Originally Posted by TBA_PAKI

Why complaining mates?

It is just a cartoon!

Chill-out!

If others are wrong in responding to or condemning blasphemous cartoons then you people should also not do that!

I am glad you already made the comparison between the two Pak, better you point out the contrast between the two situations than me, but I will just add a little bit that you left out, on accident I assume.

Notice the difference between the two responses.

Muslims responded by ransacking European stores, burning embassies, making threats to unleash a Jihad aganist Europe, promising another genocide of the Jews and to sum it all up, they're just incredibly whiny.

The Joint Chiefs responded by writing a short, well written letter to the author and then signing all their names to it so as not to hide behind a mask. That was it.

So in a way we have already chilled out, Paki, we took it in stride and responded in kind, without calling for the death of all Danish and German citizens in America.

Originally Posted by TBA_PAKI

Why complaining mates?

It is just a cartoon!

Chill-out!

If others are wrong in responding to or condemning blasphemous cartoons then you people should also not do that!

I don't mind the complaining, I just mind the burning of embassies. I know it is a nuance but an important one.

Paki, you are either extremely naive or extremely disingenous.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

this dude cracks me up!

LoL

Why do radical muslims try to bring up an excuse for any violent action they take?

And your "out-of-the-proportion" comments crack me up!

I did not said that what they did to embassies was right but I mentioned that it was expected given the nature of those stupid cartoons.

Is it so difficult to make you people understand simple things!

And stop calling me a radical! (we Pakis did not do anything to any European Embassy and protested in peaceful manner and I did not even participated in protests but I share the views of those people who pulled out)

Originally Posted by Damien435

I am glad you already made the comparison between the two Pak, better you point out the contrast between the two situations than me, but I will just add a little bit that you left out, on accident I assume.

Notice the difference between the two responses.

Muslims responded by ransacking European stores, burning embassies, making threats to unleash a Jihad aganist Europe, promising another genocide of the Jews and to sum it all up, they're just incredibly whiny.

The Joint Chiefs responded by writing a short, well written letter to the author and then signing all their names to it so as not to hide behind a mask. That was it.

So in a way we have already chilled out, Paki, we took it in stride and responded in kind, without calling for the death of all Danish and German citizens in America.

I am not making a contrast between two!

Their are a few things about this cartoon that should be noted:

- Published by a local media source in USA. And not from an another country.
- Less offensive in nature
- Only 1 cartoon

Result: Sparked a moderate level reaction and cartoon condemned.

Now Danish Cartoons:

- Very Anti-Islamic and Anti-Prophetic in nature
- More offensive in nature
- 12 Cartoons
- Published in a foriegn media source.

Result: Sparked a massive reaction due to nature of this cartoon being very blasphemous and that too from a foriegn source.

Now their is a major difference between these two things in situation, message seriousness and level of stupidity.

The reaction to these two things would be different in nature as well.

What I wanted to say that no one likes to be humiliated in media sources by anyone.

Originally Posted by Bulldogg

Paki, you are either extremely naive or extremely disingenous.

Thanks! but you don't understand the Islamic Culture that well to give me such a comment.

In our religion, it is forbidden to humiliate cultures of others. Europeans have no such ideas.

And I know that you will now post about Taliban but again I would remind you that we are against Taliban.

Originally Posted by TBA_PAKI

Thanks! but you don't understand the Islamic Culture that well to give me such a comment.

In our religion, it is forbidden to humiliate cultures of others. Europeans have no such ideas.

Is Infidel the name that Muslims call everyone who is not a Muslim, say a Christian or Jew? Do you not think that is a derogatory name to give someone who doesn't believe exactly as you do?

INFIDEL-
Main Entry: godlessPart of Speech: adjectiveDefinition: unreligiousSynonyms: agnostic, atheistic, depraved, evil, graceless, heathen, impious, infidel, irreligious, nonreligious, profane, unclean, undevout, ungodly, unholy, unprincipled, unreligious, unrighteous, wicked
Antonyms: religiousSource: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Synonyms: agnostic, atheistic, barbarian, gentile, godless, idolatrous, infidel, irreligious, non-Christian, pagan, profane, skeptic

Synonyms: abusive, atheistic, blasphemous, coarse, crude, dirty, disrespectful, filthy, foul, godless, heathen, idolatrous, impious, impure, indecent, infidel, irreligious, irreverent, irreverential, mundane, nasty, obscene, pagan, profanatory, raunchy, sacrilegious, secular, sinful, smutty, temporal, transient, transitory, unconsecrated, ungodly, unhallowed, unholy, unsanctified, vulgar, wicked, worldly

Infidel is a term used to describe a "non-believer". Those people who believe in One God and his all prophets (124,000 total) cannot be termed as infidel.

Still in most cases, this word is used in angry expressions. And many muslims avoid this word until provoked.

Christians are not targeted by this word. But those Jews who have shunned Jesus (PBUH), can be referred by this word.

Atheists are mainly referred by this word.

But this is a different topic.

Yes you're right TP, that is a different topic. The topics here are freedom of the press and sensitivity.
In case it's not clear enough, that was my way of trying to keep everyone on topic here.

"We would ... urge people who are criticising these cartoons to speak out forcefully against all forms of hate speech, including cartoons and articles throughout parts of the Arab world which frequently espouse anti-Semitic and anti-Christian views," said spokesman Scott McClellan.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/thr...11.html?page=2

Although I am Catholic, I am still considered as an Infidel by the culture in which I work. According to them.... I am a non believer.

The cartoon in question for this thread is not the same as the cartoons referred to by yourself and others Paki. Don't assume to know what I will say as assumptions will only make you look the fool in the end. As a former soldier and a human being I will say that in my judgement the cartoon representing a soldier who has lost his limbs is insensitive and making light of the real life losses to real people who, as stated in the Joint Chiefs' letter, have suffered great personal loss in the service of their country. I would be equally disturbed were the soldier portrayed from Pakistan or Russia or Australia. A soldier is a soldier and the losses by real people should not be made light of in such a way. It is an extremely different ballpark than something deemed insulting to one's religion. Religion is an intangible a leg is not. Hence the statement I made to you stands, you are either naive or disingenous. Apples and oranges do not a fair comparison make. The cartoon from the Washington Post shows poor judgement and extreme insensitivity to real losses by real people. The cartoons from Denmark show poor judgement and insensitivity to some people's beliefs. They are VERY different.