Cartoon Protest in London...

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Pi:

Point:- D'uh! Of course that's what he meant. You have a penchant for stating the obvious. What Callypso is criticizing and analysing is how the enraged enthusiast, Kashafa, is using the interaction of animals (hence, the animal metaphor) to justify human responses. If you cant see that the two belong in two different spheres, I have to say this again, with utmost respect, the dunce cap's gotta go!

I don't think Kashafa was 'justifying the human responses'. He was saying it was understandable as opposed to justified. There is a difference in definition between 'justified' and 'understandable' or 'not suprising'. Go look it up. Additionally, he clearly stated he didn't like the violence or did you not read that?

 

I state the obvious because individuals like you cannot seem to work it out for him/herself. Instead of propounding logical and well-thought out responses, you engage in name-calling. I don't understand why you changed your previous handle of 'Zero' since that is an apt description of your intellectual and debating abilities.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Callypso:

Hello Kashafa,

 

quote:

---

I'm not condoning the way the protests were carried out. But they were inevitable. Basic Human Nature 101. You don't poke a lion in the eye and when he starts going after every animal in sight, say: "Gee, now why'd he do that ? That was uncalled for." Don't poke him in the eye in the first place, and if you just can't resist it, well man up and deal with the consequences. As Colin Powell said about the Iraq war: You break it, you own it.

You say that the reaction to the cartoons is basic

human

nature, but then use an

animal

as a metaphor. People generally understand that there's a division between animals and humans, such that a human can curtail their reactions in response to aggravation. Not suggesting turn the other cheek or something, but how does burning embassies and killing or maiming innocents prove that Muhammed was not a terrorist?

If the reaction was not intended to achieve that goal, then I can indeed see why you used an animal as a metaphor to explain Muslim sensibilities.

Callypso,

 

Maala uqdaadh baa deenta kaa qaabta, laakin, ummadha Nabi Muhammmed (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) badankayna, baan kaatirsanaxey!

 

Often when someone is intruded upon say a mother is threatened that her 'cubs'/children might be attacked, or will be attacked or have been attacked, that mother takes on characters of a LIONESS and becomes overwhelmed with RAGE and Anger. Now if someone found out the storyline behind that mother's RAGE i.e. Children have been attacked to PISS HER OFF etc., would there be room

for SYMPATHY for that mother?

 

More to post on this thread...to be cont'd inshallah!

[Cara.]

Hello Khayr,

 

Maala uqdaadh baa deenta kaa qaabta, laakin, ummadha Nabi Muhammmed (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) badankayna, baan kaatirsanaxey!

Now, I know my grasp of af Soomali is not the best, and there may be dialect issues here, but I don't understand what the above sentence means.

 

Often when someone is intruded upon say a mother is threatened that her 'cubs'/children might be attacked, or will be attacked or have been attacked, that mother takes on characters of a LIONESS and becomes overwhelmed with RAGE and Anger. Now if someone found out the storyline behind that mother's RAGE i.e. Children have been attacked to PISS HER OFF etc., would there be room

for SYMPATHY for that mother?

Khayr, are we comparing attacks on defenseless children who can actually be injured/killed, with editorial cartoons lampooning a man you believe to be far above human interactions? Are some Muslims organizing violent protests because they feel Muhammed is in immediate danger of physical harm? If not physical harm, then do the cartoons hurt his feelings? If the answer is no, then shouldn't some sort of introspection allow a Muslim (no matter how angry) to reason that there are better ways to counter these offensive cartoons than to behave even more offensively?

[Cara.]

Hello ThePoint,

 

I think the point being made Kashafa is that it shouldn't be surprising that violence happened. It's wrong but not suprising given the inflamed passions and those pouring fuel on those flames.

But the violence isn't surprising only if your thesis is that Muslims are to be expected to react in predictably needless violence at the drop of a hat. Exactly what those who published those editorial cartoons--and Muslim-bashers in general-- are editorializing. Muslims shouldn't internalize the perceptions of others so much, and they ought to know when they are being led by the nose.

[N.O.R.F]

Just done the weekly shopping, still no danish products, had to select a different cheese,,,,

[Arawella]

LabaX, do you know of other demonstrations scheduled to take place in London in the near future? If so when and where, the family and I would like to partake and add our piece! I always wanted to burn a flag, and the American one looks v tempting.

[Caano Geel]

^ lol

we at 'burn baby burn' now i see.

