Agreed. They are completely irrational. Its like dealing with a teenage daughter going through PMS. There are learned art books that show hundreds of years of persian, turkish etc islamic paintings showing muhhamed, so the potraying his image being "forbidden" is up to interpretation. They either need to be ignored or dealt with harshly, imo.

My experience when I lived in Saudi Arabia is that the masses are highly educated on Islam, but mostly oblivious to anything else that would "elevate" their sensibilities other than the dogma they were taught.

this guy was jailed for seven years today. one of the charges (indictments) was for having a book that the police had actually returned to him in 1999. no doubt it'll stir up more radicals, into more frenzies.

and if inciting impressionable people to murder is such a bad thing, worthy of jailtime, wtf are the bbc doing broadcasting examples of it. if they don't have the balls to show the cartoons that are said to be so offensive to muslims, wtf do they think they're playing at by showing an extremist, raging and preaching murder and hate against me and mine? i find that offensive.

What Denmark did to solve the problem:

Dialog, apoligies, debate and communication.

What Islam did:

Burning embasades, suiciding themselves by attacking their own police "for Muhammed" and then calling themselves martyrs, Threatening Denmark and boycotting them.

____________________________________________________________________

LATEST NEWS:

Muslims keep attacking Danish embasades.

One of the drawings brought from Denmark by Danish muslims, which was claimed to be a picture of Muhammed, showed to be a manipulated drawing of a Frenchman, in a French "pig-whining" contest (Crazy French xD) that was manipulated to look like a drawing. (May upload pic later)

Jyllands-posten are planning to release MORE pictures, now making fun of Joodish (What the f are they called in English?) and Christian prophet(s). Stupid idea if you ask me

MANY (X-)ministers and politicians have criticised Jyllands-posten for bringing those drawings, and thereby "use freedom of speech in a wrong way".

The Danish prime minister and Jyllands posten and others have several times apoligied, which was the only thing the Muslims asked for, BUT THEY STILL DON'T SEEM TO BE SATISFIED BECAUSE... whatever -.-

The head-director (or whatever it's called) of Jyllands-posten said that he would never have brought those drawings if he knew how it would end up, and also said his apologie. He want to "straighten out the damages" by making new drawings of other religions prophets. (Omg, clever guy, now he wants the rest of the world as enemies just to (MAYBE) satisfie the Muslims? Wonder what his IQ is...)

Oh, and Nickelplate, it might be easier for me to find those drawings...

EDIT:

Found them! The first one is an Italian one, but the next 12 are the ones from Jyllands-posten. A bit low-quality, sry.

Apropos ships, now they are putting special taxes on Danish ships!

Oh, and sry for posting this western resistance site, I just meant to show nickelplate the pictures, i didn't even read the name of the site, or any of the text...

And for the faith thing, I do not blame them for being mad over those drawing, i just think they are pulling this thing too far. I don't see any connection between boycotting Danish products and Religion, unless the products themselves were labeled "f**k MUHAMMED".

maybe that's down to the fact that we know that news stories aren't necessarily the voice of the state. in countries governed by extremists, of any denomination, you'll tend to find the opposite. the people there will believe that ALL the stories carried ARE the voice of the state. with that mindset, it's not surprising that these people will hold the danish government accountable for what's in a danish newspaper.

I agree to a point. But any intelligent person should know that communication is a two way process. I know it fails in practice but thats a fact.

If the people who felt wronged are judging the wrong doers by their own standards then they are as wrong because it only perpetuates the miscommunication into an escalated process of "he said, she said"

I hope that made sense. It did when I was thinking it. " SRC="images/smiles/sad.gif">

It is not simply attacking Muhammad's character; it is that his teachings were often a justification of his actions and that he is held by Muslims to be the best of men, worthy of imitation.

That made me smile, but just a little bit. And the 'four male witnesses' law was actually an accident (note; I'm quoting from memory, details not guaranteed): there were rumors flying around then-tiny Muslimdom that Mohammad's beloved Aisha was having *ahem* an unsavory friendship with a young male thing. Then Allah came to Muhammad's rescue by revealing to him what was needed to prove a sexual crime: four male witnesses! That was a pretty generous law when it came to Aisha, but a very bad law to base a civilization upon.