You'll get the religious tw-er extremists to have a since of humor, let ALONE dignify other faiths or science, before you get anon/goons/etc to take it easy on them.   Polarity seems to be radically increasing between the "My Version of the World is the only Truth" crowd and the "Mock Everything You Think is Stupid" camps on the tubez. 

My take?  I won't tell ya.  Why?  Because if I did certain forumers would turn this into a wall of empty text...  much like the republicans are presenting to keep any talk of Wall Street reform from happening.  BA DUM PISH!

~Tobe

rabbit, it's what's for dinner

EDIT:  Also, I think Jon Stewart's reaction to the whole thing with pretty dang hilarious.   I just hope he doesn't overuse that bit TOO much.

I haven't seen the Mohammed bear episode, but I recall seeing the Cartoon Wars two-parter, and similarily, when seeing the "Comedy Central refuses to portray Mohammed" thing in the second one, I thought that was actually part of the episode itself, not a result of censorship.

To say it Kyle-Broflovski-style, "you can't do what they say just because they're the ones threatening violence."

Backing down from mocking Islam because some fanatics might murder in retaliation would be unfair to everyone who was offended by South Park but didn't threaten to murder in retaliation. Yes, the South Park creators need to be cautious, but cautiousness would be in the form of protecting themselves from violence... somehow. Trying to pander to those who threaten violence wouldn't be that cautious in the long run, if it told those who threaten violence that it's a good way to get their way... that would probably serve to encourage violence.

"It's asking a little too much for some extremists to just CHILL THE HELL DOWN"

i seen them flip over much lesser matters.
i think the UN should issue a mandatory world wide law against death threats. cause those extremists arent just pissing on the world and holding it hostage but they just recently threatend a muslim woman for competing in a tv broadcast poetry contest. what logic is that? what's next?

as for the topic, 2 things:
1- why are they watching south park? its an adult show, why would muslims, who in their mind belive themselves good enough muslims to defend the prophet, watch it? you gotta be one hell of an open minded muslim to watch such a show... so what gives?
2- there's tons of jokes about jesus why not flip over that too? cause as far as i know jesus is as important as muhammad. and as far as i remember there is no punishment in islamic law against verbal insults of islam or the prophet so at what do they justify this "killing" they do?

i dont see how they think jokes are dangerous... what they're doing is dangerous. 

Mada, you're coming at this all wrong. These are Muslim EXTREMISTS meaning they don't really give a damn, if you don't believe in Allah, you deserve to die (That's a paraphrase for those who will inevitably quote me.) You're also assuming that they would listen to the UN, they won't because once again, they're EXTREMISTS.

To your 2 statements.

1. They most likely didn't watch the show, they just heard about it, that's how most of that stuff works.

2. Extremist Christians do get mad at the show, but since 9-11 Muslims have, honestly, become more terrifying to more people.

And to end, they don't see the joke a dangerous, they see it as going against their faith, which as I stated above, is automatic death.

Pretty much anything that doesn't support or involve propogating their religion is a death sentance to some of those extremists...

So we're screwed, no matter what we do.

It boggles my mind how IQ is seemingly irrelevant to religious beliefs.

"Pretty much anything that doesn't support or involve propogating their religion is a death sentance to some of those extremists..."

and women, they treat women so badly so cruely ... they hate women so much. the really sad thing is their numbers, extremists are the majority of muslims. maybe only a few of them actually do anything but the rest are no less agreeing to this behaviour and aidding it.

"You're also assuming that they would listen to the UN, they won't because once again, they're EXTREMISTS"
 
there's lots of hate and evil messaging being broadcasted on tv and advertised in a lot of their countries, if the UN can inforce other countries to outlaw hate crimes or hate advertisment those extremists will lose their feed. and hopefully their numbers will decrease. there has to be some re-educational process being followed by their countries to end such wrongful thinking.

extremists are the majority of muslims.

Mada, no offense dear, but that is the most ignorant statement I have seen typed on this messageboard in a very very long time, and is a reason why the growing racism towards those of the Muslim faith is starting to grow out of hand.

I will not deny that those extreme core factions, such as the taliban, are a nuisance in the way that they not only pose threat to their percieved enemies, but also have dreadful society norms which condone such sexist degragation of females.

Of course, this is only a percentage of the majority, and last I checked, Muslim has the second highest number of followers in the world, more than Hinduism, Buddhism and Juddasim combined, and only about 500 million below Christianity. To name one group of extremist muslims, that is 25,000 taliban to 1.5 billion muslims. Granted there are other factions which like to take the word of their book to the letter (consider them the Westbros of the middle-east), but the number is practically inconsiquential compared to the mass.

And they are the majority?

Alas, to the point of the poor treatment of women--- foreign cultures really don't have too much of a right to impose our moral and religious ideals on those of another continent and faith. It'd be like us wanting to take action against Japan because we percieve their lolicon activities as rampant and unchecked paedophilia. It's wrong in our eyes, not theirs. But this is another moral battle of "where is the wrong that is plain wrong and the wrong which is culturally wrong?"

You make the issues seem a lot more clean cut and simple than they really are.

Also, the Muslim Revolution website which hosted the death threat was a website. As of yet there is no international governing body for internet regulation, and I am deeply hopeful that there never will be, given all the crap going on with China's censorship, the liberal European country's approach to file sharing and the greedy corperate gain that would all clash and cause the thing to become the biggest trainwreck in history (another topic for another time, but we're 20 years of mass internet useage in, we have established so much freedom, it would be impossible to reign it all in for a standardized universal "law").