 

BTW LX or admins delete your post of admition man, just heard on the radio the police are collecting evidence to prosecute banner waving people at the march on grounds on inciting hatered/murder. --- we dont want you in the nic man, i heard they do bad things to good boys !

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Callypso:

Muslims shouldn't internalize the perceptions of others so much, and they ought to know when they are being led by the nose.

I wholeheartedly agree!!! And now I'm ready to move on from this protracted debate.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Callypso:

Hello Khayr,

 

quote:

---

Maala uqdaadh baa deenta kaa qaabta, laakin, ummadha Nabi Muhammmed (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) badankayna, baan kaatirsanaxey!

Now, I know my grasp of af Soomali is not the best, and there may be dialect issues here, but I don't understand what the above sentence means.

 

Often when someone is intruded upon say a mother is threatened that her 'cubs'/children might be attacked, or will be attacked or have been attacked, that mother takes on characters of a LIONESS and becomes overwhelmed with RAGE and Anger. Now if someone found out the storyline behind that mother's RAGE i.e. Children have been attacked to PISS HER OFF etc., would there be room

for SYMPATHY for that mother?

Khayr, are we comparing attacks on defenseless children who can actually be injured/killed, with editorial cartoons lampooning a man you believe to be far above human interactions? Are some Muslims organizing violent protests because they feel Muhammed is in immediate danger of physical harm? If not physical harm, then do the cartoons hurt his feelings? If the answer is no, then shouldn't some sort of introspection allow a Muslim (no matter how angry) to reason that there are better ways to counter these offensive cartoons than to behave even more offensively?

are we comparing attacks on defenseless children who can actually be injured/killed, with editorial cartoons lampooning a man you believe to be far above human interactions? Are some Muslims organizing violent protests because they feel Muhammed is in immediate danger of physical harm?

:eek: :mad:

 

You have a deep hatred and biaseness to Islam and muslims and in general, but most nomads on SOL are still part of the Ummah of Muhammed (salallahu caliyhe wasilm). (Translation) So respect our Deen and at the least , stay Silent!

 

You're contributions are fruitless and bare nothing but disdain for musilms and their deen.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Kashafa:

quote:Civilized muslims are surprised just as everybody else.

'Civilised muslims' are the 21st century's answer to the Uncle Tom integration-seeking Negros of the civil rights era. Their entire world came crashing down on them because the hungry masses were stirring 'trouble' clamouring for their 'god-given rights'. Now, they're faced with the prospects of being kicked out of the suburbs and back to the 'hood. Deja vu, anyone ?

 

As Jamilah said earlier, I can't help but think the reason why many Muslims in the West are so quick to distance themselves from the 'barbaric ferocious rampaging mob', is not because they disapprove of their actions, on the contrary, they wish they had the spine to stand up for their beliefs, but because all those funny looks at the office are getting to them. So they'll up and announce themselves as 'moderate'(whatever the heck that means), and paint the rioters and protestors as either extremists out for a clash of civilisations, or as ignorant reactionary poor people. In effect saying: "I've made the American dream and I'll be damned if those Thirld Worlders are gonna mess it up for me. Hey john, I'm with you guys on this one. Those crazies out there jumping up and down in the streets, tottally nuts dude. It's not even a big issue. Cartoons, for pete's sake. Why don't they protest about poverty, and racism, and homophobia, and fundamentalism ?"

 

I'm not condoning the way the protests were carried out. But they were inevitable. Basic Human Nature 101. You don't poke a lion in the eye and when he starts going after every animal in sight, say: "Gee, now why'd he do that ? That was uncalled for." Don't poke him in the eye in the first place, and if you just can't resist it, well man up and deal with the consequences. As Colin Powell said about the Iraq war: You break it, you own it.

 

And finally, about this whole freedom of expression ish, I'mma keep it simple: If your right to freedom of expression turns into freedom to insult, than my fist has the freedom to deny your nose's right to exist.

I agree with you saxib. MashaAllah, beautifully stated.

 

Now, if folks would just reflect on what you stated and not be so quick to attack you or others!

[Castro]

^ Dude, burning down embassies is asinine. Plain and simple. And condemning that action doesn't make one a weak or "spineless" Muslim. You and Kashafa wanna fight and burn so bad, the whole of Iraq is open for major combat activities. So is Afghanistan. Stop questioning people's faith. It's not your job.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ The tables may turn on NGONGE and he may find himself seeing the light.

