The Media won't air the Islamic Cartoons out of... *respect*?

Most news outlets claim they are opting not to display those cartoons out of respect for Islamic sensibilities, and because the cartoons are inaccurate characterizations of Muslims.

I call BULLSHIT.

The media is afraid to publish or air the cartoons precisely because they are accurate - at least to some degree. They don't want to become the object of Islamic aggression.

I'd like to see Al jazeera publish them. They're supposed to be independent and willing to show almost anything. Perhaps the hypocisy of the news channel could show through?

[The Judge]

They won't publish out of fear. The bbc here in the uk is guilty of just this. Can you believe we had protests here in London and we never printed anything!?!?!?!?!

One cunt dressed up like a suicide bomber:

He later apologised to the families of the 7th July London underground bombings, but he's going back to jail cos it turns out that this "devout muslim," who felt moved to protest about some little cartoons, had previous for dealing illicit class A substances (heroin and coke). Turns out he was old drug dealer on parole. Unfortunately for him dressing up and drawing media attention meant they threw the book at him *good!* and his ass is back in the slammer.

:lol:

[Choobus]

The Judge wrote

They won't publish out of fear. The bbc here in the uk is guilty of just this. Can you believe we had protests here in London and we never printed anything!?!?!?!?!

One cunt dressed up like a suicide bomber: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...6_omar_300.jpg

He later apologised to the families of the 7th July London underground bombings, but he's going back to jail cos it turns out that this "devout muslim," who felt moved to protest about some little cartoons, had previous for dealing illicit class A substances (heroin and coke). Turns out he was old drug dealer on parole. Unfortunately for him dressing up and drawing media attention meant they threw the book at him *good!* and his ass is back in the slammer.

:lol:

I say good for the BBC. Furthermore, muslims should be exempt from paying for the tv licence because the BBc has even thought about showing these hateful cartoons. If the BBc do not agree to this very reasonable demand then they will only have themselves to blame when Bush house goes up in flames. Hopefully the analogy with the burning bush from the muslim hating religon christianity will not be lost on these god hating infidels

[a different tim]

The Judge wrote

They won't publish out of fear. The bbc here in the uk is guilty of just this. Can you believe we had protests here in London and we never printed anything!?!?!?!?!

One cunt dressed up like a suicide bomber: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...6_omar_300.jpg

He later apologised to the families of the 7th July London underground bombings, but he's going back to jail cos it turns out that this "devout muslim," who felt moved to protest about some little cartoons, had previous for dealing illicit class A substances (heroin and coke). Turns out he was old drug dealer on parole. Unfortunately for him dressing up and drawing media attention meant they threw the book at him *good!* and his ass is back in the slammer.

:lol:

It's a bit of an image problem really. "Islam - religion of crack dealing suicide bombers".

To be honest, if we can encourage the fundies to do this as well, it can only help spread a general hatred and fear of religion.

Those images are a punch in the face to 1.5 billion muslims and 99% of them are nice loving people and NOT terrorists.

If we made an image of Jesus dressed up in chain mail slaughtering people during the Crusades, a lot of people in this country would be very upset. The difference is the ideals of freedom. Westerners allow freedom of speech over religion (however I bet many religious people would want it condemned if it involves their religion). In Islam, religion outranks freedom of speech. There is a conflict between value systems here.

[Kamikaze189]

You might be a fundie if...

You'd blow yourself up over a cartoon.

You do not get the significance of this cartoon. Not only is it an insult, but just making an image of Muhammad is blashemy. It is a double insult plus the Western world is rubbing it in their face. Furthermore, it is not even close to being true. It is an inaccurate Western portrayal of Islam. Probably an effort to recruit more people into supporting a war. The image rallies the conservative Christians.

I totally agree with you. They have taken a really sensitive issue here and really cocked up. Freedom of speech can't be allowed if it violates people's own freedoms to be who they want to be

ross_curfew wrote

Freedom of speech can't be allowed if it violates people's own freedoms to be who they want to be

So anti-slavery campaigners should shut up because it would violate slaveowners' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So anti-child labour campaigners should shut up because it would violate child worker employers' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So Suffragetes should shut up because it would violate male voters' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So anti-racism campaigners should shut up because it would violate racists' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So Winston Churchill should have shut up because it would violate the Nazis' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?

[calpurnpiso]

myst7426 wrote

If we made an image of Jesus dressed up in chain mail slaughtering people during the Crusades, a lot of people in this country would be very upset. The difference is the ideals of freedom. Westerners allow freedom of speech over religion (however I bet many religious people would want it condemned if it involves their religion). In Islam, religion outranks freedom of speech. There is a conflict between value systems here.

Hmm..I remember the furor an art work that depicted a crucified Jesus in a jar of Urine caused few years back...but since the Christ-psychotics do not have the deep faith the Muslim-psychotics have, they abstained from revolting. :)

GaryM wrote

So anti-slavery campaigners should shut up because it would violate slaveowners' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So anti-child labour campaigners should shut up because it would violate child worker employers' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So Suffragetes should shut up because it would violate male voters' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So anti-racism campaigners should shut up because it would violate racists' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So Winston Churchill should have shut up because it would violate the Nazis' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?

But those are accurate. Muhammad is not a terrorist!

They should just respect Muslims, simple as that. They were attacking the entire Islamic faith instead of the real issue of terrorism. Not only that, it was a cartoon, not a serious journalized piece. It was meant to be an insult from the start. There is no message beside insulting Muslims.

GaryM wrote

So anti-slavery campaigners should shut up because it would violate slaveowners' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So anti-child labour campaigners should shut up because it would violate child worker employers' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So Suffragetes should shut up because it would violate male voters' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So anti-racism campaigners should shut up because it would violate racists' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?
So Winston Churchill should have shut up because it would violate the Nazis' "freedoms to be who they want to be"?

Of course not. These in turn conflict with other's freedoms. Muslims should be able to worship without being stereotyped as barbarric terrorists.