Muslims starting boycot against Denmark.

[Ravincal]

I think it's FREAKED!!

They are burning the danish flag in the Middle east countries.

A danish newspaper made some drawings of ''M?hammed''.
Denmark has really gotten themselves in the gunfire this time, they are ****** on the muslims religion.

The muslims has boycotted Denmark totally... Stopping buying milk products and such things, I think it's crazy.
This will lead to a open war if our president doesn't make a choice NOW!

An Islamic cultural organisation has called upon its 51 member states to boycott Denmark in response to cartoons of the prophet Mohammed printed three months ago in national daily Jyllands-Posten.

The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) stated on its webpage that it sought a condemnation of 'the aggressive campaign waged against Islam and its Prophet' by Jyllands-Posten.

Abdulaziz Othman al-Twaijri, the organisation's secretary general, reportedly told Arabic TV station Al-Arabiya that member states would impose a boycott until an apology was offered for the drawings.

'We encourage the organisation's members to boycott Denmark both economically and politically until Denmark presents an official apology for the drawings that have offended the world's Muslims,' al-Twaijri said.

Egypt's ambassador to Denmark, Mona Omar Attiah, warned against not taking the boycott seriously.

'The organisation has a broad appeal among the world's Muslims, and if the government doesn't make new efforts, Muslims around the world will follow the boycott and international pressure against Denmark will increase,' she told daily newspaper Information.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009653.php

WHAT were Denmark thinking?!

What is you guys opinion on the current situation?

[Shatara]

Wait a minuite. So muslims are boycotting the entire COUNTRY of Denmark, because of something that appeared in their local newspaper?


Unless Denmark has a state-run media (which I doubt), that's basically like boycotting everything american because of an article in the New York Times. Or everything Canadian for a picture in the Toronto Star...

[Juniper]

Now, no offense, but that's just a bit extreme for some newspaper images; I mean, come on, burning a country's flag for that... seems a bit childish to me.

Bud, there's not going to be a war between the Muslim society and Denmark, don't worry. Sounds like the media's magnifying the situation past what it actually is. I doubt many muslim people are really flipping out over this, probably just a few extremists got angry enough to boycott an entire county; even if it was a huge deal to a lot of people, it'll most likely turn out to be one of those things that are forgotten in a couple days. Of course, I think the newspaper probably should've avoided those images, seems a bit stupid to be putting in a newspaper looking to make money (If you sell something, don't try to tick off potential customers). I guess my opinion on the newspaper in question is a "That's Life" sorta thing, it was most likely wrong to have put in there, but one just has to shrug it off and let it go, because there's gonna be a lot of things that really offend a person throughout their life.

[Darkslash]

Stand up for your country and don't let it be intimidated into submission and appeasement like so much of Europe today does.

[unregistered user]

I gotta say it sounds a bit silly. Then again if someone was making fun of say.. Jesus or the Judeo-Christian God.. I gotta say I'd take offense as well.

I think the newspaper is a bit stupid for testing its limits, knowing that it was treading on thin ice. I think that the extremists are taking it a bit too far though. I mean, state your disgruntlement, maybe a boycott *shrugs* depends on what happened really I suppose? Anyway..

let's see what happens.

[unregistered user]

I think its a bit rash to blame all of denmark for this since it wasnt the goverment who posted it and if i'm not mistaken your country's leader did not approve of it.

They just want something to hate in the western society i guess :E

[Sadiki]

Yeah I heard about that in news today too. I think it is kind of stupid to get mad about a comic script no matter what it is about. I mean people makeing fun of everything and we all have diffrend kind of sense of humour, so why can't people just let people laugh on diffrend kind of things. It is so stupid that some is getting mad if there is something about their religion, especially if it is a comic or a picture. I mean how many comics is there that is makeing fun of the God or series like Simpsons and south park. they are pretty much makeing fun of everything there is. People really should learn to take things, it is not that the way they think is most surelly the right way to think. No one can even be sure that any of existing religions is right, they all sure can say so, but no one can say that for sure.

And if that I am not makeing anyone mad with this post I appologie that I wanted to share my honest opinion abou the whole thing and I wish no one get offended. I do respect every single religion and country the way they are, but that doesn't mean I have to live the way they see the world.

[unregistered user]

The burning of one's flag resembles an extreme hatred. I believe some of the Middle Easterners really need a better grip on terms. Because a fun drawing of one's Messiah shouldn't be that bad of a deal. But they seem to be a commonweal amongst themselves. And I'd have to agree with Nuka on the getting upset part. But what I don't agree on is the degree of their malevolence. But I'm not them, so.......

:hmm:

[unregistered user]

Ah, now there's something highly offensive. I do find SOuthPark at times to cross the line now and then. And in turn I have boycotted it from myself hehe. I boycotted the Simpsons as well, but that's just because I don't find it funny anymore. That's beside the point though =P

Anyway, Denmark apologized for the paper, that's good for them *pats Denmark on the back* The newspaper is what the Islamic people should boycott, not all of Denmark >_>

Or they could always write some wonderful letters in 'appreciation' for the newspaper >_> Idk.. anything to straighten this whole mess up I guess.

[unregistered user]

I apologize for the double post but I think everyone needs to read this as it is quite important o.o;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

Personally I think the French, Germans, Spanish, and Italians are trying to provoke them and should be ashamed for it. That's stupid and inconsiderate on their part =/ But even worse if this continues to intensify who knows what could happen.

EDIT:

I find this particularily offensive myself:

"France Soir said it had reprinted the full set to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society." ~BBC news Quote

[Ravincal]

You can't walk on the street without one of the danish muslims shouting ''Potatoe!'' Potatoe is their slang word for a ''White Danish Guy'', they didn't ran after me though, but was close to, if I wasn't walking on the other side of the street I would surely get my *** kicked.

[unregistered user]

I don't support Islamic doctrine, but I do support the right them on the situation as it could easily be my faith that they're attacking (as if Christianity hasn't been attacked already ha =P Again though, that's beside the point)

As I stated before though, the Islamic community needs to tell off the newspapers themselves, not the people of Denmark, or any of the other countires either.

[Juniper]

While I agree with Nuka that it shouldn't have happened, I think these people that're acting like this have gone off the deep end. I'd encourage you to listen to Darkslash on the issue, this is your country and you can't submit to these people whenever they get angry. People have been getting insulted since the dawn of man, there's nothing wrong with being offended, but one still needs to act with dignity about it. This is going to be the third World War, if it's not already (This meaning the rising conflicts in the middle east and abroad). The best thing anyone in the west can do is not back down to extremist religious hate, persecution, and terrorism.

I would have supported their anger, but once they start threatening violence for something as petty as this, they've given up their right to protest and it's time for the country of Denmark to start letting them know who's in charge in your country, and that would be the good, law abiding citizens. That, of course, does not mean no muslim person should be pissed, because not every muslim person is acting like this, but I do think the Danish government needs to be upfront with the extremists that they won't tolerate violence or threats of violence.

[Darkslash]

The 12 drawings ? published in a Danish paper in September and in a Norwegian paper this month ? included an image of the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_prophet_drawings_5

There's truth in every joke... or else it wouldn't be funny. This depiction isn't far off from what radical Islam and radical Muslims are doing these days, literally and metaphorically.

[Ravincal]

News; The racism danish people are going to burn the Corane on Saturday.

No-one can predict what will happend after that.
Muslims are threatening Denmark telling us that it will be a ''Bloody Weekend''

Come and get me!!!

[unregistered user]

/^ OO Do you mean the Muslim Bible?

[nathalie]

that would be called the Corane / Koran, yes (or how you may spell it in English)

[Ravincal]

Yes the Koran. And now, people is really starting to get the racism behaviour.. Which is NOT good!

[unregistered user]

Burning a holy book.. never a good thing. I gotta say that there is absolutely no purpose in burning the holy book other than to cause anger and hatred. I question Denmark's actions. First the newspaper publishes it, then the Danes apologize, then all of Europe jumps on the bandwagon for some reason, and now.. they're going to burn the Koran?

I see bad things in the future =/ Not good, not good at all.

[Sadiki]

oh come on... don't start a war for one comic script... that is just so stupid. People in this world just get offended so easily. yeah I can see it is offending to burn some county flag or holy book... but then again. Why do so many people have make so big thing out of it, we are diffrend ok, but if someone thinks it is fun to make fun of religions we should let it be, as long as it doesn't do any harm for anyone.. people just get annoied and lose their nerves WAY too easily.

[la_reina]

Well, me being Muslim...I'd have to kinda agree with the boycott...though war wouldn't really be necessary. In Islam, it's illegal to impersonate the prophet, or even draw pictures of him and such. Of course there's nothing wrong with a funny comic strip; we do it about Bush all the time. But if Denmark knew that it offended the Muslims to draw our Prophet in a comic strip, and they did it anyway, then I guess a boycott would teach them a lesson until they decided to apologize. But now they're threatning to burn the Quran????

I really wouldn't like to see another war between 2 nations, but come on...do people have to do this??? Why can't Denmark just apologize?

[nathalie]

If a war should have started everytime someone makes jokes about our king ... Oh my, Belgium wouldn't exist anymore.

So yeah, it is kind of blown up I guess.

[Ravincal]

( @ La Reina) We DID apologize. We TRIED to do it the diplomatic way, but that didn't seem to work at all, since some other countries copied the drawings as well.

Jyllandsposten wrote an apology in English, Danish and Arabic.

But the danish racism guys really thinks this is taking a wrong turn, so they didn't want to watch their own county flag burn, so they are going to burn the Quran.

[Shadow]

your really - now........

[Ravincal]

And what's that supposed to mean?

[Xanahti]

Originally posted by shadow
your really - now........

Isn't that a little too dramatic you think?

This is blown way out of propotions. It shouldn't even have existed. Denmark didn't do anything wrong by the law just publishing pictures decipting Muhammed, but since at least one was really offending I think it would fall into the cathegory agitation against an ethnic group.
Our teacher showed us one of the pictures portraying Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. I agree on that that must be very offending to the muslims, Still I beleive that they're kind of overreacting. They have the right to be offended, but this is just exaggerated.

All this extremists that's burning flags and threatening danish people are making people dislike the whole religion. They're just "proving" what a lot of people think, that Islam is a relgion built on abuse and violence. If this would've been handeled in a calm way I think Islam would've gained respect all over the world. Right now many are just wondering what the hell's wrong with them. I know that not all muslims went crazy about this but the few that did really ruins a lot. I wish media would show us how other muslims react, and not just the extremists. :/ Through articles and such you really get the feel that ALL muslims are drama queens, and I know that's not the case.

It's really a though case since it's pretty much freedom of speech vs. religion.

[Juniper]

I agree with Xanahti that this is blown out of proportion. The sky isn't falling, the issue will be resolved. People nowadays need to learn to not panic every time something bad happens. I don't see there being any possibility of a war over this, that's just absurd to say the least. If there is, then I'd say it'd be the most pathetic reason for a war I've heard of to date.

Personally, I don't think Denmark should apologize for anything, as the images don't represent the views of Denmark, but of a newspaper. I support freedom of speech, even if what someone has to say pisses people off (And I would be pretty pissed if I were Muslim). I see no purpose in boycotting an entire country for the views of a newspaper, seems like some people are really acting like babies (Both sides, actually). This is between the newspaper and the world of Islam, Denmark has no place in this issue.

Of course, burning religious text isn't good, that's just begging for trouble. Then again, so is burning a country's flag. Both sides on this issue really need to grow up.

[Darkslash]

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1889584,00.html

And meanwhile, in Palestine...

"Every Norwegian, Dane and Frenchman in our country is a target," said the Popular Resistance Committee and the radical Al-Aqsa brigades. If the three countries in question don't shut down their offices and consulates in the Palestinian territories, "we won't hesitate to destroy them."...
Comic of Muhammed leads to death threats... radical Islam is not something to be "apologized" to.

