John Cartmell wrote:
In article , . [email protected]
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , . [email protected]
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , raden
wrote:
Any cartoons of Mohammed ?

The ones in question are easily accessible and quite innocuous.

how /very/ dare you !!

I'm so offended I shall raise a mob and burn you out of your home
!!

Not as offended as I am

well, you have the right to raise your own mob and burn me out of
/my/ house :-)

by that apparently moderate speaker who, in all seriousness seemed
to expect the Danish government to prosecute the newspaper in
question even though that would mean making a new (and
unacceptable) law and back-date it.

It's the fact that those rabble-rousing Imams(sp?) want us to
retaliate that's stopping me responding appropriately...

.. moderates of the world unite! ;-)

I couldn't agree more but I worry that a lack of action on the part
of moderates will alow the fundaligionists (tm) to run riot.

I do think some of the reporters should point out that the only really
offensive cartoons were those manufactured by the imams - not those
printed by the Danish newspaper; and make it clear that the reason
the cartoons were printed was to test the assumption that pictorial
comment on Islam was difficult if not impossible. To hark back to
another recent OT thread - test proved?

Current argument in this household centres on how much an open
society can accept intolerance within its midst.

worryingly, probably more than is good for it to do so. sadly, it's nigh on
impossible to reason with the deluded that following their 'imaginary friend'
and all their crazy rules, rituals and rhetoric may not be the best way to build a
safe and tolerant world (the last 2000 years of christianity proves that let alone
these newly invented cults) the sane must sit back and hope all this bull****
burns it's self out without taking us with it.