 

 

Saaxib, Islam and Muslims are under siege. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but given the abundant evidence of military, political and economical pressure that exists on Muslims, I'd say the laws will be ignored, bent or broken by those who have a vested interest in making Islam and Muslims look violent, and therefore, deserve a violent military response. Freedom of speech is but a ruse nowadays. Depending on whether one agrees with that speech has much influence on how free that speech should be.

 

Would you like to discuss what made Muslims look so medieval in their response to this 'global crisis'? Let's go to the Reform topic over yonder. This horse is in rigor mortis at the moment.

You finally came round to my way of thinking. So, now you agree that the laws you demand will be useless? Ok, your reasons for agreeing are different but at least you finally accepted that such is the case. If so, what was all that drama in the last few days about, saaxib? Why put me through all this when you would eventually relent and state, quite resentfully, that Muslims are under siege and that any new laws will be bent or broken anyway?

 

I'd say the laws will be ignored, bent or broken by those who have a vested interest in making Islam and Muslims look violent, and therefore, deserve a violent military response

Have you thought these words of yours through? Do they make sense to you at all?

 

How could you even ask me to discuss what made Muslims look medieval in this crisis after you‘ve penned those words , saaxib? :confused:

 

 

I appreciate that some of the contributions of the lesser rational Nomads might disrupt one’s thought processes and even sway one’s emotions. I also realise the sheer pressure one faces when one goes against the grain; however, one should not be a feather that flies in every direction the wind blows. You need to give this discussion its due respect and choose some sort of position (or at least explain the reasons that made you switch from one extreme to the other). One minute you demand laws that protect religious folks from such insults and the next you talk about such insults deserving violent military responses!

 

 

On the point of reform. I avoided that topic on purpose, saaxib. It’s new and offers nothing that I have not discussed on previous threads. Besides, it has the usual suspects in it. When they can’t deal with your clear as daylight arguments, they resort to pointless digs about sophistry and what not. For me, none of this is an opportunity to show how well I write or how great I argue, I do it because these are issues that irk me and I would like to gain a better understanding of them and view them from different perspectives. To then go into topics that I already know will get me nowhere is frankly, a waste of my time and theirs.

 

There are angry kids here that will resort to violence and rage whenever they’re faced with a problem. These are the online equivalent of the real life kids that sport their underwear on top of their trousers and shout “I am supermanâ€. With both (online or real life) a gentle pat on the head is all they get from me, not a serious discussion.

 

Incidentally, the original argument about the cartoons and the non-believer’s ability to insult Muslims and Islam still remains unchallenged, unanswered and uncontested. What next?

[Castro]

^ The comment about laws bent and broken was based on what I see happening in Guantanamo (and here in the US) where clear and unambiguous laws guaranteeing civil liberties are circumvented by executive decisions, obscure legal loopholes and other blatant violations. I've not changed my stand. The law is the way to go. But even it will only carry you so far.

 

I'll be back later.

[Alle-ubaahne]

In this case, I sided with the contention of Castro , he seems very close to our global agenda! Saaxiib waxaan ku dhahay ninka Ngonge la yiraahdo bal si fiican ugu kala dhigdhig arinta.

 

Kaalay arintaan inay dhamaatay ayaan mooday oo wali ma waxaa socda qulqulatooyinkii Gaalada ee arimaha Cartoonka? Waxaan mooday in dagaal lagu kala maqan yahay oo faraha la isla gali doono! :confused:

[NGONGE]

That’s the point about the law, saaxib. All laws can be circumvented. Clear and Unambiguous laws don’t have loopholes. The law you’re asking for has one huge and gaping loophole before it’s even been introduced. Why else do you think I started by saying lets use the law and changed my mind as I gradually thought things over? You’re almost there. Don’t rest on your laurels just yet. Keep thinking about it.

 

You insist that Islam is under siege. That there are people out there whose main aim is to undermine Islam. That those that drew the cartoons were not some random and accidental people. Yet, you want to call for laws that will limit their ability to do these things and will eventually, as I believe (and you just confirmed) be turned against you. Who stands to lose the most here? You or some non-believer that drew a cartoon to provoke? Limiting his ability to offend in that way will not stop him from finding another way to offend. But what about you when he hoist you by your own petard?

 

Surely you can’t be certain of something that much yet still walk right into it! What sort of madness is that?