[unregistered user]

That's a bit rude there, Shadow. - Don't ya think?

I agree with Pnt, "Personally, I don't think Denmark should apologize for anything, as the images don't represent the views of Denmark, but of a newspaper. I support freedom of speech, even if what someone has to say pisses people off (And I would be pretty pissed if I were Muslim). I see no purpose in boycotting an entire country for the views of a newspaper, seems like some people are really acting like babies (Both sides, actually). This is between the newspaper and the world of Islam, Denmark has no place in this issue.

Of course, burning religious text isn't good, that's just begging for trouble. Then again, so is burning a country's flag. Both sides on this issue really need to grow up."

[Shadow]

alright i apoligaze that was quite rude "bows"

but i just think the Muslims are highly un-stable (the vilent ones) and are going to make a hell big deal out of this.....

and ones again i apoligaze

[Ravincal]

There are a BIG amount of violent muslims in my city. (A big city), and they are all like ''Every danish guy is going down!''.

You can't walk out of the street alone, you will atleast have to be 3 persons. They were even throwing a danish flag into a river and yelled ''Potatoes'' again, again!

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Ravincal
There are a BIG amount of violent muslims in my city. (A big city), and they are all like ''Every danish guy is going down!''.

You can't walk out of the street alone, you will atleast have to be 3 persons. They were even throwing a danish flag into a river and yelled ''Potatoes'' again, again!


Now, going along with my "Shrug it off and go about your day" philosophy to the whole thing, I do still think Denmark needs to keep order (Even if the inital reason for all the tension is pretty damn pathetic). If that involves police force, then it involves police force. If that involves SWAT forces (or the Denmark equivelent) armed with less-than-lethal rubber bullets, than it that's what it takes. If, God forbid, it involves military personel armed with live ammunition, then Denmark has a duty to it's law-abiding citizens to protect their rights and so be it. Under no circumstances should Denmark allow lawlessness take over, and under no circumstances should they give up political beliefs and freedoms, such as free press, because some thugs want to be violent.


As for the threats of foreign violence, Denmark needs to be politically understanding of the situation, but also very serious and upfront if they are attacked (ie, wiping these extremists off the face of the earth). Ravincal, do not allow your country to back down to these thugs calling for violence, and don't let your country resort to racism either. As a citizen, it is your duty to stand up for what you and your country believe in; if that means freedom of press, then by no means let that be taken away; if that means protecting the good muslim people of your country from things like burning texts as well, then you cannot let that happen either. Though you are one person, you can do a lot by simply not allowing yourself to be scared into submission or driven to hatred of all muslim people. I don't think you've been pushed to either of those extremes, but just remember that your country will get through this, and what measures its success is both the means through which it makes it nd its freeoms/beliefs coming out.

[la_reina]

Yeah, some of you guys are right about some Muslims blowing things out of proportion. I also wish the media would portray the Muslims who aren't hypocritic. I love this religion, because it's my life, but some people really need to think before they act. No one's perfect, but the least some people can do is try and BE respectable of other nations. I hate how the media makes ALL Muslims look like the villain.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by la_reina
Yeah, some of you guys are right about some Muslims blowing things out of proportion. I also wish the media would portray the Muslims who aren't hypocritic. I love this religion, because it's my life, but some people really need to think before they act. No one's perfect, but the least some people can do is try and BE respectable of other nations. I hate how the media makes ALL Muslims look like the villain.

If it helps, there's plenty of people who never allowed themselves to be manipulated by the media into thinking all Muslims are bad, that would include myself. I do think that the good muslims have a duty to their religion and world to help silence these idiots, but I think most of the good, respectable muslim people of the world would agree with that.


On the matter in general:

These situations are not good, the world is cruising towards another World War at a rate that is very alarming; but it is not too late. We, the good, respectable people of the world, including the non-extremist muslims, can stop these people as long as we don't allow ourselves to be manipulated, discouraged, or scared into submission. Yes, we're faced with dire circumstances, but we humans have been in the same sort of dire situation, in different forms, throughout history. We will get through these hard times the world's facing; we can never forget that.

[Utora]

Muslims are bad news. Period. I seriously think as soon as they saw something to use as a scapegoat to attack the entire nation of Denmark, they went on parade! :cheese:

I say we just peel the eastern hemisphere off the map, but of course that won't be happening. On the entire 'cartoon' matter: that's the media of today. They've had issues since newpapers and TV and radios were birthed. The media in the USA is no better than, Germany or France or any of those poparatzies. ((sp....busy))

If you really REALLY want to get into it, :irule: talk to me on MSN but I say we just smite the Muslims. :evilgrin:

[Juniper]

Now, that's getting a bit extreme, there are good, respectable muslim people in the world, I know a few myself. I know you're stressed about these issues, I think every person on Earth is, and with good reason, but fighting hate with hate doesn't get anything solved. I beg you, as a friend and fellow forum member, to reconsider that post and position on the issue. Yes, the extremists are bad news, they want nothing more than the death of you, me, and everyone we care about. But not every muslim person is like that. That's not an expression of political correctness, but of fact.


Please you guys, I know there's probably gonna be outraged members from this point on, try to keep calm and collected, that's the best way to go about this.

[Darkslash]

Bush says:

One of the main sources of reaction and opposition [to freedom] is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.
--2006 State of the Union

And that's just it -- it's so despicable that Islam has been twisted into justification for terrorism and -- as evidenced in Denmark today -- coercion worldwide. Like pnt said, if it helps, I think more and more people are making the distinction and avoiding generalization.

[Twilight]

Originally posted by pntbll248
Now, that's getting a bit extreme, there are good, respectable muslim people in the world, I know a few myself. I know you're stressed about these issues, I think every person on Earth is, and with good reason, but fighting hate with hate doesn't get anything solved. I beg you, as a friend and fellow forum member, to reconsider that post and position on the issue. Yes, the extremists are bad news, they want nothing more than the death of you, me, and everyone we care about. But not every muslim person is like that. That's not an expression of political correctness, but of fact.


Please you guys, I know there's probably gonna be outraged members from this point on, try to keep calm and collected, that's the best way to go about this.

For once, I support that all the way. As we said before... Not everyone is a hate enraged psycho, granted there is a select handful that will always have their tiffs. Pnt made a good point before, sometimes it's nessecary to look past stereotypical views and think about each one individually.

Would they be right to consider us, americans and\or Canadians as power hungry, money loving, and unruly people? The whole of the population? No, and the same can be said for this Muslims.
I respect if you hold your position on the subject, it's yours alone, but consider that too. :)

:confused: :hmm:

[unregistered user]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1573559 -_- (Another cartoon-type issue.)

I too knew a few good Moslems from Pakistan and Turkistan; they seemed outgoing just like everyone else did. I asked my friend one time [whose name I cannot even begin to spell] why the extremist causes in some Moslem orders? He said, "There is much enmity between ourselves and other cultures that we sometimes can't control, but we're beginning to understand the nature of ourselves and everyone else - but sometimes understanding nature's intent doesn't always solve a problem."
This really didn't tell me much besides: a problem might not solve a problem or something to that effect (Nature - is being used as a positive resolution).

I really don't think like Pnt said, a war foresay, but an anamnesis of bad things to come.

Let's hope peace...

[nathalie]

Originally posted by Utora
Muslims are bad news. Period.

[...]

If you really REALLY want to get into it, :irule: talk to me on MSN but I say we just smite the Muslims. :evilgrin:

Wow, I respect everyone's opinion, but this comes across a little harsh, doesn't it?

There are a lot of good Muslims out there, but they just don't get in the news, because they don't do anything bad.

[la_reina]

Originally posted by Utora
Muslims are bad news. Period. I seriously think as soon as they saw something to use as a scapegoat to attack the entire nation of Denmark, they went on parade! :cheese:

Ouch.

I guess that makes me a bad person too, huh? :p You shouldn't judge everyone by just one person's actions. Try considering other's feelings before you say something like that.

[unregistered user]

Utora, even though I don't personally know any good Islamic folks, doesn't make them all bad. Don't trust the media's opinion, they're usually wrong anyway =/

Besides, you can't blame what happened on 9/11 or the London Bombings, etc.. on all of the muslim people or the Middle East.

If that's the case, blame every Christian for the Crusades or tele-evangelism.. not exactly our shining stars >_>

[unregistered user]

Yep on what Nukage said. It isn't the entire society, it's the radicalistic groups that are confined in them. Such groups like al-Qaeda are associated with the being Muslim faith and acting under a jihad or something to that nature. But that shouldn't dictate the rights of the Muslim community. It's like the anthrax issue they had in NJ with a small Muslim town, they harassed those people just because they were Muslim, also they said that the anthrax was coming from there, but they had no solid evidence that it did, they just needed a stereotypical fallback at the time. Before anyone judges a commonwealth as a whole, they should take everything into consideration as a whole.

[Ravincal]

No offense, but here comes me and my friends own ''apology''

Sorry, sorry
Sorry because we gave you houses and help
Sorry, because we are giving you a education
Sorry, because we are helping you economicly
Sorry, because you can grow your religion in our christ land
Sorry, because we are sending help to your lands
Sorry, because we don't run around with explosives on our bodies, when we are feeling ''attacked''
Sorry, because we just aren't doing what your religion wants
But a apology for a free speech in our own land after our own lawns, you will never get that one

(Sorry for the spelling/grammary mistakes)

[unregistered user]

That's OK Ravincal, you're only defending yourself. =)

I understand it's scary that radicals in the name of their belief structure can be very menacing, especially the ones that harbor dangerous substances. You shouldn't have to rationalise, you handled yourself quite well so far... = )

[Ravincal]

I think this is taking a wild wrong turn. They once again, burned the danish flag today and attacked the danish ambassade in Israel (I think it was Israel, I'm not sure).

I'm a little scared of the future, who knows what it can predict?

[Juniper]

Just remember, the situation will end eventually, Denmark will get through it. With what amount of dignity and personal freedom it has at the end, that's what's important. Good for you for not giving up and apologizing for freedom of speech.

[Utora]

1,400 Troops ((Markies)) are now marching to the border to protect Denmark.

You know, I know we shouldn't judge the Muslims as a whole but have you ever met one of them? And I know, I didn't judge them on this one guy either but from reports, studying their heritage, religion, history, even looking at their septic systems....dude they say, "Oh no we are not like that, we are not terrorists!" well you take a look at their books and it sists right there. Basicly if you aren't a Muslim, you need to die. Period. Null. Zip. Nada enchalata ziplock freezer bag it's done. So, with that on their record, I'm gunna need to see some community service from these guys before I go saying, "Some are good...let's give them another chance." and that's my opinion. As for Rav: stand by with the 03'...I'll be over to back you up shortly. :cheese:

j/k

but let's hope it simmers down, for THEIR sake.

[nathalie]

I've met some in my life, and I can tell you, they were just as *good* as me and you.

Maybe you just had bad luck or something, with meeting the wrong ones every time.

But the good ones, get dragged down with the bad ones.
And that's just sad ...

[unregistered user]

Originally posted by Ravincal
I'm a little scared of the future, who knows what it can predict?

I think it'd be safe to say that predicting the future would be more scarier than actually not knowing. And not all futures are bright, but with hope there's that possibility. In any case, most wars are controlled in some fashion or another. Basically if you think all is lost, then you couldn't be any further away from the truth. Some critics say war is good, it causes deficits to turn into surpluses, it's a leeway to new charterisms, and open-end ideas. But war is NEVER over, it's always in a current state of recessions. Here's an oxymoron if I ever heard one... "Without war, there's no peace." Well damn, ain't that about the truth! Unfortunately, I see no real global peace, ever. To achieve global peace (and not just this co-existentance we have with each other today), you'd probably need... Well I can't answer that, I guess it's up to our future brilliant minds to...

