom) that we can talk about aspects of that culture with a degree of understanding (or, at the very least, a personal stake of some kind) that can't be dismissed out of hand.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: By your argument, a British person (presumably one who hasn't declared explicitly for another religion) is automatically "inside" Christianity and so has a right to take the piss out of it and attack it.
Not '"inside" Christianity' but certainly 'inside' a culture that, for better or worse, has been more influenced by the legacy of Christianity than by any other creed or body of thought.
Do you really think the fact you don't attend church on a regular basis somehow deprives you of access to that legacy and that tradition - and consequently, a right to criticise and ridicule aspects thereof?
Joyce wouldn't have had a lot to write about if he'd just sat there in Zurich thinking, "To be sure, I'm through all that now, so I can't rightly comment."
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I don't think someone who actually identified as a British Christian would feel especially forgiving towards a British atheist who drew satirical cartoons of Jesus, on the grounds that, despite being an atheist, they're somehow by virtue of their geographical location "inside" Christianity and mocking a culture they "belong" to.
Well, I would say 'by virtue of the culture in which they've been brought up' which is somewhat different from mere 'geographical location', surely.
fwiw some of the least 'forgiving' people I know identify themselves as Christian, so I'm not sure your point really hits the mark.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
if they can burn homos, stone women, kill women, chop off their clits, what's a little joke about god?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Someone just told me they don't do pictures of people at all. Not just yer prophets.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: you know how sometimes the government helps out human-offal-with-british passports when they get arrested abroad? english roses caught with half a pound of smack at bangkok airport and the like. yeah? do you think the british government are lobbying to get david irving released?
This is slightly off topic, but I am glad someone else has asked this question. The answer is no, the British government are doing sweet bugger all while Irving is sitting awaiting trial for alleged 'hate crimes' (lol) in an Austrian jail.
Of course, lobbying for a drug trafficker is one thing, but a man who has been accused of the most heinous 'crime' of questioning the Holy-caust? Imagine the furore that would ensue!
Oh and Vikram - if you want to contribute to the legal fund they are still taking contributions.
Kovacs - I was not comparing the Danish Mohammed cartoons with those that depict Jews as rats or lice, but those which show the Jew as some mighty spider or octopus - an allusion, of course, to their having their legs/arms/tentacles everywhere.
Like this one:
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
ho ho! and look he manages to get a jibe about jews in! ho ho! its just comedy folks!
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Kovacs - I was not comparing the Danish Mohammed cartoons with those that depict Jews as rats or lice, but those which show the Jew as some mighty spider or octopus - an allusion, of course, to their having their legs/arms/tentacles everywhere.
Ye-e-es, but there's a difference in that the cartoons currently in question aren't dehumanising Muslims by transforming them into unpleasant creatures (you say "mighty" spider as though it's almost a compliment, but I think the example you show is meant to suggest a repulsive monster) -- or even caricaturing ethnic or cultural traits (as with the Jewish "big nose", or Japanese "yellow skin"). They seem to just be connoting "Muslim" through turban and beard.
As cartoons of a cultural "Other", they are very mild and seem comparatively inoffensive, is what I'm trying to say.
--------------
eta not responding to Ben, but because I pretty much accept your point, rather than because I'm "blanking" you.
[ 03.02.2006, 12:46: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
I think I'm going to join the Jews. They look fucking cool.
[ 03.02.2006, 13:30: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: I think I'm going to join the Jews. They look fucking cool.
i wanna be a jew too. it'd be so cool to control the world.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Kovacs - I was not comparing the Danish Mohammed cartoons with those that depict Jews as rats or lice, but those which show the Jew as some mighty spider or octopus - an allusion, of course, to their having their legs/arms/tentacles everywhere.
Like this one:
Hello!
I'm tv's Paul McKenna. You may remember me from such hit series as "Paul McKenna's Hypno-t-Eyes" and "Think Yourself Less Stupid: the Six Day Challenge".
I want you to let part of me into your head, to try a ground-breaking experiment in internet hypnosis: it's safe - honestly! lol! - but the results will LITERALLY BLOW YOUR FUCKING MIND.
1. First, I want you to imagine a yarmulke - doesn't matter what size our colour... just, a yarmulke. Got that? Can you picture that? Good.
