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.