[Sadiki]

I have worked with one for 2 months and I have to say he was a cool guy. but it is true that you can't really judge the whole religion, by what small groups have done. but it sure is true that it seems that muslims are terrorising the world and the only way the seems useing for makeing any changes, is violance / terrorism. By looking to that, Islam should be forbidden religion at least in Finland because it accept killing in some cases and none of registered religions can do that. Thats why Satanism can't be registered.

I still hope tho that those who terrorising world will understand someday that with that kind of act they don't make anything better for them, just all worse. " violance causes always just more violance "

[Nephilim]

Yeah, I saw 'em marching in London.

"EUROPE IS A CANCER"

and

"WATCH OUT EUROPE, BIN LADEN IS WAY"

I believe some of the choice signs read. Ahh, good ol' Godless Europe.

[Ravincal]

... OMG!! They burned the danish and the norwegian ambassades today in Syria!!!

BECAUSE, they thought we really DID burn the Quran, but we DIDN'T...

Things is out of control, short said.

[nathalie]

Europe is cancer?

With all respect, but why don't they just go back then from where they came from ...

[Juniper]

Personally, I'm a bit angry that the President hasn't backed up the EU to any real degree, I think it's time for some tag-team US/EU ***-whoopin'. :evilgrin:

Kinda funny though, these... people... (especially Iran and Syria) want to stop all trade of everything with the European Union, and if that happens, it'll most likely spread to the US as well. Now, that includes oil and all that. Funny thing is, the world can last a lot longer without Iran and Syria than Iran and Syria can last without the world, their economies are absolutely pathetic outside of their oil trades. Unfortunately for them, if they play that little game of shutting off the oil pumps, there'll most likely be a huge push in the long run for a new form of energy, which is what some of these countries fear most, as such a new energy will most likely leave these people dirt poor.


I really think people need to grow up. Heck, these images were posted months ago, leading me to believe that this has nothing to do with these cartoons, but is a way for some people to cry long and loud about hating the west, and a way for the west to get under people's skin. I think someone needs a time-out.

[la_reina]

Originally posted by Utora
1,400 Troops ((Markies)) are now marching to the border to protect Denmark.

You know, I know we shouldn't judge the Muslims as a whole but have you ever met one of them? And I know, I didn't judge them on this one guy either but from reports, studying their heritage, religion, history, even looking at their septic systems....dude they say, "Oh no we are not like that, we are not terrorists!" well you take a look at their books and it sists right there. Basicly if you aren't a Muslim, you need to die.

You have proof of that? You probably saw or heard that from one of the Muslims countries that take the Islamic laws overboard and add a lil more to them. I HATE it when they do that. But I can tell you that it's 100% untrue. Muslims believe that God gave us a choice; to be Muslim or not. It doesn't mean you have to die if you choose not to be. At all.

@Ravincal: God, I'm so sorry for that...they whole flag-burning situation. I wish they didn't do that. I'm in no way defending them for that, and they'll regret that sooner or later.

[Ravincal]

(@ La Reina) I know you couldn't dream of defending such things.

And just to be straight, I haven't got a sudden ''Angry look'' on you after this have been happening, you are a muslim, and so what? You are one of the ''friendly'' muslims, and therefor not one of the others who is p****** on my country.

I'm still cool with you, whatever happens :)

[Utora]

Originally posted by la_reina
You have proof of that? You probably saw or heard that from one of the Muslims countries that take the Islamic laws overboard and add a lil more to them. I HATE it when they do that. But I can tell you that it's 100% untrue. Muslims believe that God gave us a choice; to be Muslim or not. It doesn't mean you have to die if you choose not to be. At all.


Perhaps. I don't judge you alone against them as a whole. But understand their names aren't favoured. I stand by what I say, and am no fan of the Muslims myself. I do not hate you, but at the same time if you find it that I bother you I understand. I cannot be at favor with everyone nor do I wish to be biased.

If this 'physcopathed' burning keeps up , perhaps some other countries will be prevoked. Though they do not express it, I'm sure a good number are waiting at the border in arms. Mwuahaha..I am.. ((pets Mosin)) :evilgrin:

[unregistered user]

Utora, I once thought the exact same as you did, but I've come to realize that even if the Muslims are all bad, that if we are to follow our religion (Christianity =P ) we shouldn't want to fight them nor hate them or anything like that; even if their whole purpose was to destroy everyone.

Jesus called us to love everyone. Sadly Christians have done a very bang up job so far. Council of Nicea, 30 year's War, the Crusades (again I mention =P ), absolutism, excommunication & the church robbing the people of Europe of who knows how much money, and then there's taking over other lands in the name of Jesus when the true intent was for political conquest, there's (i repeat this as well) tele-evangelism (which sadly still goes on =/ ).

All religions have had their bad moments through history.. Islam is no exception either. I VERY highly doubt that all Islamic peoples are radical and vengeful.

However extremists need to be dealt with, that is true. The heads of the Islamic nations should be ashamed for what they are doing right now though, as la_reina said, they'll regret it later...

Anyway.. we could talk about this all we want, but it will not help in any way at all to improve or worsen the situation. Peace out..

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Nuka
However extremists need to be dealt with, that is true. The heads of the Islamic nations should be ashamed for what they are doing right now though, as la_reina said, they'll regret it later...


With how pathetic these people are acting, quite a bit of the world is fed up with them. Their scare tactics seem to be failing across Europe, as the louder they yell, the more the images get put into newspapers. While I still think it's wrong to be offending the good Muslim people of the world, I do think it's doing a great deal against extremist islam that they will eventually regret.

[lion_roog]

About Muslim people and extreme Islam...I have yet to have one Muslim friend who has been extreme...and I have quite a few Muslim friends...since Tucson is a major destination for refugees and my neighborhood has a lot of people of other nationalities compared to other parts of Tucson. I have friends from Bosnia, Iraq, Checkoslavakia, Iran, Palestine, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somolia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan...and they are just like anyone else.

[unregistered user]

Originally posted by pntbll248
Kinda funny though, these... people... (especially Iran and Syria) want to stop all trade of everything with the European Union, and if that happens, it'll most likely spread to the US as well. Now, that includes oil and all that. Funny thing is, the world can last a lot longer without Iran and Syria than Iran and Syria can last without the world, their economies are absolutely pathetic outside of their oil trades. Unfortunately for them, if they play that little game of shutting off the oil pumps, there'll most likely be a huge push in the long run for a new form of energy, which is what some of these countries fear most, as such a new energy will most likely leave these people dirt poor.

That's very agreeable. However that push for a synthesis of that new energy, wouldn't come without its price. Because hydrocarbons such as petroleum are relatively cheap, this causes a high economical gross. Whereas synthetic compounds such as highbreds, would cause a contingentcey in-house flux. As what it stands today, petroleum fuel-efficiency will stay in control over synthetics over a long deration of time.

[unregistered user]

I don't know, it might not be a nuclear (sp? oO) war.. but war is upon the world's doorsteps. All the signs of war are there. And it will be a world war too cause right now tensions are high in pretty much every area of the world against someone else. All it needs is a spark and we could b in the next 'war to end all wars'.

Europe and the Middle East over these drawings, Pakistan and India over Kashmir, Israel and Palestine now that Hamas is in control, Venezuela and the U.S., and even the Sudan are all becoming violent quite quickly and simultaneously.

And all of those groups are connected in one form or another to each other... very bad news =/

[Ravincal]

What I'm really afraid of these times is mostly a nuclear bomb right in the center of Copenhagen, because that bomb would take me with it as well. I'm not far away from the capitol city.

But I'm not losing hope, as one of the few in my city.

[Juniper]

I wouldn't worry about the immediate effects of an atomic blast, as there's really no terrorist organization that has an atomic bomb (to my knowledge) at this point in time. Even if they did, it would almost definately be a extremely low-yield poorly built nuclear warhead, most likely with a blast diameter less than 1000 feet (that means the possibility of being injured by the blast or projectiles from the blast) and an immediate fallout area of a half a mile or less. That's pretty much a worse-case scenario, too. I definately don't see this issue, or even the middle east issue, becoming a nuclear standoff at any point in the future. There's still ample hope for all these issues to be solved without additional war as well, as the world, including many muslim people in the middle east, is very quickly getting fed up with radical islamic militants. I do think there'll be quite a bit more conflict, but I don't think all hope is lost, or even in doubt.


I don't want to sound rude by saying the situation is good, but a political person on Fox brought up a great point about this cartoon thing. This is hurting the radical islamic people around the world quite a bit as people are realizing "Hey, these people (radical militants) really are violent idiots. Why are we putting up with this?"

[Ravincal]

It is unknown if Iraq possesses nuclear wargear and biological weapons.

I don't remember if this is true, but I think U.S.A demanded that Iraq should destroy ALL of their nuclear weapons and similarities. Who knows if they really did destroy all of them?

And, I don't doubt there is Al-Qaeda in Denmark, but I don't think they are possessing bombs or similar.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Ravincal
It is unknown if Iraq possesses nuclear wargear and biological weapons.

I don't remember if this is true, but I think U.S.A demanded that Iraq should destroy ALL of their nuclear weapons and similarities. Who knows if they really did destroy all of them?

And, I don't doubt there is Al-Qaeda in Denmark, but I don't think they are possessing bombs or similar.


As we're currently occupying Iraq, I wouldn't consider their alleged nuclear arsenal as any kind of major threat. From all the reports I've heard, Iraq never even came close to a finished nuclear weapon, though I do think it's a bit fishy that the US didn't find anything of real interest in Iraq; seems too innocent, if ya ask me. But anyways, I very highly doubt the possibility of a high-yield nuclear weapon being used against Denmark any time soon.

[unregistered user]

As far as Iraq goes, I still think Syria might've smuggled the weapons over into their country to hide what Saddam had been up to. I mean.. the past how many presidents, not just George W. Bush, were told that Iraq had nuclear weapons? Quite a few if I recall correctly. The folks that help the President are the best int he business, and don't very often make such statements without 'something' to back it up...

Anyway, that's beside the point <.<

As for nuclear war.. I doubt that would happen actually. The only middle eastern countries that I know of that have nuclear technology is Israel, pakistan, and (though not part of the Middle East) India.

No terrorists to my knowledge have any nuclear weapons.

[Atimon]

Hrm..to be honest, the whole thing starts to really scare me..
Religion has become a very difficult and dangerous topic nowadays...I think it is never funny to joke about things that nearly the whole world believes in (talking about religion in general here) - and the more it is scary to see how easily things can get out of control because of some pictures (don't get me wrong here, I also think publishing this stuff was completely wrong), but if you think about this: it is a big deal people now make out of it, they burn down buildings and stuff like that, because of some 'pictures' - what comes next when someone for example says something against a special religion on the radio, or on TV? Or what if people are attacked or even killed on the street and stuff like that here in Europe or America, too, 'just' because of religion (if you don't count ***asination attempts [*is amused about the censure here* ;)] as they are already happening, of course, which I highly despise and think of as an act of cowardice, not something of honor as those people do who kill themselves and many others, because they think they'll be honored for it afterwards)? Will we have a (nuclear) war then directly?
Like many people said before me, things have gotten very far, it is just a matter of time and could depend on a little reason to make things explode...

[Utora]

|^| Atimon : Very true indeed. But that is why I make my decisions now, and too not wait. I cannot go home now for many reasons, this out break one of them.

It may not be the radio, or the TV that we will hear these things. Soon enough it may be in our faces. The war is slowly stretching, farther and farther. More people are starting to express their true feelings, major people, that effect countries even. I've been hearing more people disagree with their own countries than I have ever before.

There may be terrorists now, with weapons. Nuclear. M***ive. Or even grounds forces, air forces, water forces. We may not know about it. We trust so much in the system, but how easy is it to miss once? It's a sickening situation, but I grin at it, and not with a twisted or sick sense of humor mind you.