2. Now I want you to lood hard at the picture below for, let's say TEN SECONDS ==========>
That's excellent - you're doing great. Really.
3. Now I want you to imagine - just imagine! - whatever it is that tends to go through your head whenever you have a really satisfying bowel movement. Still with me? Maybe you focus on that great, oily barge of muck sliding out of your cheeks in microscopic detail... or maybe you just try to distract yourself by thinking of - I dunno - kittens and lambs and creatures that don't have to go to the toilet because they're far too cute. Maybe, you know, that's how you cope.
Anyway, whatever goes through your head during "browntime", try to think of that now.
4. Okay - and STOP. Now finally, I want you to look at this next image. For about ten seconds. Starting NOW =======>
5. Great! Now sit back and relax.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
If you've followed all the instructions, the following should happen: the VERY NEXT TIME popular TMO poster 'Samuelnorton' types the words "Jew" or "Jews", you will find yourself INSTANTLY and THROUGH NO DELIBERATE WILL OF YOUR OWN picturing Norton making love to a handful of his own excrement.
You're shaking your head in disbelief, but just try it!
Every time, Norton mentions "Jew" or "Jews" - there he'll be, in the front of your mind, skinny buttocks thrusting as approaches the vinegar stroke with a dripping fistful of his own earth.
There's no magic to how I achieved this effect - which should be felt by everyone who completed the exercise - and, unfortunately, there's no way of reversing this sort of suggestion.
I guess you'll just have to pray he shuts the fuck up about Jews! lol!
PAUL X
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
lol (Nazi gold)
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Lol.
[ 06.02.2006, 08:26: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: If we're serious about challenging militant Islam we surely need to do so in a bit more mature manner than publishing a bunch of second rate cartoons?
But is heaviness always the best way forward? Does fun have to be the enemy of seriousness? Sometimes the light-hearted can be a shortcut to the profound, so, depending on the spirit in which the cartoons were protrayed, wasn't it worth a try?
Perhaps not; a simple cartoon isn't going to make a group of hard core militants look at eachother and say, 'Hey, let's just stop fighting and talk it over nicely. Do you take milk and sugar?'
Well, it's been tried. Unfortunately our flag-burning friends didn't see it the same way as the tabloids' cartoonists.
Back to the drawing board, perhaps.
Or maybe not!
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Hello, Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
Please tell us some more about yourself.
Love Roy
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
Aww!
But what's to say? I work for a family business? I'm 24? I'm aching all over because I spent Sunday coppicing?
'tis all boring, sweet!
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
How did you hear about TMO, PMD? Have you been lurking for a while?
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
What is coppicing?
I was a dishwasher once. It was a surprisingly fulfilling job actually.
eta, sorry. I was enjoying this thread and then threw up on it.
[ 06.02.2006, 09:28: Message edited by: squeegy ]
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
However, in keeping with this thread, what were those Muslims going on about in that march they had?
"UK! You will pay! Bin Laden on his way!"
What did we do? Jack Straw spoke out against the cartoons, ffs.
And how comes a South American bloke wearing a denim jacket who gets off a bus and buys a newspaper gets shot seven times in the head, but a bloke wearing what, for all anyone knows, could have been a real sucide belt is allowed to stand about and pose for photos?
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by squeegy: What is coppicing?
Pretentious pruning.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
*salutes the major laughs*
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Where's Purple Monkey gone?
Where is everyone else?
*echo*
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
Posted by Skalski (Member # 852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: Where's Purple Monkey gone?
I'd imagine it comes in cycles.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Do you think the Danes could claim on their insurance for their ransacked and burnt embassies, or would it be deemed an act of God?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: However, in keeping with this thread, what were those Muslims going on about in that march they had?
"UK! You will pay! Bin Laden on his way!"
I'm serious as cancer When I say Islam is the answer
Something like that.
I like they way their placards just seemed to chuck in anything they could think of that might possibly offend: 7/7 + 9/11 posse 1z teh |33t!! OMG!!!1! El-Queerda = teh w1N!!11! k1ll ki773nz!! r4pe th0R4 h1rD!!! Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Looking at the pictures of that protest, what I noticed was how it was mostly young men, and how the purpose of the march was more to intimidate than to protest. So I wondered, is this more like a 'gang' thing than a religious thing, that these young men that are involved in Islam have the same motivations as young gang members in the States - no social inclusion, low economic status etc - and that they just want to 'belong' and feel tough and hard.
