John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
From London.
Sick.
Sick.
Jebus said:The Qu'ran says it's not allowed to make images of God.
But then: Mohammed is a prophet. That's all he is. He said himself he's only human.
Why the hell are they accusing those Danes of blasphemy when they didn't break any of their 'rules'?
John Uskglass said:From London.
Sick.
Jebus said:I don't get this whole rage for another reason, really.
The Qu'ran says it's not allowed to make images of God. Ok, I can understand that: all Judaism-based religions have that rule. So far I'm with them.
But then: Mohammed is a prophet. That's all he is. He said himself he's only human.
So, this is where I get lost. Is it not allowed to depict humans in Islamic countries, then? Why the hell are they accusing those Danes of blasphemy when they didn't break any of their 'rules'?
Volkov said:You're apparently not allowed to have images of Mohammed either. I remember there was a movie about the life of Mohammed made a while ago, and he was never actually shown since it's against the rules of Islam.
DirtyDreamDesigner said:I'm starting to think this is all the work of the CIA. This is just their way of getting support for a war in Iran.
The Americans finally figured out what Europeans would fight for; their freedom of speech.
Nice work, CIA.
Montez said:Think about it: if they were smart enough to be able to create this situation, they would also be smart enough to have not needed to create this situation, if you get me.
Loxley said:a mob of fucktards just put the Norwegian, danish and swedish embassy building to the torch in syria.
I just wonder how Israel would react if the same European newspapers would print articles advocating anti-Semite claims, such as the nonexistance of the Holocaust and the voideness of the Israeli state itself (which is actually anti-Zionism to be exact). Would that constitute freedom of speech? Of course, this isn't an exact semantical analogue to the mocking of Muhammed but you get the picture. The emotional outburst would be the same. But of course those same newspapers would never dare to do such a thing, would they now?
Jebus said:The Qu'ran says it's not allowed to make images of God. Ok, I can understand that: all Judaism-based religions have that rule. So far I'm with them.
But then: Mohammed is a prophet. That's all he is. He said himself he's only human.
So, this is where I get lost. Is it not allowed to depict humans in Islamic countries, then? Why the hell are they accusing those Danes of blasphemy when they didn't break any of their 'rules'?
And considering the fact that embassies are supposed to be sovereign soil of the embassy's nation
Mikey said:Is it really an act of war? I mean, the Syrian government didn't tell them to set fire to, the embassies.
Wooz said:So what is it now? Islamist mullahs deciding what's moral and what's not in Denmark? Burning EU flags, inciting murder and violence?
Hadji please. Freedom of speech is holier than religious dogma. Keep threatining EU citizens, we'll just cease the evil, heretic, insulting humanitarian aid.
Lazarus Plus said:The fact of the matter is, it makes no difference to OUR CULTURE what their culture finds offensive. It is completely unacceptable that because they dislike something we do IN OUR OWN NATIONS that we should turn around and change and apologize so as to fit their world-view. There's a nice big difference between tolerance and taking it in the ass from a bunch of intolerant fundamentalists, be they Islamic or not.
That's what I thought, but the source I got them from was good, and there is always this, which shows the worst of them.That one looks photochopped.