First they threatened. Now they rebel. Next a counter attack. Then another attack. Then war. It could go very differently, but they way it's going now well, it doesn't look like basket of cupcakes. I think there is a little bit more going on here than what we're actually permitted to know. I've studied it in history plenty enough.

Chances are, if the areas around Denmark and such get into a war,the USa and such like her herself will remain Neutral against the conflict, except for the troops we already have out there.

A poll was taken the other day, from CNN. 39,00 people out of 33 countries voted the three leading Negative influencing countires, in their opinion.
Afghanistan - USA - Russia and the two Postive influences were Japan - Europe .



I just thought that was pretty freakin' funny.

[unregistered user]

http://www.nti.org/

[Huma]

I'm not the one who edited the paper or the one who burned flag, so I don't know the truth. But through what's been said in this thread, both Moslems and Danmark are acting oddly

Talking about possiblity, it is possible that Islam extremists are in control of the paper, and it's fairly possible that Danish racists burned that flag.

But what I sure is this: throughout the history of Europe, there were some "people" purposely raising hatred between western and mid-east nations, between Christian and Moslems, for their own power and benefit. They made, as Nuka said, some not exactly brilliant event in the history. I believe I just saw their faces again, today.

I don't think the leaders of both Danmark and Islamic nations are babies, but just for us, let's not walk straight into the same trap which stumbled our world thousand years ago, for it would be too stupid to do so.

And for anyone neither Dane nor Moslems, I don't consider you love your own country to want her go into a war.

[unregistered user]

That is very possible, Huma. Causing a conflict between the most influential religions ever. Would give someone just enough advantage to either take the heat off themselves or trek their way into some sort of external power, both? It appears (at least for now) any applicatory use of nucleonic armaments is very low. As far as any terrorist having atomize weaponry, isn't out of the question, no sir! I wouldn't worry about a WW3, but don't dismiss any of the signs that are given.

[lion_roog]

Man...I don't see any war starting over religion and all...I see it starting over money. Money runs the world...just like it runs the streets...

[unregistered user]

I beg to differ, Roog. Most theoreticians and pundit people alike agree that religion causes all major wars, and it's the governments that fuel these fires. And Roog it's ALL about the money, for most; if not all... >>

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Sonkakee
I beg to differ, Roog. Most theoreticians and pundit people alike agree that religion causes all major wars, and it's the governments that fuel these fires. And Roog it's ALL about the money, for most; if not all... >>

I agree...I guess my point will be that not all sides will be in it over religion...I'm sure some players will be in it to protect their interests across the world. But before we fight and worry about a war over-seas, I think we should worry about the war on the streets. In our own back yards. that's the war I see that's influenced by money...My friends haven't had guns pulled on them and drive bys done on them over religion in that war, but over 2 dollars and drug territory, yes...

EDIT: some good news...I read that Lebanon has apologized to Denmark for the rioting in Lebanon...even Muslim Clerics entered the crowd trying to stop people from rioting.

[unregistered user]

Thanks, r00g! :cheese:

And Huma, you seem to be on the right track:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1584113

"The Middle East has for months been a powder keg of anti-Western rage over the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But some observers say the furor over the drawings may have been exploited or intensified by some Muslim countries in the region to settle scores with Western powers."

---

[Huma]

yeah, very similar to what I guess

some farther observation: this incident doesn't concern freedom of speech or religious offense.

freedom of speech doesn't cover freedom to insult other people's belief (even by jokes since it does the same thing:insulting). take LH for example, do we have freedom of speech? is insulting others' belief allowed here?

As been said before, being religiously offended by a newspaper doesn't validate boycott toward a country and any flag-buring stuff.

conclusion: this two terms were used by media or whomever have the intention to exaggerate the conflict againt the truth.

deduction: since the intentional exaggeration is present and the incidents following are only towards increasing tension, this boycott have high probability to be plotted. Danmark government should be taking action to investigate who made the comic and who edited it, just some background investigation, since they are not ashamed by what they did. And that ISESCO, its name is devoted to education/science/culture, how could it suddenly transform into a forefront of a polical campaign? Does this E/S/C organization really has the power to call Islamic sovereignties its "member states"? This incident doesn't seem to go as a diplomatic situation caused by cultural conflict. This world has bigger source talking Islam in hostility than this Danmark newpaper and been ignored. These things are indicating this incident is pure-political rather than cultural, even cultural-political.

[unregistered user]

As far as religion wars go.. The Pope has clearly stated that he sides with the Islamic people on this issue. So don't expect a war between Christianity and Islam.. well.. at least the Catholic denomination *shrugs*

[la_reina]

Originally posted by Nuka
As far as religion wars go.. The Pope has clearly stated that he sides with the Islamic people on this issue. So don't expect a war between Christianity and Islam.. well.. at least the Catholic denomination *shrugs*

That's good to hear :) So hopefully this is all over now?

[Juniper]

@Huma: This most certainly involves freedom of speech, because it asks the question of whether you're allowed to say something that offends a bunch of people. That newspaper had something to say, they said it under the knowledge that they're entitled to say it, and then the rug was pulled out from under them. Whether they should have done it isn't an issue for freedom of speech, but whether they should be allowed to say something that offends quite a few people is. The KKK offends quite a few people, but they have every right to say what they have to say if they say it in a peaceful medium. Likewise, the people who hate the KKK have something to say, and they have the right to say it as long as they do so in a peaceful manner. This newspaper wanted to tell the world that it thought Islam was a religion of violence (not that I agree with that), and I don't think they should be silenced because people get angry. Lea has nothing to do with the US or EU, or their political system therein; I think a person has every right to insult my religion, and I have every right to argue against what they say when they do. But, with freedom comes responsibility; I think the newspaper made a very bad choice in publishing those images, I think it was wrong to insult the good muslim people of the world, and also I think they cannot have their right to publish such things taken away.

And I do think this has to do with taking offense, at least to an extent. I would be offended, I wouldn't boycott Denmark, but yeah, i think there's definately some offense taken.

[Darkslash]

The Danish cartoons are nothing compared to the abundance of anti-Semitic ones put out daily by the Arab media (esp. Palestine):

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Offensive_Cartoons.asp

[Huma]

@pnt: I partially agree, but see this: we're given the freedom of speech in the light of our willingness to uncover our common, objective truth(e.g science,fact,events in reality). This involves offence to some group if and only if some truth are obtained in the progress so that a better understanding may be attained at the end. Since now we all understand science and common truth, religion becomes a subject composed by subjective reality rather than objective, hence, publicly defying a religion raises none the truth other than the hatred. I can't deny that new paper's right to offend Islam, but they abused their right and make it all the worse for the people who are using the freedom of speech in good purpose. Again take a example here, one year ago, we HAD more freedom to speak of religion than now, why? the flaming caused by those religious-offensive posts shut us up, and I made one of them myself though unintentionally. That's so I learned that the only way to maintain our freedom is to have a control and take acton against any form of abuse. So as one of people enjoying jokes and freedom of speech, I really wanted to shut that news paper up, not by violence tho.

[unregistered user]

Unfortunately not la_reina, since this wasn't a war between religions in the first place, but a war between post-modern thought and religious taboos.

It's getting very bad now, the cartoons are spreading more and more. They've now reached all the way into newspaper in South Africa where the reaction has been much the same as in Europe and the Middle East =/

In Afghanistan a U.S. airport came under attack, said to be because of this even though the U.S. has no connection with this whole situation at all.. yet.

BBC & CNN have both agreed not to show the cartoons and prevent further violence and hostilities.

[Utora]

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/02/06/bindra.india.cartoon.protest.ap

[Simbaspirit]

i know this is a little late, but i dont get it.:p

[lion_roog]

Man...Imagine if this starts World war 3...and we're all speaking Portugese (because, I think the Portugal will come out of no where to win this war)...I could see the history books now...World War 3: Global destruction over cartoons...:D

[unregistered user]

Well I hope Saudi Arabia and other Muslim holy leaders can help stop these violent protests.

[unregistered user]

"If you want peace, prepare for war." ~The Punisher

Good words to remember actually, because it's true. Anyway..

Suadi Arabia hasn't done anything violent.. yet.. but they have pulled their diplomats out of Denmark, that much I know.

The riots have now spread throughout Southern Asia (as Utora stated) and into Nigeria as well.

[Sadiki]

I don't really believe that war does bring peace, just because violance always causes only more violance and respect. I think Punisher ment more like peace for his mind and soul. War have never done anything good... and it neither seems that people never learn anything from wars... but I seriously am a bit worried about the whole situation and where it leads to.

in fact thrid world war can be true in next 10 years... lets hope not tho.

[Only-now]

I guess I can agree with a few things that were already stated here. One, I think the muslims are using this as a way to attack the west, because the issue really isn't that big a deal. Secondly, I think that they beleive that the shock of such violence and outrage would get an apology, or a cowardly response...but instead, they are starting to piss off even Europe (no offesne, but Europe has been REALLY soft in my opinion).

Obviously, the extremists, or anyone who is outraged over those cartoons, does not put enough faith in their religion..because they allow something so trivial to cause a response like this. They obviously must feel threatened by the cartoons (because there is truth in them) and that is why they feel the need to try and show this. They are WRONG once again, and I think that Europe and the world should take this, and turn it. We should use their attempt to intimidate us, to CRUSH them..and let them know that this is NOT what the world wants..and we will not stand by and let people step on us because of their own problems with the west (which also come from their religion, or so they claim).

Denmark, or any other country should not have to deal with this, or give up their freedom of speech, etc. They have the right to speak what they want in their own, local newspaper. Whether it was a wise choice, is another issue...but they should be allowed to do so. Look at the Jewish religion? How long have they been persecuted, had jokes about them, the holocaust anyone? Do they go about rioting when they are made fun of in a movie? Not at all, because it is the Muslim religion that allows people to interpret it literally..and thus extract violence from it.

Whether you like the religion or not..it DOES state that all people who are not Muslim should be killed by having their head cut off. Thus, the extremists interpret it literally, and use it to jusitify their violence against us. Other religions do not allow the same widespread, accepted justicification. By accepted, I mean that it is valid to other muslims that actually make up a large portion. My personal view is that the Muslim religion really does have a much more harsh, violent state...and that even peaceful Muslims have a different view of Christians, than Christians of Muslims. Of course, that doesn't go for everyone..but the religion does have a much more violent, forceful nature. Most of the conflicts around the world involve Muslims, and that is no wonder.

I hope this gets resolved in a way that weakens their cause..and maybe it will possibly show the Europeans that the US has the right view of the extremists, and that something should be done.

My guess though, is that this will eventually die down, and it will be the same as before. In my opinion, that is not a healthy situation for the world....because some areas of the world need to realize the threat, and actually do something about it with people who already are (The United States). That is my view of the situation,and hopefully something good comes from this.

[Only-now]

sorry about the double post, but I do not like when people say that war doesn't bring anything good. That just isn't true in so many aspects. You know the saying "Give peace a chance"?

Well, why won't anyone ever actually give WAR a chance? I don't think it happens much, because everyone is so quick to jump and say "War is bad, lets all love each other". I'm sorry, but the world isn't that simple...and you have to realize that sometimes war DOES bring peace. The other side can't bring more violence, if they don't exist :D

[nathalie]

Hmm, I wouldn't really like to re-live what my grandparents and many many others have lived during WW 1 + 2, and all the other wars.

So I don't think I could give war a chance :cringe:

[Only-now]

Well, you wouldn't have to because war is not fought the way it used to be. Those times were much different, but that is sort of a selfish viewpoint. I am not saying I would enjoy a war, or its effects. I don't enjoy the one I am in now...but it IS the right thing in my mind. It is for the greater good in the future...and sometimes you have to feel pain before you feel pleasure. You have to makes things worse, to make them better.

