Search results

then why no protests for all the other images of mohommad? its just these

they said similiar to the anti-semitism laws....um, there aren't internation laws for that. esp as they're violating them horribly then

why would it have? many of the conflicts are from an increased number of muslims in the western world. and keep in mind that islamic countries aren't exactly the most tolerant when ti coems to other religions

unique, you're aware that with the exception of judiasim, no religion comes close to being a race, right? but to get rid of anything that might cause problems leads to a pattern of appeasement that is a very slippery slope. what if they become offended by the presence of other religions in the...

however, the point is, the tension existed before the cartoons, and so the idea that getting rid of freedom of speech would fix this wouldn't help at all

ok, how bout this...what about bombing embassies, blowing up planes, hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, kidnapping people and executing them, blowing up trains, and suicide and car bombs?

please, context is totally irrelevant clearly someone's opinions having only seen a coupel of the cartoons is far more acccurate than trying to somehow impose the additional info of the content of the other cartoons and the article they ran with to make it seem like the cartoons had a point.

whats more likely to cause people to associate islam with terrorism? a cartoon, or burning embassies?

and i believe that real, current people are more important than people that are either dead or never existed

aren't they attacking religious symbols if they use the star of david in conjunction with concentration camps? and the criticism was of elements of islam, not of mohommad. in cartoons, you use a character associated with it to make a point

clearly, then, we must ban religion. if its unvavoidable. i'm sure you'll agree thats reasonable so....women shouldn't be allowed to dress as they'd like, unless they should be prepared for the retaliation of getting raped? i'm not saying criticism of the cartoons shouldn't be allowed, but...

there are already links in this thread of that. http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/qatar_cartoons.asp or do you need links to stories about there not being riots?

now, i see you're having trouble with this, but the idea is called "freedom of speech". the ability to say something even if other people don't like it. this was criticism, and criticism should be allowed for beliefs, and its an unfair standard to say that religious beliefs are somehow above...

considering that the arab world has been running cartoons attacking jews for a long time now and there's been no bombings of arab nations embassies in retaliation, i think there's a qeustion of perspective

the heck. there is no logic. for starters taht the Danish embassies and Danish products are unrelated to the paper as for your other thing.... not trying to restrict free speech? - The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) heads to the UN with a resolution that forbids attacks on...

gee, not-that-bright, isn't mutual respect asking for a bit much?

why on earth would the gov't review it? how are you participating in a discussion on freedom of the press when you don't even know WHAT IT IS? and yet, for all the insulting cartoons i'd seen papers run, this has never been the responce. and these weren't even "insulting" for the most part, if...

what do you mean the Danish gov't? they have nothing to do with it

thats not the point, though. see, what i don't get is why...even though i printed no cartoons, muslims are attacking ME for it

right, cuz the SIGNS calling for an END to fre speech don't mean they want to end free speech