How can you not be convinced? Now it’s your turn. Not finding many articles on Jewish and Christian terrorists or violent Jewish and Christian riots in response to insulting images, etc means that there aren’t any. Where do you propose that all these violent and destructive Judeo-Christian acts of terror take place? If everyone is hating on Muslims why does Al Jazeera have so many broadcasts that talk about terrorism, riots, the cartoon outrage?
Go find me an instance in this day and age in which someone publicly insulted Christianity or Judaisim which in turn prompted riots, torchings, embassy bombings, things of that ilk.
Oh, I dunno - how about the Iraq War? How about the Israeli helicopters and the security fence? How about the fuckin’ Afghanistan War? The only major difference is that Judeo-Christian violence (in response to perceived threats or insults or similarly conflicting beliefs) tends to be state legitimated whereas Islamic violence in response to this tends not to have the state legitimating it, so it’s called terrorism instead.
Israel-Palestine conflict - it takes two to tango. As to finding articles - you don’t really need me to find information about these events, do you? I’m sure that you’re already aware of all this.
Muslims do not respond well to people insulting their beliefs. I can’t think of a group that does respond well. I don’t see that burning flags and torching a few buildings is in any way as bad as what the US/UK did in Afghanistan. Because of the war in Iraq the media and the public as a whole have forgotten Afghanistan, partly because few people had the balls to stand up to the US after 9/11 and say ‘this war is not legitimate’. The war happened without any resistance from media organs and now we’ve practically forgotten that the country even exists. And we’re still no closer to achieving the purported aim of finding Bin Laden. It’s a joke, and you seem to be happy to play along with it.
So you’re insinuating that the response to 9/11 was entirely Judeo-Christian, targeting only Muslims worldwide. I still fail to see how 9/11 was an INSULT to Christianity or Judaisim.
Yes Muslims don’t respond well to people insulting their beliefs but attacking embassies is not acceptable. Quite immature in fact. If one out of many cartoons is a reason for bombings, what do you suggest that Catholics and Christians are allowed to do in response to The Da Vinci Code?
The UN should enforce a global religious reformational constitution, in which no religion is allowed to kill or circumsize or lie in the name of “god”.
If semitic “god” is not rooted out, he will spread like a cultural cancer and destroy many MANY children of the future!
[b]IT IS UNETHICAL TO CLONE EVEN ONE HUMAN BABY, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE FINE FOR A MUSLIM TO BEHEAD WHO EVER HE WANTS???
THIS IS PURE SHIT!
AMERICA AND THE UN ARE FAR TOO SEMITIC!
DESTROY THE SEMITIC EVIL AND FREE EARTH FROM TERROR AND EVIL LIES!
DESTROY ALL EVIL SEMITIC RELIGION ON EARTH TO SAVE THE FUTURE![/b]
Does this have to be done violantly?
No, but I promise you, as soon as you try to destroy their mosk they will all turn on you and murder you then preverbially drink every drop of your blood! THEY ARE COMPLETE AND TOTAL EVIL SHIT!
a) it was perceived as such
b) Bush has made more than one reference to his ‘God Given’ mission in the Middle East
Why not - it’s only a building…
If they decided to destroy Dan Brown’s house and protest widely, burning flags and banners with the front cover of the book, or Tom Hanks’ face on then I’d have no problem whatsoever. It tends to only be Americans, with their pathetic history of popular protest, that object to such things.
I know you haven't seen the episode, which is fine, but if you had, you would realize that 'Overstepping the Mark' is completely not the point. In the censored bit of Muhammed featured him only standing there, with a smile on his face. He wasn't standing in a room full of bombs, and had pants on, so on and so forth. The important thing is that there was nothing inherently offensive to the image, other than it being an image of Muhammed in the first place.
In the very same episode, not 2 minutes later, they showed Jesus and President Bush shitting on each other and the American flag. This was NOT censored. Clearly, this has nothing to do with going over some mark, they go over the mark in each and every episode and it all airs. What this is about is Comedy Central saying "Yes, shit on Christians and Christianity all you want, but don't do anything to offend the Muslims, because we are scared of getting suicide-bombed". And yes, Comedy Central actually released a press release citing fear of retaliation as the reason for the edit.
Hell, pull South park off the air altogether and declare that the kinds of things they do are innappropriate and shouldn't be TV. You definitely wouldn't see me complaining about that, as long as the standard was evenly applied. You totally aren't talking to the 'unrestricted free speech' guy. Again, it is not as though South Park 'finally crossed the line'. In the end, what was censored was not against any FCC reg, and was nothing compared to what they had already done, and went on to do in that very same episode.