[nathalie]

I can't really see much difference between those wars back then and the wars that goes on now: people keep dying / people still get shot/killed.

I do agree with "sometimes you have to feel pain before you feel pleasure", but not in this matter, haha

[Only-now]

I didn't mean people getting shot..I meant the affects at home are not the same as before. People always die in war..and it is the inability of people to accept that (liberals) that leads to deaths in vain, and lost causes. The way in which the United States (since thats the only place I can speak for) fights wars, is MUCH more humane, and precise than WW1, or WW2. This current war is the most militarily successful ever, and thus..I think if the world wants peace from these terrorists..they have to be destroyed. This new style, or imporvement will allow us to do so without losing a large amount of men, property, or killing innocent civilians.

Basically, you are saying that losing lives is not worth gaining much peace for the entire world?

[unregistered user]

Well, Iran has decided to retalliate against the West by making cartoons that mock... (not surprisingly) the Holocaust.

[nathalie]

Originally posted by Only-now

Basically, you are saying that losing lives is not worth gaining much peace for the entire world?

In my opinion? Yes.

It's not worth it to kill so many people.
Or, it's not worth it that so many people have to die.

Yet it happens, and I think it's just sad that it happens like that.

[Only-now]

You don't think saving the lives of hundreds of innocents in the future, and securing peace for the generations of children to come, so that they don't have to live in fear, is not worth people sacraficing their lives? Wow, that is VERY selfish..and I don't mean to make you mad...but it is true. I guess it depends on what you mean by "so many"...but in three years of being in Iraq...we have lost a little over 2000 troops. I think that is a vast improvement over the thousands lost in a day in WW1.

All I am saying is that there are causes in this world worth dying for. Freedom and peace are both causes to die for...but that is only if you are the type of person that is willing to do so. Apparently that is not so for you (sorry to offend).

I guess on the logical standpoint, that stance doesn't make sense either. You don't want people to die to make peace...so instead..people will continue to wage this battle (the terrorists against us, other evil powers) and kill INNOCENT people in the same amount if not more. For example..lets say we let Iran have nuclear weapons, and didnt go to war when they refused to give them up, etc. Then they decide to use one on...hmm..the US, or some country in Europe...and thousands of people die. Preventing that is not worth losing some soldiers to an attack that forcefully stops them?

[nathalie]

Well first, that was my opinion.

Second, I don't want *anyone* to die.
I just don't believe in war.

And we can go on and on and on about that, but it will still be my opinion on it.
And luckely we all have different views and opinions in life :)

[Only-now]

I see...well, in my OPINION that is a very naive point of view, but I will "try" no further.

~Kiva

[nathalie]

You may think about others opinions what you want, that's your choice.
But I happen to think about it like that. :)

[Juniper]

Personally, I'd very much like to avoid further confrontation, as I may end up fighting, and dying, in this war, and frankly, I'd very much prefer to not die like that. I don't think that's naive, cowardly, "Liberal", or whatever; I'd like to see anyone else here say they'd be happy to die in such a way, or wouldn't have second thoughts. I think people who say so are fools or liars. That doesn't mean I won't be there if my country needs me, if the military were to need me, I'd enlist; I do, however, think war should be avoided and used as a last resort. Personally, I think anyone who supports war in any instance where it isn't the absolute last resort better be the first in line to sign up.

[Only-now]

I never said it should be the first resort, in fact..I think the point was that that is what could end up being the only way to gain peace. I never said I would be happy to kill anyone, or fight, or die. I just said that to think that war should never be fought IS a naive viewpoint. That is what you teach to a child in gradeschool, who needs to understand that violence is bad. The world is more complex than that, and sometimes war IS the answer. There are people however, that believe that certain things in the world are worth fighting..and possibly dying for. That doesn't mean you embrace it..it means you are willing to stand up for it. That is exactly the point of it...that you are scared, but it means enough for you to give your life. The people who do believe in such things, ARE the first to sign up.

I guess anytime some endorses war, or says that this is the way to stop this violence, etc..they are instantly a war mongor. I mean, that IS the viewpoint..because for example..people ignore all the resolutions given to Iraq by the world...a peaceful diplomatic solution..and say that we went straight to war.

All I was saying is that it does get to a point where war is the only way to get peace..and if you are too naive to realize that sometimes people have to die (and are willing to) for a greater good...it is YOUR problem..and I do mean problem.

~Kiva

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Only-now
I never said it should be the first resort, in fact..I think the point was that that is what could end up being the only way to gain peace. I never said I would be happy to kill anyone, or fight, or die. I just said that to think that war should never be fought IS a naive viewpoint. That is what you teach to a child in gradeschool, who needs to understand that violence is bad. The world is more complex than that, and sometimes war IS the answer. There are people however, that believe that certain things in the world are worth fighting..and possibly dying for. That doesn't mean you embrace it..it means you are willing to stand up for it. That is exactly the point of it...that you are scared, but it means enough for you to give your life. The people who do believe in such things, ARE the first to sign up.



But you will you be signing up as well? I have little doubt that I'll be signing up within the next year or two. Do you believe that this freedom is worth you giving your life for, or is it only worth someone else giving their life for? I never said war shouldn't be fought, but I do get annoyed by people who call for war but have never considered fighting that war; if you're one of those people, then your opinion has little weight to me, if you're not, then I'm happy to see someone backing up their words with action.

[lion_roog]

haha....I like how peace is being mentioned as if it actually exists...The world has never known peace and it never will...there is always a conflict somewhere at sometime...hell, with just the United States alone we have invaded or militarily (is that a word) intervened in over 90 countries within the last century, to my knowledge.

[Juniper]

Perfect peace doesn't exist, but peace does. There's plenty of times in the past when we've been relatively peaceful, and there'll be those times in the future as well. Even if peace is nothing more than an idealistic thought, it exists because it has to exist. If it didn't exist, there'd be no reason to hate war and fighting (not that it isn't necessary, I do agre with Kiva that it's necessary in some situations).

[lion_roog]

I guess I was refering to the concept of World Peace.

[Juniper]

Ah, well, I think World Peace will happen some day, even if for just a few seconds in between the ever changing issues of nations. Something to look forward to/hope for at least.

[unregistered user]

I don't believe, no war isn't the only ulterior motif to peace. But dealing with the cards stacked against us, it's the only viable behaviour and recourse we have. So I WILL not voluntarily goto war; but if they need me, without question, I will! I'd also fight for most of Europe, Japan, and Australia.

"God save the World, because there's no one else who can."

[Only-now]

My point wasn't about me and you. It was about the concept of fighting for something greater than yourself. I said, that there are many people hwo exist who believe in such a thing, and that those people are the ones who join first. I was also using this, to show that her viewpoint was one that did not consider the greater good that comes from a war. That to get peace you need war...and the people who understand this, and feel strongly enough, will join the military to fight for it.

I was arguing with you, because you said you didn't want more confrontation. You actually proved what I was saying in your first post. I never said people didn't have second thoughts, etc...but that doesn't mean you don't believe. I don't join because I DO have second thoughts about dying, and leaving my family. That doesn't mean that I can't support the fact that you sometimes need war for peace, or that people do fight for something beyond themselves.

Obviously this is all being twisted out of what it was orginally supposed to be. I have considered fighting the war..and in all honesty..I don't think I would mind all that much. I do have a choice though...because of the freedom we have here...that others did believe in, sign up to defend, and died for.

Why do you think we honor out veterans so much? Because they did fight for it...for the people next to them, for the United States. They defended the people who weren't fighting..but that doesn't mean because not everyone in the US hasn't fought in a war, that they cannot support the cause that they fought for.

You really seemed to take my posts the wrong way. I never said war is the first resort, and I never said that the people who are fighting in it are just willing to die, hands down, no thought. I guess that is how you took it..somehow..but I think if you go back, that isnt what I meant.

[Juniper]

Actually, I wasn't even responding to your first post, I was putting a new idea into the discussion about the general topic of war. I had little to do with what you said any more than anyone else's posts until you responded to mine, and I needed to make sure you understand how serious a situation of war is. People die in war, people go through agonizng pain (mental, physical, or both), and people have their lives ruined; there is no real happiness in war, it is Hell on earth. There is no substitute for a human life, it is the most sacred thing on this earth. Yes, war is necessary in some instances, and I think the war going on now is somewhat necessary, but I've never held respect for someone saying freedom is worth fighting for if they haven't considered fighting for that freedom. If you realize that, and you'd at least consider fighting in the war, then I have no problem with you or your opinion, but if you're one of the many people around the world who will call for war but would never want to fight it, I'd say that's the epitome of selfishness and evil. As you fit into the former instead of the latter, I'd say we're arguing the same opinion to eachother.

[Huma]

Where do I start, well, might just start from what I want to say the most:

I want to make clear that I hate each and every minute I spend on this post. All the bits of my mind demands me to stay out, pretend never seen it, but if I do so, I would acquiescently defy my own words, my own deeds, now and forever since, and I can not drop this guilt until death.

Don??t mistake me offended for I am not, the things offended and threatened, I believe, are the things that Only-now and whom else I??m going to quote hold dear, and I will spend the rest of this post to show it to you. If those things you consider not worthy, or could be sacrificed, then call me wrong and loser.

I start here:


war DOES bring peace
Why? Maybe it??s because:

you have to feel pain before you feel pleasure. You have to makes things worse, to make them better.
Till here, this argument, like so many others, is just not making perfect sense. Not making perfect sense is not a sin, but then, some deeper voice arose:

The other side can't bring more violence, if they don't exist

-

Those statements are sins and offence and threat to the very concept you and I call ??peace??. The definition of ??peace?? is ??a static and stable state in which two or more different people/cultures/countries coexist??. I may not be accurate with definition, but the very core of both the ??peace?? and ??freedom?? concepts involve tolerance to difference. If annihilating one side in an opposition hence destroy the difference is someway to reach the peace, then the world ??peace?? could easily be attained by killing all humans on this earth to leave one, who could live in this ??peace?? and ??freedom?? never to reproduce and die. I do not want this ??peace?? and ??freedom??, I will fight to death with this ??peace?? and ??freedom??.

If I remembered correctly, the above quotation demonstrate word ??imperialism??, the exact opposite of ??peace?? and ??freedom??, in which one voice, one power make the righteousness. Actually someone just provided an example:


-

Formal British Empire sells imperialism, but they don??t advertise it using ??peace?? or ??freedom??. Thus, if someone here like this version of world, go forth say it: ??I love slavery.?? Don??t try deluding yourself by mixing war and peace, freedom and power, good and evil for all these are lies and sins.

Furthermore, there are some additional comment provided in relationship of peace and war:


The way in which the United States (since thats the only place I can speak for) fights wars, is MUCH more humane, and precise than WW1, or WW2.

This new style, or imporvement will allow us to do so without losing a large amount of men, property, or killing innocent civilians.
It??s good for Only-now that he still feels:

that is sort of a selfish viewpoint.

Nonetheless, this is not selfish, this is criminal. Method doesn??t justify the cause, this is too simple to cost my time proving, but that aside for now. The worse part is that Only-now was suggesting U.S. to go into a war in which she has no business by a reason that U.S. can hardly harm herself doing that. It is the equivalent to suggesting a man go into murder because ??guns are so good you risk little yourself??. This is a clear sin.

United States can fight a war so humane that by giving her enemies euthanasia yet it won??t be a humane war, it won??t be humane to innocent Americans who absently share a part in a wrong even evil plot, it won??t be humane to U.S. soldiers to shred their blood in a bad cause.

And are wars precise today? Maybe in the battlefield, but not the whole picture. Even weapon is precise, hatred is not. Wars today are using labeled bomb, missiles wrapped by ideology to create delusion, they suck more and more formally innocent and peaceful people into this mass by mixing truth with lie. No, war are less precise then they used to be.