Think I detect in his apology an enraged pop's well-planted boot up the arse.
I thought exactly the same. I read the whole piece thinking "Ha ha! Your mum totally had a go at you! Just like mine would!"
suddenly serious
Perhaps we're not all so different after all?
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Very funny Ben. And to think you have repeatedly claimed that I have an obesssion with excrement.
I challenge you to respond to my point: the press have joined hands over the Mohammed cartoon issue, but had someone somewhere published something similar to the Zionist octopus there would have been universal condemnation. Mocking Islam is somehow 'freedom of speech', but David Irving, Ernst Zündel, Siegfried Verbeke and Germar Rudolf are all currently sitting in prison cells for casting doubts on the oh so holy 'Holocaust' story.
I would rather we had all or nothing: at least then there would be some level of consistency.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Think I detect in his apology an enraged pop's well-planted boot up the arse.
He has a good name for an author. Perhaps he ought to write a Rubaiyat (sp?)
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Norton, a lot of the newspapers I read over the weekend condemned the desicion to publish the cartoons. The majority verdict seemed to be that once it was established that Muslims were offended, it was wrong for newspapers in France, Germany etc to publish them. I didn't get any impression at all that freedom of speech was the overriding issue, more that a civilisation is built from compromise, not an absolute.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
I'm more scared of Bush taking up Iran's cool new leaders offer of 'coming and having a go if the west thinks it's hard enough'.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: The majority verdict seemed to be that once it was established that Muslims were offended, it was wrong for newspapers in France, Germany etc to publish them.
Lolol. Given that your local neighbourhood imam might take offence at a piggy bank quietly sitting in an elderly neighbour's window, I don't think you would have needed much intelligence to know that Muslims would have been offended by cartoons associating the prophet Mohammed with a bomb. There would and should have been no need to establish this fact.
The only thing that has made these people take a big step back has been the fact that embassies and missions have been attacked, not the 'realisation' that dressing up Mohammed in rather explosive headgear was in any way offensive.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The only thing that has made these people take a big step back has been the fact that embassies and missions have been attacked, not the 'realisation' that dressing up Mohammed in rather explosive headgear was in any way offensive.
This doesn't make sense. Every paper in the world had the choice to publish the cartoons the day after the Danes had published them.
Some chose to, on the grounds of 'free speech' some, like the media in Britain, chose not to, knowing it would cause deep offense. No embassies were on fire, the protests were in their early stages and had nothing of the hysteria they have now.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: This doesn't make sense. Every paper in the world had the choice to publish the cartoons the day after the Danes had published them.
It makes perfect sense. The day after the cartoons were published in Denmark many other publications across Europe reproduced the 'offensive' material; it is up to you to decide whether (a) they knew that they were doing and were simply trying to push the boundaries; or (b) were simply naïve and had no idea what form the reaction would take. Your comments where you refer to the level of Muslim ire having to be 'established' seems to lend itself to the latter.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I don't think I understand your original point. Are you saying that people are defending the right to mock Islam, whereas had it been a cartoon mocking Jews or depicting them as a giant octopus, the media would have condemned the Danes instead of supporting them as in the case of Germany, France and others?
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
i think that's what rick is saying and i must admit i agree with him.
today in class i argued in favour of first amendment style freedom of speech. people did not agree, even saying that public speakers should be vetted by the government. no, really. and this at an infamously leftlib college. like, WTF? what happened man?
couldn't be bothered to make my case properly as i was hungover to shit after drinking with a potential flatmate til 3am. don't think it would have mattered anyway. one classmate even argued that priests should not be allowed to read out hateful passages of the bible to their flock and that if it inspired paedophiles lolita should be banned.
jesus....