For me it's a little of both- even if it had nothing to say about politics, it would still be entertaining for all those childish reasons that you don't like. As it happens, they do make political commentary now and then, and also as it happens, I end up agreeing with it more often than not.
This is sad, but these pressures are perpetual. If it wasn’t the Islamists then it would be someone else.
To me the notion of applying an even standard across the board is as fallacious as freedom of speech. Christians positively revel in depictions of Jesus, though not of God. Muslims on the other hand are, as I understand it, not allowed to depict Mohammed, let alone Allah. So one cannot apply the same standard to both in the name of ‘avoiding offence’ because the situation as things stand won’t allow that to be effective. Now, I’m not saying that we should pander to every wish of the Muslim community(s) but I do think that we need a more subtle approach than you are letting on.
Commentary - yes, I can see that. What I don’t see is anything once the laughter has finished. Unlike, for example, the Simpsons where all sorts of tangible values and virtues are advocated (not entirely ones that I agree with but still…) I can’t see anything in South Park except the desire to make people laugh, sometimes at serious topics. That in itself isn’t a problem, I just don’t have much time for it.
The thing in the background is a building. The thing in the foreground is a person. I don’t remember any people being in those embassies that were torched - I could be wrong.
I called American popular protest pathetic, not America or Americans. There’s a lot to like about America but their history of protest isn’t one of those things, in my view. And that wasn’t just a bus.
So it’s OK to blow other people’s stuff up?
What about the risk of hurting others?
Wouldn’t you protest if someone stole a hypothetical Simpsons Collection?
Are you suggesting that all possessions are of no consequence, no value?
I think that's the main issue I'm trying to get at here- that it happened on South Park is really irrelvant. What's relevant is that here in the U.S.- the country with the biggest bombs, fastest jets, and greasiest burgers in all the world- a big corporation (Paramount) was intimidated into taking uncharacteristic action because they were afraid of what terrorists would do to them. That just seems like a really big deal to me. The significance of this being South Park is just to show how uncharacteristic, how blatant the censorship is- if it was just about any other show, it would be easier to understand why they would edit this out. You could chalk it up to tolerance, open-mindedness, political correctness. But not with this show. This was pure caving to terrorism.
You have a good point here. I'm not sure how an even regulation could be applied, when different beliefs have different standards of offense. What I can say, though, is that South Park actually [i]has[/i] shown Mohammed in past episodes unedited. The decision to censor his image this time was specifically a reaction to the Dutch comic-strip fiasco, which of course is what the episode itself was made in reaction to.
That you’re right, it isn’t really about a set mark and a stepping-over of that mark.
Not only Paramount - it’s part of a massive media conglomerate. I see where you’re going with this, given that it was such a craven and obvious cowing to the threat of terrorism. Maybe it’s because I’ve lived my whole life with that threat due to the conflict in Ireland but I don’t have the same gut response as you, though I can understand.
Sure, which begs the whole set of questions about whether it was a wise move to make the episode and, once it has been scheduled and passed for broadcast, was it wise to censor it? I’d say that the answer to both questions is ‘no’, though with emphasis on the latter.
The whole point Thirst is that that people died over some stupid cartoons. If I bombed your house, your family’s house and your friends house in protest of your lack of sensitivity and sympathy for those who are victims of violence you would have no problem? Funny how your opinion changes when death comes knocking on your door.
DH, I think I failed to understand what you were getting at…
The cartoons were insensitive, stupid, inflammatory, and tactless. But I have not argued that people have the right to burn buildings in protest (though I am not surprised that they do). [b]So, when did I change my opinion about violence/death comes knocking? I have not changed my mind. Destruction of someone else’s property just because you are pissy is unacceptable. It is irrelevant whether it is my house, your house, or foreign embassies belonging to the government. Well, if someone bombed my house, they better prepare for a reckoning day…
DH, I think I failed to understand what you were getting at…
The cartoons were insensitive, stupid, inflammatory, and tactless. But I have not argued that people have the right to burn buildings in protest (though I am not surprised that they do). [b]So, when did I change my opinion about violence/death comes knocking? I have not changed my mind. Destruction of someone else’s property just because you are pissy is unacceptable. It is irrelevant whether it is my house, your house, or foreign embassies belonging to the government. Well, if someone bombed my house, they better prepare for a reckoning day…
SHIT! That statement wasn’t actually supposed to be directed towards Thirst. It was actually said in response to someoneisatthedoor’s statement. Which would explain why you didn’t get my post.
Sorry mate, I guess I really screwed that one up. You’re a poster I respect.
Uccisore, they were probably attempting to avoid another CAIR lawsuit. CAIR sues groups and individuals for posting the facts regarding what is being done in the name of Islam. They just lost one against antiCAIR, as what was claimed was indeed factual.