I am not an antiwar enthusiast, and I??m not saying this to protect world peace. Whether U.S. or some poster here like or enjoy wars are not my business, but I??m speaking in the absence of voice that should be present for the interest of U.S. and you, Only-now??s good conscious. I won??t blame any foreigner to love to see U.S. wars, but as self-declared U.S. citizen, I accuse you, Only-now, a crime, in wishing and publicly motivating your own country into an unnecessary war.

Finally

I think if the world wants peace from these terrorists. They have to be destroyed.
This is not specifically against whom I quoted from, but against a common sense today and the biggest lie I saw in my entire life.
Terrorists, they appears in papers, TVs, video games everyday. But what are they?

Are terrorists human beings?

If they??re not, they are some highly dangerous yet highly intelligent life form besides human. We should have protected them for the use of scientific study like wildlife or started building relationship with their civilization, yet we did not. That is saying they are still human.

If terrorists are human, what do they want? Killing other human? This doesn??t fit into our understanding, history and definition of humanity. The media want us to believe that terrorists want nothing other than killing and destruction, but hell, knowledge and logic doesn??t support such existence on earth.


Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So, terrorists are up for ??ideological and political reasons??. To put it more simply, they are persons have unpopular ideas as myself, but only state their mind by guns.

By this definition, if a country unlawfully(unjustly) open or threaten to open a war against another country, this is indeed a practice of terrorism. And ??because a comic made by a paper?? or ??because we have difference in freedom of speech?? are ??unlawful?? cases, so as ??they are terrorists??.

Terrorism was made by wars, abuses of violence, insufficiency and absence of listening. ??Anti-terrorist war?? is a self-contradictory term. ??anti-terrorist defense?? is more appropriate, ??anti-terrorist war?? is using the very idea of terrorism to fight terrorists only turned its own fighters into terrorists.

Indeed, terrorism must be destroyed. terrorism, not ??terrorists??, who are only human bent under this evil thought. But be warned: ??terrorism?? is not an invention of terrorists and not their patent, they??re not specific to poor people in mid-eastern countries, but rather, it lurks in all minds.




I end it here.

These are not all things I can quote and I can show, but mains are here. This is not my final comment on the subject. I do hope the truth is cleared and this can be over, but if it??s not, I will go on. Now I accused a named member and probably offended a lot more. However much freedom of speech is here, I used it. I never considered ??freedom of speech?? as ??speak whatever you want??, so I will count myself and my world lucky if this post survived.

[unregistered user]

"Those statements are sins and offence and threat to the very concept you and I call ??peace??." As I said, I apologized and I will not disavow anything that I've said.

"If I remembered correctly, the above quotation demonstrate word ??imperialism??, the exact opposite of ??peace?? and ??freedom??, in which one voice, one power make the righteousness. Actually someone just provided an example:" You know I believe you're right. I think virtual dominance is rather empirical.

You made some well-defined points yourself there, Huma. And it's very easy to sling etymologies around, but the majority of the point still shows its rearing head.

[Only-now]

Well, for one I could barely understand your post due to the way it was written, and two, I think you are totally wrong. I believe it was a bit far to call what I beleive in a sin. I do think the war is necessary, and to me, it sounds like you are trying to justify terrorism.

I guess you chose the wrong way to repsond to someone's opinion.

[lion_roog]

I don't think he was defending terrorism...just stating that people look at terrorists as being all evil, when they're human just like anyone else...but instead they are under the spell of violence and the power it wields. And I guess the other point he was trying to make is that terrorism is not just a product of the Middle East...that it's everywhere. I guess here in the United States you can say a few different groups use terrorist acts, like gangs and the KKK and the like.

[Ravincal]

There are surely Al-Qaeda in Denmark, but I doubt they are possessing bombs (As stated).

Well, no matter.. I got this link from a friend: www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com

What's your opinion in THIS?

[Huma]

Originally posted by Only-now
[B]Well, for one I could barely understand your post due to the way it was written, and two, I think you are totally wrong. I believe it was a bit far to call what I beleive in a sin. I do think the war is necessary, and to me, it sounds like you are trying to justify terrorism.


Think as you want that the war is necessary, but for whatever necessity it is, it's not for peace. If you don't believe in peace, fine, again, I'm not pacificist. But it's not me justifying terrorism for I said it should be destroied, it's you who seek justification of war in peace. That's why I have to give those words their true meaning.

You might consider what you said not a big deal, but it has its effects and consequences. One of them is my anger. I admit my accusation is out of anger, but it's a anger not of mind but of conscience.


I guess you chose the wrong way to repsond to someone's opinion.
As long as you're trying to justify wrongness by some fancy good term, there isn't any opinion here, there is only right or wrong here. If you just say:" I love wars", you put your bet on my repsond is "oh yeaaah". But what you said is "war is right because war brought us peace." no matter you realized it or not, you're stating not on the level of "opinion", it's on the level of "lie". If you want to use facts, examples or logic or even more lies to prove "war DOES bring peace", go ahead and I will defeat each and every one of them. If you don't have anything more on this matter, let's say it is a lie.

I think I don't have to prove that I hold nothing personal againt you or your ideology, you barely know me. But now, you have raisen this into the level of justification. if you say "I just think that way, I don't seek justification." I will apologize to you and go back to "opinion" level, otherwise, I won't back down to tolerate a lie in any form of an "opinion".

[Eva Janus]

I'm quite irritated and getting more tense as I read more about this situation. I just read an article on this event in my class right now and it's making me so angry. My reasoning is more personal, I guess... but... It makes me angry that the burning of flags and trying to raid an embassy etc was all because of a comic being published. The Christians and Jews etc don't do those kind of acts because they are offended by something. There are tons of comics and such criticizing or whatever of the varioud religions and the Muslims are the only ones who decide to bomb or burn things, etc. It makes me so angry... Also, (the reason it's kind of personal) I have a good friend who lives over in Denmark. He's quite angry about the whole ordeal as well. I tend to be one of the friends where: e.g. My friend is sad, therefore I'm sad aslo. Not all the time, but for my close friends I usually am.

It's insane and it's getting me all worked up. I hope it gets all sorted out though... I don't want to hear of another war breaking out or something. That would really suck...

[Ravincal]

Alot of danish people is sad, including me. I had so much muslims friends.. Well I THOUGHT they were my friends.. Until that horrible day.

[la_reina]

So you and your Muslim friends had an arguement over this?

[Dijesolo]

This is crazy..

[Ravincal]

Well, yes.. But I spoke with them today, and they are apologizing for what they did.

Phew..

[la_reina]

That's great :D It's horrible how situations like these tear apart friendships, really...

[Only-now]

Wow, so now I am a liar as well? So you are saying that I KNOW war doesn't bring peace, but I choose to say it does instead. THAT would be a lie, and THAT is not the case at all. You need to get a lot of things straight man.

You know what IS a lie? The fact you said you didn't like this thread, because you wouldn't come back if you didn't (which is fine with me), and secondly that you aren't saying anything personal. ALL of your statements are directed towards me, personally. You have called me a liar and a sinner all because my view on the issue is that war can and does bring peace in certain situations. Given, it is not the first resort, but it is the last, and thus it will be used when the time is right, and it WILL bring peace. So I guess war did not bring any peace to Europe when Hitler took over? Instead, they should have allowed him to conquer and destroy as he pleased?

Also, the fact that he puts the blame somewhere else other than right on the terrorists IS justifying it. It is almost as if he was saying it isn't their fault. They make the choice whether to use violence or not. We have the choice too, and we would do a better job using it...but for some reason, that is NOT the idealogy of the United States, or most of Europe. The terrorists are human beings...evil human beings.

Oh, and yes Eva. Makes me upset too, but Im sure it won't last too much longer. This thread is dying, and so is the real issue in real life. On a side note: *hugs and kisses his lovely Eva* Love you! :)

~Kiva

[Dijesolo]

Kiva, think twice before putting WW2 in. The WW2 war didn't bring peace at all in Europe, maybe in the Pacific, I dno. But, what exactly happened after world war 2? The cold war came forth and it first ended in... What.. 88-89? So It took 45 years to get real peace into Europe once again.

As you know, it was VERY close to go into another war at the Berlin Wall, I don't remember the story, but I know it was VERY close.

- Dij

[nathalie]

Come on people ...

An opinion isn't something you can really argue about.
Everyone has it's own, we may agree with it, we may not agree with it.

[Dijesolo]

Yeah, sorry got off-topic there Nathalie =)

My opinion on this? Well, if it's getting any worse.. My officer tells me I'm being send out to guard... *sigh* a ambassade... And I doubt I will survive that =(

[nathalie]

Hopefully it won't come to that :cringe:

[Only-now]

I know there wasnt complete peace, but you can't aruge that if we would have done nothing about Hitler in a military manner, Europe would have been more peaceful. The cold war didn't really involve any actual fighting (thus Cold War), but it was more peaceful than if we had avoided war and let Hitler do as he pleased.

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

Originally posted by nathalie
Come on people ...

An opinion isn't something you can really argue about.
Everyone has it's own, we may agree with it, we may not agree with it.

That's your opinion :evilgrin:

[nathalie]

Well, I got that from someone else accually, haha


*edit*
And Hitler did kind of what he pleased back then.
All those Jews who "had" to die :s

[Only-now]

Well, what I meant was that he would have kept taking over countries..and though it was horrible that 6 million Jews died (11 million people in all) I think it would have been much higher had we done nothing. So it is another piece of evidence that points towards a good result from a war when it was necessary. In my OPINION that is :p

[Huma]

Wow, so now I am a liar as well? So you are saying that I KNOW war doesn't bring peace, but I choose to say it does instead. THAT would be a lie, and THAT is not the case at all. You need to get a lot of things straight man.
I am not all-knowing, but from my observation back when I posted, you don't love peace, you just use this term as cover and justification of your true favor - war and violance. If peace is truely what you seek, and war is your method, you are not lier, you're the one pretty screwed by this lie.

You know what IS a lie? The fact you said you didn't like this thread, because you wouldn't come back if you didn't (which is fine with me)
Call me whatever you want and I won't defend myself. I damaged my reputation to tell something, it's all that matters you and others are better informed.

You have called me a liar and a sinner all because my view on the issue is that war can and does bring peace in certain situations. Given, it is not the first resort, but it is the last, and thus it will be used when the time is right, and it WILL bring peace.
"war as last resort" is from what you said lately, never said in the post I quoted you, and it is a catchy phrase beside the point. wars are more the "last resort" for a political entity to sustain its life than the "last resort" for people to live. And how many times the war was used as the "last resort"? not once in twentieth century when materialism was behind most of conflicts.


So I guess war did not bring any peace to Europe when Hitler took over? Instead, they should have allowed him to conquer and destroy as he pleased?
Tell me how Hitler could take over the Europe if not by war? Defensive side in a war is just, who is defensive side? By well-writen laws and international agreement, the side that fought on their own ground.


Also, the fact that he puts the blame somewhere else other than right on the terrorists IS justifying it. It is almost as if he was saying it isn't their fault.
Just turn your dictionary or whatever source you can find besides media and look for word "Terrorists". I doubt if they would write "Terrorists are Afghanistani, Irani, and Sadam". In mine, it says
Terrorist. n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.According to this source, the word "terrorist" is appended to "terrorism" instead of other way around. In fact, you can't define terrorists without term "terrorism" and then condemn everything they do "an act of terrorism", you have to distinguish which deed is "an act of terrorism" first. So, I will say terrorism is not terrorists' fault, rather, terrorists are produced by terrorism. That is exactly what I said in my second last post, and I made another important point in same section:terrorism is an idea very close to the idea of war, they are built on same base: "violence makes submission." that's why war can never eliminate terrorism, you killed/incapacitate terrorists only to strengthen their ideology and make more people believe in it.


