[quote:e6573]Soharwardy said, adding the violent protests seen elsewhere will only serve to reinforce negative images of Islam. [/quote:e6573]

Huntingtons theory of "the clash of civilizations" has been set...the fault lines are set...if all of you don't know what I'm talking about (I'm sure most of you don't) read Samuel P. Huntingtons "the clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order" it will change your perspective on everything..many intellects in think tanks, from what I'm reading, agree that this is the next step.

many also think his theory is a piece of crap.

Links to this dissent.

Also this may suprise/piss off people.

UPDATE 2-U.S. backs Muslims in European cartoon dispute
(Adds more from U.S. official, background on U.S. cartoon)

By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States backed
Muslims Friday against European newspapers that printed
caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help
America's battered image in the Islamic world.
Inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning
rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the
United States sided with Muslims outraged that the publications
put press freedom over respect for religion.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of
Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in
answer to a question.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press
and expression but it must be coupled with press
responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this
manner is not acceptable."
He said he had no comment as to why the United States chose
to pass judgment in a dispute that ostensibly does not involve
America.
"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for
their religious beliefs and practices," he added.
The United States, which before the Sept. 11 attacks was
criticized for insensitivity to the Islamic culture, has become
more attuned to Muslim sensibilities.
Accusations last year that U.S. officials desecrated the
Koran sparked deadly riots in Asia and heightened that
awareness.
Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons,
which include depictions of Mohammad as a terrorist and offend
believers as blasphemous.
In contrast, some European media responded to the criticism
against the Danish newspaper that originally printed the
caricatures by reproducing the images and fueled anger that has
led to boycotts of Danish products and widespread protests.
Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University
of San Francisco and a Bush administration critic, said the
United States was responsible for creating far more anger in
the Muslim world because of its invasion of Iraq.
"The United States is the last nation that should caution
against unnecessarily inflaming sentiments in the Muslim
world," he said.
The official U.S. response also contrasted with European
governments, which have tended to acknowledge the tension
between free speech and respect for religion but have generally
accepted the newspapers' rights to print the cartoons.
The U.S. criticism of the newspapers also comes after the
Pentagon complained over a Washington Post cartoon.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff sent an unusual letter to the
editor published Thursday, denouncing as "reprehensible" and
"beyond tasteless" a cartoon earlier in the week portraying
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as insensitive to U.S. troop
casualties.
The cartoon portrayed a soldier who had lost his arms and
legs with Rumsfeld at his hospital bedside saying, "I'm listing
your condition as 'battle hardened."'
REUTERS

Reut 13:25 02-03-06

another day another building torched

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

You know I think all this rioting and burning down buildings is actually really gonna help their image.. annoy:

Stop ignoring the post above.

[quote="The Taliban mad: ":0008d]
by allah!..a slow and agonizing death to the post above.[/quote:0008d]

fuckin muzzies..they're taking over Britain.Sorry they've taken over Britain!!!

[quote="Eight Ace":569fb][quote="The Taliban mad: ":569fb]
by allah!..a slow and agonizing death to the post above.[/quote:569fb][/quote:569fb]

You still haven't responded to my posts.. rolleyes:

I was awaiting some dazzling counter argument.

what post? you just copied/pasted someone else's article. just becasue some american media hs bowed to pressure from our admin doesnt mean that the muslim response was anywhere near appropriate or warranted. people make fun of christianity, atheism, creationism, ALL the time, why should muslims be left out? Look at the shit they have in theyre own newspapers.

Iran cuts trade ties with denmark over cartoon
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/religion_car ... NlYwN0bQ--

Jesus christ not that post, read the argument I had with eight ace...he abandoned my question I asked him.

which one?

[quote=Machette]Atleast you pointed out everyone else is. And just because I have sympathy for them doesn't mean I'm "blinded" from the truth. I read about the sharia law and all those other things. It's unfortunate it really is, but I have sympathy in regard to their struggle with the west not with the struggle within their own religion among their own people, that is better argued amongst themselves and not the west.

So you don't believe publishers are in a sense blocking out information or voices? I would enjoy seeing how you would counter this argument seeing as you have said barely anything.[/quote:8d399]

Plus c312 I asked for some links to these people that thought huntington's theory was "stupid" oOo:

I didn't say stupid, i said lots of people thing it isn't correct. It isn't a universally beleived theory, there is divisiveness on whether or not it is an accurate theory.