[ 06.02.2006, 15:22: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I don't agree with Freedom of Speech. Most people are fucking idiots and should just shut the fuck up.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Actually, with my tag, I think I should be keeping a low profile at the moment.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Shut up, Roy
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: Are you saying that people are defending the right to mock Islam, whereas had it been a cartoon mocking Jews or depicting them as a giant octopus, the media would have condemned the Danes instead of supporting them as in the case of Germany, France and others?
Precisely.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The day after the cartoons were published in Denmark many other publications across Europe reproduced the 'offensive' material; it is up to you to decide whether (a) they knew what they were doing and were simply trying to push the boundaries; or (b) were simply naïve and had no idea what form the reaction would take.
It was more like four months after.
quote:The cartoons were first published in September 2005 by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They were later republished in Austria in January, and then at the beginning of February in a number of European newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Whether they did it mischieviously or simply so that their readers could see for themselves what all the fuss is about is debatable I suppose, but it's not as if they saw them in the Copenhagen Daily Advertiser and immediately thought *chortle* those are great, let's publish them tomorrow and wind up a few muslims for a laugh.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Norton, perhaps we will see your argument tested Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Roy we must have some telepathic, erm, connection. I was just about to post this...
Maybe if this tactic had been employed at the start without resorting to war cries, embassy burning and violence things would have been far more interesting.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
*shakes head in disbelief* Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: How did you hear about TMO, PMD? Have you been lurking for a while?
Not lurking, really. I've had TMO in my favourites for about 2 years, I found it once (I can't remember where, now) but never actually posted.
I was cleaning out my C drive at home the other day and found it again, and reckoned this would be a more fun way to spend lunch breaks than minesweeper, so...
Hello!
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Hey that Paul McKenna shit really works!
Posted by Skalski (Member # 852) on :
I think we should commission the remaining Monty Python boys to produce a range of short films covering other major religions:
And now for Something Completely Dualistic Within the Human Consciousness; The Holy Tao; The Life of Momo; or The Meaning of Brahman.
It's only jest, boys, no need to go bombing embassies. Satire exists and is to be accepted - if it gets up your particular nose, then read / watch something else.
Jesus, it's not as if God exists anyway, right? Right? Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Will you post your entry here before you send it off to Hamshahri, Snorton?
And will it be as good as the Ben Clock?
[ 07.02.2006, 05:46: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
quote:Originally posted by Skalski:
Jesus, it's not as if God exists anyway, right? Right?
Absolutely, Skalski... But how do you suggest we go about proving this fact to the world?
However it's to be done, I'm right behind you!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I think if he does exist he'll be far from flapped that a few bods on earth are having a dilemma.
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
Suggestion: getting shouty and waving our fists around a bit?
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
To be totally honest, if you were a god, would you let your creation know that you existed?
Assuming God is immortal and has the whole of eternity to amuse itself, why wouldn't it keep itself busy by keeping schtum and sowing the odd seed of suspicion?
Posted by Skalski (Member # 852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher:Absolutely, Skalski... But how do you suggest we go about proving this fact to the world?
However it's to be done, I'm right behind you!
Unholy war! Eradicate all the believers! Death to the dogmatist! etc, etc
eta:ubb
[ 07.02.2006, 06:15: Message edited by: Skalski ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher: To be totally honest, if you were a god, would you let your creation know that you existed?
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
Posted by Skalski (Member # 852) on :
In this respect, he's not a million miles away from Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or any other mythical creature used to coerce people to behave in a certain way.
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
"Which proves incidentally that you do exist," says man, "therefore, according to your logic, you don't!"
"Oh," said God "I hadn't thought of that!" And he disappeared in a puff of logic.
Skalski, that's it! We'll out-think the bastard!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Trevor: Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls...welcome to another episode of Blind Faith. And here's your host Cillilililililla BLACK!!
Cilla walks out wearing a short black evening dress, a fedora atop her head with tight curly ginger ringlets and a fiery red bumblebeard. Her teeth are still visible through the thatch.
Cilla: Hallo hallo people at home. Boy do we have a line up for you tonight. Our lucky lady, Jenny from Croydon is going to be meeting three fine deities and pick which one she'll be worshipping on a dream holiday in either Eschaton, Ragnarok or Armageddon-by-the-sea.
The big screen shows scenes of war and famine, riots, attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion and stock footage of fudge being made by hand. The audience coos.
