i read the article and all, but i don't think that internationally...this is as big an issue as the cartoons are. yes it shows that the cartoons aren't the sole reason for the rioting and all, but only some part of the anger would be against this. on all the other news pages i've read, the 12 cartoons seem to be the main thing being publicised and so the main cause of anger on an international scale.
Well it was meant to be a form of criticism and somewhat evoke a response
yes, and though the response that was evoked may not have been the one pictured, i think it was pretty obviouis that part of whatever response would have been evoked would have been made up of offended people...whether or not just how far they'd take their "response" was clear or not,...and why set out to offend?
Criticism of a religion is justified, a religion is a set of ideas... an ideology, a belief. A race is merely this category of humans which has no common ideas, beliefs etc for you to attack.
yeah thats true, but again, i'd say that you have to use your common sense in discussing and critising religion. when you publish in a newspaper, you're taking on a very wide audience many of whom can and will take offence to your criticism, and aren't open to it. not everyone carries religion with the attitude to being open to criticism - and even so i'd say this was more of a mockery than a justified criticism in some ways.
If that girl wasn't walking past me, I wouldn't have chosen her to be my rape victim"
I'm afraid it's not that simple, you cannot blame the cause for every effect... it could easily be argued that the cause of the newspaper to print this article (along with the apparently offensive cartoons) was due to islamic extremists.
fair enough, but shouldn't u weigh the consequences?
i don't think the rapist would have gotten out of going to court and serving sentence by blaming the girl for walking past him.
i can see what you're sayin bout freedom of speech, but again, you got to weigh it out. freedom to publish a controversial article vs offending thousands of people worldwide....? are you sayin that the press has NO restrictions on what it can or cannot write whatsoever? so why pick a controversial issue to fight for the freedom to criticise openly, when it's not like its the sole restriction holding the press back.
i'd say those holes in the excuse are big enough?
-----
if a controversial article was publicised on the 9/11 events, many ppl and families hurt in the attacks would retaliate.
you couldn't expect any less.