[url=http://www.jstor.org/view/00223433/ap020151/02a00050/0?currentResult=00223433%2bap020151%2b02a00050%2b0 %2c06&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearc h%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3Dclas h%2Bof%2Bcivilizations:ddbd3]1[/url:ddbd3]

[url=http://www.jstor.org/view/0003049x/sp040113/04x1111s/11?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26Query%3dclash%2b of%2bcivilizations&frame=noframe&currentResult=000 3049x%2bsp040113%2b04x1111s%2b0%2cFF1F&userID=867e b164@jmu.edu/01cc99333cb349109418a1e99&dpi=3&config=jstor:ddbd3]2[/url:ddbd3]

[url=http://www.jstor.org/view/00223433/ap020151/02a00030/0?currentResult=00223433%2bap020151%2b02a00030%2b0 %2cFFFFFF03&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2 Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query% 3Dclash%2Bof%2Bcivilizations:ddbd3]3[/url:ddbd3]

[url=http://www.jstor.org/view/00208833/di012114/01p02336/0?currentResult=00208833%2bdi012114%2b01p02336%2b0 %2cEFEEFB&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fs earch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3D errol%2Bhenderson%2Bclash:ddbd3]4[/url:ddbd3]

And I wouldn't say that publishers are blocking out what is being said. I think in a capitalistic society, they are trying to make money, so they don't publish something if they don't think people will buy it or if it will damage their reputation, give them bad publicity, etc because it would hurt their ability to profit. That's why they don't publish things. I don't think it's because of what the content is necessarily, but more because of what reaction people will probably have to it...Like people won't want to read it, or other ways it could negatively affect the company.

A publisher which is usually in the business to make a profit usually doesn't care about it's "image"...general electric which owns nbc and universial makes huge profits off of different mediums but they also make fighter jet engines..does that not tarnish their so called "image"...they make a profit that's what their share holders want...and publishing something controversial as we all know only makes it bigger over time, their is massive money to be made off of people like chomsky. I'm not saying publishers discredit everyone and everything from being published I'm saying their is a limit.


Also those links don't work, guess I need a password. eek:

if extremist muslims didn't use their religion to justify violence, we wouldnt even be in this mess in the first place.

I thought they might not, they are from a scholarly journal called jstor and I think I can only access it because I'm on the University network.

And of course companies care about image, if they get a bad image, they will have decreased profits. And I know GE makes military products, I just don't see how that tarnishs their image at all. Are you saying making military products makes a company bad? I don't agree at all, and I would say most Americans wouldn't either. I don't think their is massive money to be made off of left wing extremists because the majority of the country wouldn't agree with them, they would just get angry at what they have to say.

Jumping on the corporate image argument what about let's say McDonalds for example. (this is a elementary example of course, but it serves relevance) McDonalds, even though its bad image of being a fat feeding resturaunt it still makes good money and that can not be denied. Certain companies have bad images yet still have massive profits.

I think Americans should care for that GE example, well most of them don't because they don't know. And their isn't much choice in the matter of what you can do and what you don't buy since their is total dominance in certain industries, even if it is light bulbs. Surely you don't see the sales of people like chomsky and even howard zinn for example..his book a peoples history of the u.s which was published by harper collins owned by news corp..sold 1 million copies if that isn't profit off of a leftists I'm not sure what is.

but McDonald's has also recently introduced healthier foods to help that image, and I think the success of McDonald's has more to do with convenience and taste then it has to do with a negative image.

But those healthy foods such as a salad if eaten with chicken and certain dressing can match a big mac on the calorie scale...Corporations will make you believe their are alternatives but they are usually unmatched.
A corporation like monsanto in the 70's ran campaigns saying "chemicals are the new way of life" (saw it in a old national geographic)...now monsanto has gotten into more trouble then with the whole GMF (genetically modified food) ordeal and a product that increased milk production in cows (it was stopped at the canadian border when our authorities questioned the reliability of the FDA on passing a product such as this that caused cows great pain and when they were being milked usually puss would find its way in with the milk)..and monsanto still continues to strive with profits, how is this so? The media is to blame of course, because most people do not know about such an issue.

The caloric value of the meal has nothing to do with it. The point is that it appears to be an attempt by the company to improve their menu for the benefit of their customers, that's how it looks to the customer, they say, "hey, McD's has a salad, they aren't being as greasy and gross." And then McDonald's reputation as a greasy bucket of fat becomes more healthy, even if just a little bit.

I don't know about Monsanto, but if they are still making profits its because people don't care about what they were doing. If people actually wanted to hear about the cows being hurt or the milk becoming more expensive, then they don't want to hear it, that's why the media doesn't say anything. If it becomes big enough of a deal to the point where we find out it's killing people or making people sick, then it will be something the citizens want to know, but as of now, it's not big enough of an issue for them to care about because the FDA approved it and people trust the FDA. If the FDA isn't reliable, that's a different issue, but most people beleive they are.