We have the choice too, and we would do a better job using it...but for some reason, that is NOT the idealogy of the United States, or most of Europe. The terrorists are human beings...evil human beings.

I don't concern what your and your nation's choices are and I take no interest in altering them. Acutually, I don't even consider this is my place to consult between you and your blind patriotism. "that is NOT the idealogy of the United States, or most of Europe." exactly, and why? Because the some vioce within them have failed to speak, or because some ear of their people have failed to listen. Either case, it is the responsibility of her people and of her people only to keep a country's deed just. Thus I never criticized one single country though I count quite a few of them evil bringers. I will keep this to you, and your country, consider what's the best for by yourself, and you're informed.

[unregistered user]

I don't mind the point of views guys, but please keep it off a personal level I'd appreciate it...

=)

[Huma]

I used figuration, logic and literature to prove my point, if that's what you want to ask. But otherwise, yeah, truth is "THE" truth, everyone has the right and responsibility to clarify the truth from lies including me.

[lion_roog]

I agree with kiva on WW2. that was a nasty situation to be in...one the United States tried hard to stay out of (until Pearl Harbor)...so many people were killed by everyone, even though Hitler killed them willingly. Besides the Holocaust, carpet bombings accounted for many civilian deaths...I know that 100,000 people alone died in the carpet bombing of Dresden, Germany...can't name any other instances, even though Tokyo comes to mind, can't put a number on it, though.

And someone brought up the Cold War, which was another nasty time in history, with the threat of nuclear war very real.

And let's not get into semantics on the word "terrorist" and "terrorism"...we all should know that an act of terrorism would make the offending party a terrorist

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by lion_roog
can't name any other instances, even though Tokyo comes to mind, can't put a number on it, though.


do you mean Atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? if you do, then in Hiroshima there died 145 000 people which 70 000 died immidietly and around 75 000 because of radiation within next 5 years. In Nagasaki died around 75 000 people plus that thousends got serious injuries.

I seriuslly wish people would open their eyes and discuss about problems and try to prevent any haras actions in any way it is possible. for me it just seems that for some people, dignity is more important then thousends of lives... like if Denmark had appology in a way they asked them to, would of this all happend? just beacause of not thinking where something may lead, thousends will suffer. even thought I have to say that both sides have act stupid in many ways... and both are being way stubborn about the whole thing.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SimbaTheMighty
do you mean Atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? if you do, then in Hiroshima there died 145 000 people which 70 000 died immidietly and around 75 000 because of radiation within next 5 years. In Nagasaki died around 75 000 people plus that thousends got serious injuries.


Naw, the atomic bombs were pretty much a given...but I believe Tokyo and other cities were carpet bombed...but Dresden, to my knowledge, is where actual neighborhoods were targeted for the purposes of killing the Nazis who had taken refuge in the city limits.

[Only-now]

I don't want to make this personal again, but it was made personal agianst me. The only reason I am going to say what I will, is because it is the only thing left to say.

Huma, you did not prove anything with what you said. In fact, many of the quotes you put in your post, you refuted with something that was irrelevant to what you posted. I don't want to waste anymore energy trying to explain my point of view to someone who obviously has the logic of a 5 year old. You REALLY need to grow up and, oh yeah your "naive" is showing.

I didn't say this because he disagrees with my point of view, but because 1) He is SO misinformed about reality, and 2) He has insulted me personally by calling me a liar and a sinner because I do not agree with his point of view.

I find it hard to believe that I came across as someone who just wants to promote war in any circumstance immediately. So one last thing, and then I will move on with CIVILIZED discussion:

Most disliked person on Lea: -! (no that isn't supposed to make you feel bad, etc, just stating my opinion on THAT one too)

*pats all the SMART people on the back* (sorry, I am just annoyed with this person)

~The Truthful, Honest, Caring, Intelligent, Lion Kiva!

[unregistered user]

This thread is closed.

(Thread pending review for harassment.)

[unregistered user]

This thread has been revived. Review complete. (Please note: any furthering harassment will not be tolerated, this will result in a thread reclosure, and subsequent warnings...) !

[nafklt]

"One must think a hundred times before printing something in a newspaper."

Sure, you can practice free speech, but there just are some things you can't do (like going to Havana and expressing your hatred for Castro...;) ).

[Utora]

I do not know if they rage out there with the same power, but I've bee seeing more clips and they seem pretty much angry and hostile to a dangerous extent. What I feel is that they do not care if one man is Christian, if one man is Liberal, if one man is Indian, or Russian or Greek. They do not care if one is Democratic, or one is of any background. I believe they see everyone except their own kind as the next burning corpse. The're uncontrolable and they over re-act by propoganda. I have alot more to read on them, and see what is going on. But I think until people see the character of the enemy, the character and their motivation for their actions, we are all the next burning corpse.

[nafklt]

Originally posted by Only-now
That just isn't true in so many aspects. You know the saying "Give peace a chance"?


That's a John Lennon song buddy...;)

[Darkslash]

Well, to spice things up again... I'm an Ann Coulter fan; this is from her latest column:

The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

[Only-now]

Doesn't really matter if it is a song or not, people still use that as a phrase to promote peace ALL the time now.

Also, I hear that they burn fake bodies that are made to look like President Bush. Umm...can someone remind me what country was the one who printed those cartoons in the first place? For some reason, I am having a hard time remembering the United States as that country.

Just more proof that this isn't about the cartoons at all. It is just another reason to get back at the west, etc. *sighs* When will it end?

~Kiva

(Just as a question because I am not sure...who was "harassing" another here? Maybe it is something I am not aware of, just wondering)

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Only-now
Most disliked person on Lea: -!(no that isn't supposed to make you feel bad, etc, just stating my opinion on THAT one too)

*pats all the SMART people on the back* (sorry, I am just annoyed with this person)

~The Truthful, Honest, Caring, Intelligent, Lion Kiva!


((I think thats why the thread was closed ;) *Scoots out*

[nathalie]

No direct assults towards anyone in a thread, where everyone can see it ! Even though mented funny maybe, some things are just not funny ...

And they are doing stuff everywhere, not just in the US you know.
We've had troubles in Belgium aswell because of those cartoons.

[unregistered user]

Now Nathalie, are you taking away our freedom of speech? :idiot:

Anyway, I agree with Kiva that they are just trying to get back at the West in general since we haven't done a thing to them with the cartoons at all (that's surprising with our evil media networks and newspapers, they broadcast almost everything =P ).

If they keep whining and moaning about it, horget 'em. Tell 'em to move somewhere that fits their values and opinions better or something (i.e. the Middle East perhaps?) Then again folks int he Middle East have been printing the cartoons just as much, but there they are threatened with death and torture and such ._.;

I like the way the Pope said it; that religions should be respected, but reacting violently when they ar enot doesn't help anyone, especially your country or your religion (basically what he said, read it off BBC news :E)

[nathalie]

No, I'm just saying, if you should have a problem with someone, then not everyone else needs to know about that, because then you attract more and more people and it could get worse ;)

[unregistered user]

Yes, you can rant/rave all you want about someone/something it's OK.... ("ABROAD"). But when you use a member's name, and then you banter he/she or worse even, that's when we draw the line. People will be responsible for their actions, pompous or otherwise...

[Only-now]

I never said I wasn't responsible for them...but I would hardly call that harassment. I guess calling me a sinner and liar doesn't qualify.

I did not make a point to find and force that person to listen to me...when you call someone a liar or a sinner because of their point of view, I am going to state my opinion on whether I like someone or not. I am allowed to say that I do not like someone in public aren't I?

I said that last part because apparently this person (since I can't mention names) doesnt think that I am a good human being..it was to make a point. I also remember saying exactly WHY I posted what I did (this person annoying me) so the only insult there was me calling this person "stupid" indirectly...which is not even close to worse than calling someone a liar.

There, that's my opinion on that. I take responsibility for all my actions, but if someone insults me, I will retaliate...and I hardly think I did that in a bad way.

~Kiva

[Juniper]

While I don't have anything else to say on the subject, and I do disagree with you, Kiva, on a few opinions, I do agree that this is not some one-sided argument where Kiva is the only one at fault (or more at fault than the other person). He was attacked, he retaliated, anyone who says that's completely wrong doesn't know a damn thing about how people work.

But back on topic...

[la_reina]

Well, it's good you do take responsibility. And believe me, I know how it feels to want to publicly humiliate a person. But I learned to restrain myself from doing that. Trust me, if this person is harrassing other members, then the mods will take care of them.

[Only-now]

I wasn't trying to humilate them at all though...in fact, it seemed more like they were trying to convince everyone else that I was a sinner for saying what I did. That I was lying to everyone else.

I guess some people take that as an insult, and that last post was basically just showing that I was getting annoyed with how this person, who barely comes to the forums, has decided that they know my intentions and wants to announce to everyone that I am lying to all of you on purpose.

Maybe it is hard to understand because they weren't as open in saying that I do not like someone as me. I know that maybe that was a little overboard, but at the same time..I see that in no way did I insult this person in a terrible way. If so, then sorry about that..but I think I should be allowed to state whether I like someone's actions or that person in public. Also, I think the word choice "harassment" is a bit extreme etc.

Sorry if it seems like I am causing problems, but that seemed very directed at me when I wasn't the only one who is at fault, nor the one MOST at fault. Lastly...what was that "don't mention names"? It would be obvious who I was talking about, regardless of whether I mentioned names. It WAS a public discussion, so it stayed public...wasn't like I brought a private vendetta against them to the public eye.

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

I believe you're taking this a bit too harshly there, Kiva, and you're showing signs of some guilt. But as you said, you had some things said against you that shouldn't have been said, but nonetheless you should've came to one of us if you felt like it was unjust, and that goes for anyone else as well. Harassment? Yes, there was some copious amounts of light-treading exchanged amongst members, you'd have to be blind or na?ve not to see that. And the terms of using names and the reflectivity towards it - it's not what you say; but how you say it ....

[Only-now]

Im not taking it harshly, I just never saw anyone mention or defend me against this person's assault. I said what i did in my own way which was not any worse than their WAY of saying it. It isn't ONLY the way you say it, but WHAT you say coupled with that. I am not feeling guilty at all, I am more defensive because I feel that I am not allowed to express my dislike for someone who openly decided to insult me from the start. I don't think that I would need to go to the mods to handle someone calling me a liar. There are some things that should be left to the members to handle because they are capable...I can't see where I made a huge mistake that qualifies as "harassment". I take that term to mean that someone purposely tried to mess with someone for that very fact, which was not what I (and not even the person I dislike) did.

Anyways, I only wanted to express my distaste with that, it is over now, so yeah...

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

Well... what I said wasn't directed towards you in particular, in fact; it was directed towards everyone. The term "harassment" was moreover to be used as a countermeasure, than the obvious stated. - It would help and serve to prevent any more escalating hotheadedness.

=)

[Only-now]

I can see that the argumentative nature and some light insults were present..I just didn't see it as that big a deal etc. "Review for harassment" seemed like it was a bit too extreme for what had been said.

I am glad you were not directing it towards me personally, but I guess I was just pointing out that no one seemed to recognize Huma's fault in this as well. I mean, it seemed like I was the only one recognized for being wrong, etc.

I dont want to come off as someone who is just defensive all the time, etc..but sometimes it seems like the stuff that goes on here (some involving me) should be pointed out, etc.

Anyways, like I said..I am not worked up over it...I understand what you meant. I was just making clear my disagreement/thoughts/explanations.

~Kiva

[Huma]

I don't agree on that this thread was closed due to any particular member here. If it was, I think it was more because of me than of the other person I discussed the subject with.

I didn't say things in the best way I can. it reminds me that rage belongs even to one that are trying to eliminate them. so, in response to the war-rage in some level present in this thread, I chose antiwar-rage, which goes into opposite extrem.