Cilla: Well without further ado, let's meet our lucky lady. Everybody, give a warm welcome to Jenny from Croydon!!
The crowd clap and cheer. A leggy blonde walks out from behind a curtain and beams at the camera. She walks with confidence down to Cilla, then bites her lip nervously as our be-bearded scally puts one arm around her and turns to the audience, occasionally glancing back at Jenny between words.
Cilla: So then Jenny, why don't you tell the audience at home why you came onto Blind Faith tonight?
Jenny: I just want to get a chance to find a nice religion.
She smiles and giggles nervously. The audience let out a joint 'aaaaaah'
Cilla: Well wait till you see who we have lined up for you tonight. Trevor, tell the people at home about the boys!
Trevor: Oh and Kay Cilla! Number 1 is called Allah and he is popular in Islam.
a large fat man wearing a turban nods silently to the camera. Eyes, steely fixed. Glassy. Motionless
Trevor: Number two is Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus smiles, and mouths 'I died for your sins' with a wink. He is dressed like the polyphonic spree, except hipper.
Trevor: Last but certainly not least is number 3 our baby-face of the bunch, The Formless One: the deity ocasionally known as God. TFO sports a basball cap with the Khanda on it, some bling around his neck and roc-a-fella garb. He has a bumfluff moustache. The music plays a cheesey jingle and when the camera settles again it's on Jenny and Cilla sends her on her way.
Cilla: Ok, you know how to play, you can ask your questions to whoever you like, what's your question and who's it to?
Jenny nods and starts a clearly rehearsed line
Jenny: I like to party a bit. You know, let me hair down at weekends? My question is If we went on a date together, what sexy outfit would you prefer me to wear?
The audience is silent. Allah is still staring ahead. Jesus blushes and shifts nervously in his seat. TFO looks stoned. Somewhere in the night air, a dog howls. Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Class!
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
dude, i think you mean mohammed. allah = god.
denmark and iran should have a, like, draw off. much better than nuclear war, no? there's this movie - does anyone know what it's called? - where post ww3 america and russia settle their differneces through robot ultimate fighting. this could be like that.
also:
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: dude, i think you mean mohammed. allah = god.
Would you like to re-write it for me? You know as you seem to have a better idea about what I wanted to do.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Then I would like to declare the motion of 'shut your piehole'
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
no need to be so fucking mardy, you twat.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
you know what, i am tired of this shit.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Why not take a break?
[ 07.02.2006, 07:52: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
'mardy' is a good word.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: The big screen shows scenes of war and famine, riots, attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion and stock footage of fudge being made by hand.
lol
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:[ 07.02.2006, 07:52: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
what did you edit out?
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I'm going to go to argos, to buy a printer!
eta:
That one!
[ 07.02.2006, 08:04: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I have tried to make a cartoon which unites people of all faiths and insults them together. You will see your idol in the multi-coloured dots, but only if you truly believe.
[ 07.02.2006, 08:09: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
lolol
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
You could print that out on your new printer, Benway.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
hand it out around Finsbury Park to spark debate.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
yeah but if they have a fucked up allele on their x chromosome, they ain't gonna see it.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
"Come on, Omar. What you doing? We're going to protest against the infidels and the corrupt west and shit. Then we can go to the Max Power show."
"Nah, man. I'm on probabtion, ain't I? You know how the devil made me sell drugs to, well, you lot."
"Wear a disguise, brother. That way the imperialist filth won't recognise you. Nor your mum."
"Oh, okay. Hey! I know! I'll wear what I wore to that fancy dress party last Christmas!"
"Great idea! That would be a wicked disguise!"
"Really?"
"Totally! Wear it, brother. We'll meet you there!"
Eight hours and a shit storm later
"Sorry, Omar. I was sure you went as Batman..."
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Boo!
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
They won't allow his hook in prison. What will they put on the end of his hand instead?
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
Sooty.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Metro says (therefore is true!) that an Iranian newspaper is now running a competition to find the best Holocaust cartoon.
The aliens will laugh at us when we are all dead because of cartoons. Posted by Skalski (Member # 852) on :
Didn't anybody learn a lesson from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Cartoons are dangerous. It was a warning, why oh why didn't we take heed?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)