What university you at?

[url=http://www.jmu.edu:424be]James Madison University.[/url:424be]

Ok back on topic, You people are all missing the point of fanatical muslim's. The're all turban wearing Terminators that absolutely will never ever stop untill they rip every westerners fucking heart out. You yanks have got it easy, no channel tunnel for the fuckers to crawl through for free dental and welfare oh and a slice of suicide bombing on the side. The only reason the west deal with the backwards fuckers is oil so lets go for the hat trick and nail saudi and iran aswell as iraq and hit the jackpot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/sto ... 32,00.html

"Muslim protesters infuriated by cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad raised the diplomatic stakes
last night as Iran's best-selling newspaper announced it would retaliate by running images satirising the Holocaust.

The decision by the rightwing Hamshari daily to launch an international competition to find the most
suitable caricatures came as demonstrators hurled firebombs and stones at the Danish embassy in Tehran
and the Iranian government imposed a formal trade ban on Danish imports."




That's the same logic as machette has, Europeans upset muslims so
lets ridicule Jews. As if Iran doesn't do that on a permanent basis anyway.

We finally get some honesty and true intentions out of the right wingers !!!!

could not of put it better.....other than adding Heroin peddling fuckers.

uncanny, it's amost as if you two are one and the same!

[quote="Eight Ace":59d83]http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1704032,00.html

"Muslim protesters infuriated by cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad raised the diplomatic stakes
last night as Iran's best-selling newspaper announced it would retaliate by running images satirising the Holocaust.

The decision by the rightwing Hamshari daily to launch an international competition to find the most
suitable caricatures came as demonstrators hurled firebombs and stones at the Danish embassy in Tehran
and the Iranian government imposed a formal trade ban on Danish imports."




That's the same logic as machette has, Europeans upset muslims so
lets ridicule Jews. As if Iran doesn't do that on a permanent basis anyway.[/quote:59d83]

I called the president, what can I say? ed: eek:

[quote="Short Hand":9e54f]We finally get some honesty and true intentions out of the right wingers !!!![/quote:9e54f]

what an intellectual post SH, nicely done. The guy is obviously an idiot.

Read the post jerk off , its aimed against idiots like you that think its ok for fanatical muslims to terrorise the world, behead inocents and fly planes into buildings. And now your upset because a cartoon offends a few fanatics. Fuck you and get an education . Liberal gimps who tolerate this shit will destroy all society.

I agree that fanatical muslims need to be addressed, but you took it too far. Simmah down naw

Shut the fuck up.

[quote="Eight Ace":30767]http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1704032,00.html

"Muslim protesters infuriated by cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad raised the diplomatic stakes
last night as Iran's best-selling newspaper announced it would retaliate by running images satirising the Holocaust.

The decision by the rightwing Hamshari daily to launch an international competition to find the most
suitable caricatures came as demonstrators hurled firebombs and stones at the Danish embassy in Tehran
and the Iranian government imposed a formal trade ban on Danish imports."




That's the same logic as machette has, Europeans upset muslims so
lets ridicule Jews. As if Iran doesn't do that on a permanent basis anyway.[/quote:30767]

Holocaust, comedic gold.

rolleyes:

[quote=Machette]I called the president, what can I say? ed: eek:[/quote:94c3d]
I wouldn't be suprised, I seem to remember you raving on about western publishers not letting you get
your hands on enough anti-semitic propaganda, so going directly to the source would be best for you.

Eight ace why the hate?

Also something interesting...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/ ... 00,00.html

So its okay to make fun of muslims yet when it comes to christianity its not okay?

[img]http://sqd.ru/files/l/ifeb5.jpg[/img]

"..aaend always look on the bawight side of Life! "

da dum, da dum de dum de dum de da da da!

no one said it wasnt ok to make fun of christianity, in fact, its been done so many times, no one gives a shit. thats the whole point of this. its ok to make fun of everyone, so the only problem here is people going apeshit and burning down embassies and threatening to bomb printers and eventually killing themselves over this kind of fervor. these are the same fucks that stampede eachother in mecca and when they throw rocks at that slab of stone and hit eachother instead. they dont really need to make cartoons of these people, just watching them run barefoot infront of a moving car is funny enough.

So why did the same newspaper that made the cartoons about the prohet not allow a cartoon about jesus in their paper?