I take back the part I called a member here a liar and sinner, I apologize to him and hope he can now believe that I hold nothing toward him personally. If we really have freedom of speech and maybe some space for mistakes, the aftermath of the thread closure could be ended here.
__________________________________________________ ___________

back on topic, I think it falls on one question: could violence be considerded as commotion of a group of people?

Ideally, I will say: no. we would always be conscious as individuals and choose our actions independently. In this sense, there is no such thing as "muslims are trying to get back at west". it would be too ignoring and inadequate to describe the situation. Although maybe millions are out there hostile towards "west", they are aginst different persons with different reasons. There are lots muslims hate other muslims, could I describe it as "muslims are trying to get back at itself."? same appliable to all groups.

Sadly, neither all people are thinking independently nor we are in control of ourselves at all times. So someone might(or already did) get this concept of "they never offend me, but they are sided with people who offend my side/country/religion, so, this gives me right to hurt them." To be honest, I observe this behavior on both "muslims" and "west". Maybe some are worse or better but, ~khem, beside the point.

You may say I am defending the side of "muslims", but I was trying to argue what's qulified as "just". IMO, saying "muslims are trying to get back at west." is in same problem with "west are trying to humiliate muslims by a cartoon".

[Only-now]

The reaction to the newspaper pictures is a perfect example of how the extremist muslim community will use something that is NOT related to the United States, to show their anger towards us. They try to hide behind something that looks like an offense against them, when in fact they are only lessening this fact with their reaction.

The fact that they are somehow linking the United States with this cartoon, when we have nothing to do with it gives a perfect example of how they are using this as an excuse to "hate" us even more.

No one was trying to humiliate them, because 1) They should not take a cartoon so seriously, otherwise they do not have that much faith in their religion if they let a cartoon affect them this much 2) There is actually some truth in what the cartoon was portraying..because currently the muslim religion IS the one that embraces those who use suicide bombing as a tactic. There is ALWAYS some truth in stereotyping.

Also, to hit on that point about them not getting so upset over it. Lets look at that further...shall we? First of all, you have to ask yourself "What is a fundamentalist?" They are people who strongly believe in their religion, and interpret it completely literally (and in the muslim sense, murder non-believers because of this). Thus, the fact that they are taking this cartoon so seriously CANNOT be because their religion was degraded, or insulted. This would undermine what they stand for in the first place, because it would be showing that they really do not have as much faith in their religion as the definition implies. So, if they hold to the defintion, then they are just using this as an excuse to "yell" at the west, even countries that had nothing to do with it. Thus, it has to be proven that they have only hijacked this religion, to use its violent teachings (if interpreted as a fundamentalist) when in fact they do not care this much about it, and thus get upset like so and use it against us.

If that happens to not be the case, then they ARE fundamentalists, who take the religion too seriously (thus resulting in terrorism and violent protest) and are thus taking this cartoon too seriously, while also getting back at us.

Sorry if that is hard to understand, a fire drill interrupted my thoughts, and I didn't really get a chance to organize them. I think they are easy to understand, and whether belief in their religion is part of this or not, they are STILL using this to get to us, for NO reason.

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

I'm going to reminisce in some of Darkslash's [02-20-2006 12:34 PM] post a sec... ... ...And as well as a few news articles that I've read that basically says.... "Should Iran continue to resume uranium enriched depositories for small-scale civil purposes and not for nuclear weapons as they've claimed...?"

(Noted: as of 2003)...

"Uranium Enrichment Plant at Natanz: Their capacity is far larger than needed for a nuclear weapon program, supporting Iran's statement that the facility is aimed at producing low enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors. Nonetheless, such a facility could use a relatively small fraction of its capacity, say 10,000 SWU per year, to make enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year, while using the remaining capacity to produce low enriched uranium. In addition, if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant with a capacity of 10,000 SWU per year involving several thousand machines."

(Noted: as of 2005 - Current)...

"Israeli threats to attack Iran.
In December 2005, the Sunday Times claimed that military sources in Israel were order to plan for possible strikes on uranium enrichments sites in Iran in March 2006, based on Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran was getting to the point of being able to build nuclear weapons in two to four years later. It was claimed that the special forces command was in the highest stage of readiness for an attack (state G) in December.

Israel is estimated to have between 200-400 nuclear weapons and well developed missile delivery systems."

(Key Note: Israel has the most advanced nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems in the Middle East.)

Now I'm sure that Kiva, Darkslash, I and a few other(s) agree that given the underdeveloped nature of countries like Iran, shouldn't possess such things unless they could actually prove that they wouldn't explode over such nominal things like I dunno... cartoons. But if they could say... (and didn't seem doubtful otherwise) ..."It will be only used for civil conveyance and not to be used for mass-destructive weaponry..." But with their type of government for the time being, I doubt they'll give us that reassurance that we so desperately need. It isn't my say whether or not Israel should take tactical-use-of-actions like that, however it may be in everyone's best interest that they don't. I'm still hoping that Iran will shut-down UEPN for now until they realize what kind of power that they truly have... [i]?

[Darkslash]

Iran doesn't even need nuclear power to begin with -- they're burning off their natural gas deposits at the wells.

[unregistered user]

/^ ... On a more diplomatical format: ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_16 ) .

[Huma]

I have one question so desirably to ask: how could some people feel so unsecure when they not only have the best weaponry in the world but also consider their deeds just and defensive?

I would also like an exact reason why muslims should "hate" U.S. or "west"?

if Islamism, as someone so richly refer to as a religion "murder non-believers", there are hundreds of countries disbelieving islamism. They wouldn't be so picky about their target, now would they

[unregistered user]

"Because we feel, threatened!" Fear is a form of cowardice. What better way for the cowardly to become the eventful, to levy fear. Isn't it obvious, Huma? "We hate because we're taught to hate." The Muslim world isn't soley to blame. If you were to be put in their shoes, what would you think about the Western civilization - and - contrariwise to that. What would they think about themselves in our shoes? There are two sides to everything; but we continually only see one.

[Huma]

inevitability --- I guess that's the side I refuse to see. Is humanity really that perfect in my mind to blind me of what already happened? I think no. pathetic it is, but the only thing I can do is to ask questions.

I like your speech.

[unregistered user]

Yes, you're correct, Darkslash.


Iran has around 126 billion barrels of proven oil reserves about 10% of the world's total, and has the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves.


Originally posted by Sonkakee
Now I'm sure that Kiva, Darkslash, I and a few other(s) agree that given the underdeveloped nature of countries like Iran, shouldn't possess such things unless they could actually prove that they wouldn't explode over such nominal things like I dunno... cartoons. But if they could say... (and didn't seem doubtful otherwise) ..."It will be only used for civil conveyance and not to be used for mass-destructive weaponry..." But with their type of government for the time being, I doubt they'll give us that reassurance that we so desperately need.

Iran repetitiously threatens to wipe Israelis off the face of the Map, including to deny their existence. Without doubt, they cry for supremacy. What would they do with some ICBMs/(WMD), oh no, not the government nor the civil attest, but with local militia that would put some people's to rest. Some agree that the "War on Terror" is WWIII, if this is so, there's a long way to go. "United we shall stand, or together we shall fall." Either way, we shall face it "together" all in all...

[Only-now]

I think that the extremist hate the west because of what we stand for. We are a Christian nation, and their religion teaches that you must kill those who are not muslim. Obviously, the people who are considered fundamentalist will follow through with this. They do not like our way of life, how we treat women, or money, how we run our government etc. It isn't like the United States is the only target.It just happens to be that we are the most powerful nation in the world, the leader of this fight against them, and the more influential in western life, so it is obvious that they would choose us as their main target. They are also against Canada, all of Western Europe (evident in Denmark, the Madrid bombing, London bombing, etc).

Why would we be threatened? Just because we are the most powerful nation in the world, with the best weapons doesn't mean that we can protect all of our interests from attack. We don't have the ability to shoot down nuclear missles (yet), so it is still possible that we could be attacked by them. Have you thought of the rest of the world? Israel is our ally, and we want to protect them. If Iran is TOTALLY against them, and has threatned them like Sonkakee mentioned (which they have, because they are Muslim extremists), then why shouldn't we be upset? We don't want a government that is THAT extreme and crazy to possess the most powerful weapons in the world. Nuclear weapons are not just "toys" or something to not worry about. It isn't like the United States is the only country that is worried about it. I believe that the world community is also with us on this issue, and against Iran.

I think it is very obvious why extremist Muslims hate the west, and I think it is obvious why Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

[Utora]

Dostal - More than 100 dead in revenge attacks; 7 U.S. soldiers killed (
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/23/iraq.main/index.html)

Ever heard of the Geneva Convention? It'd be really great if both sides here obeyed the laws stated but I don't think.... you know..... beheading and all their little religious outbreaks apply to the Geneva Convention here. They've screwed over any terms of war. I'll also note that just because they're being barbaric doesn't mean we have to be either - but I'm stating that there are other ways to this. What's that city they got right now, and we won't send troops in because they have hostages? I say we send in some planes, and drop in pounds of pig blood all over that area. Get a little butcher factory for pigs a few yards away. Hey why don't yall come on over for my steakout at Bahgdad! BLT's round house -

The laws of their religion teaches them to decieve and to lie to the infdel. Who is the infedel? Everyone BUT them. And then us infedel's try to start a new government over there, or try to establish peace? They're told, they live by the law that you are to decieve the infedel, to lie to them and to trick them to bring glory to their God.

You know - whatever that special title is for the priest of their religion - he says the man to kill the artist or creator of those cartoons gets money, jewlery, cars women yadda yadda it can go on and on. Our object needs to be to win, not to compromise with them. Yes compromising may bring win but look at the platform now -

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/02/23/iraq.main/story.protests.thu.ap.jpg

[Only-now]

I agree. They are NOT civilized fighters, and that doesn't mean we have to march towards each other in lines and shoot muskets.

The United States, and most other civilized countries, do NOT try to kill civilians, take "hostages", cut off people's heads, etc. The enemy however, DOES try all of these tactics, yet we are forced to only respond within our limits. We are playing by rules that the other "team" doesn't have to, and I think that there should be a creative side to this war. We should try things that fight against the very essence of what they fight for. We SHOULD use their religion against them.

Like Utora said, drop pigs blood on them because that "contaminates" you in their religion. I actually heard of a commander who had his soldiers dip their bullets in pigs blood, though I think that was for some type of firing squad. I think we should do the same, and let them know about it. If they want to hold up in a mosque, then we tell them to come out. If they decide not to, then we level the entire mosque, or maybe threaten to bomb Mecca, etc. Those are all just ideas, but it really gets tiring ya know?

~Kiva!

[unregistered user]

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Iran repetitiously threatens to wipe Israelis off the face of the Map, including to deny their existence. Without doubt, they cry for supremacy.


In October 2005, he made remarks to domestic audiences agreeing with Ayatollah Khomeini's statement that the occupying regime in [Israel/Palestineshould] be wiped off the map, citing in his speech that the regime of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Soviet Union as a State and Saddam Hussein's government of Iraq, had been wiped off the map.

On December 8, 2005, he made remarks doubting the Holocaust though a week later, on December 14, he made a similar statement no longer literally denying the Holocaust.

These remarks are generally considered to be in line with his populist voting base - 19% of voters chose him in the first round of the 2005 presidential election.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that the remarks have been mistranslated and misinterpreted in the Western media, and that his aim is only to support democracy in Palestine.

Independently of whether or not his remarks were misinterpreted, the international reaction to his perceived statements was extremely negative.

Seema Mustafa in the Asian Age claimed that Ahmadinejad's remarks relating to Israel and the Holocaust are now used a major reason for an attack against Iran.

[Iraq/Follow Up: Utora - 02-23-2006 08:15 PM] ( http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1657999 ) .