Point, after that tangent, is that the UN is as powerless to stop them communicating these threats as they are to stop us discussing the Draw Mohammed day thing.

extremists are the majority of muslims.

Mada, no offense dear, but that is the most ignorant statement I have seen typed on this messageboard in a very very long time, and is a reason why the growing racism towards those of the Muslim faith is starting to grow out of hand.

Emphasis mine, you can't be "racist" towards a set of beliefs. Bigoted, maybe, but "racism" is supposed to be about, well, race.

As for the rest of the post, obviously most Muslims aren't as fanatical as groups like the Taliban, (though claims about "extremists" might depend on what one would label extreme; probably a matter of ignorance in this case though) but when you cite how many followers of Islam there are, it may be worth noting that a lot of them are from the middle east, which isn't exactly known for its modernism. I don't think Japan is even a good analogy, since it's nowhere near the sort of violence and oppression that a lot of the middle east is known for. Consider then, how much of a role Islam has in the middle east, compared to the rest of the world, and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider Islam at least a significant factor (though obviously not the only one) in this. At least Christianity's popularity in the western world hasn't turned it into another middle east.

It's sort of like what Winston Churchill said about how individual Muslims may show spendid qualities, but that doesn't mean the influence of Islam isn't a paralyzing one...

Jesus, Matt. Sementics! I write a full paragraph and your immediate reply is to whine about termonology? The meaning behind the word is the same, it's just the type of people that are different. Given I specifically mentioned which type of person I was referring to, any normal person would easily be able to defer what I meant.

Also, you should read this article, Matt. Would you believe that all the "stuck in the middle ages" stuff only STARTED in the 50's, they were actually more modern and on the cutting edge than the western world until then, add that to us having a World War II to shake up history and technologically advance us a century, and the scales just shifted a bit.

Alas, it was a defeat in the isreali war which caused the masses to start believing that their deviation from the holy scripts was what cost them God's favor, and thusly victory. Therefore they began going back to basics, to the letter adherance to their holy law. The scary thing is, the more we fight them, the more they believe this to be true... in many respects, we are indirectly responsible for the modern climate in the middle-east. ---directly if you count all the deals that went on with our presidents a couple decades back.

the world would be a better place for everyone if these words were spoken "live and let live", if the majority of muslims agree to say and belive and obey those words then i will say you're right and i'm wrong. and i dont just mean agreeing to the westren worlds way of life, but to allow other muslims to live the way they want to and choose their own way in life in equal rights.

"in many respects, we are indirectly responsible for the modern climate in the middle-east. ---directly if you count all the deals that went on with our presidents a couple decades back"

you know the world works in mysterious ways, it might seem like the way you described but from how i see it its been a hell a lot better for the world, really now women's rights are addressed more, they arent being abused in the dark like before, people are stepping up... human rights have finally been stationed where before they couldnt and there's more control over religious sermons in mosques that used to call for hate crime and racisim. there's some change POSITIVE change. that give some hope of peace and understanding to finally arrive in a closed up society.

"Jesus, Matt. Sementics! I write a full paragraph and your immediate reply is to whine about termonology?"

he is a puzzle that matt

Off-topic: Matt, could you please do us a favour and not quote the entirety of a post, unless it's wholly necessary and what you're going to write in reply is either equal to or greater than it in length? Just as a matter of courtesy to make things easier to read.

On-topic: I honestly think if people stopped paying so much attention, and being so reactionary to people like these, the effectiveness of their strategy would wane considerably - and that applies to both sides in the case of the "Draw Mohammed Day" thing. After all, any extremist's key weapon is their ability to incite fear, hatred, or both. Show them you're not scared and you take away a lot of their power. The vast majority of the time, people make threats and never carry them out.

On the subject of threats. I'd be willing to bet there've been far more death threats chucked around at folk than there are folk who have actually been killed. I'm not saying it never happens, just saying it's less likely than media and hysteria would like you to believe. And let's not get started on how preventable such things are anyway even if they are attempted - we've (mostly) all heard by now how good ol' Dubya was given plenty of warning and notice about the 9/11 attacks, and he chose to ignore it all, and then acted surprised when it happened. But that's a whole different kettle of fish for a different thread.

And getting back to the original actual thing this was about - I don't think what's been planned is anything to be concerned about. If it does take off, then probably a lot of people on either side are going to get each other riled up, but with something such as that I honestly can't see it causing anything as serious as people being killed for it.

This whole thing just tickles me so much. People are getting butthurt and riled up because of a plan to parody a man who laid the foundation for a religion that promotes hatred and killing.

What doubly sucks is that normal-headed folks like us have no way of winning against these extremists. If we treat them with respect and equality, our tolerance will build up their false sense of superiority. If we treat them rudely, it just fuels hate on both sides and they still have a false sense of superiority.

It reminds me of the logic of certain elementary school children, the kind of brats that won't say you won at a game, even though you did, but you're too nice to retort, and they just continue their dickery. I'm beginning to rage at the thought of this analogy. D: Extremists have the logic of ill-mannered children. And there's nothing we can do except rage.

I am feeling sad now because of this targetless anger.

Ignore them?

As nice as it sounds to just ignore them and be all "live and let live", when it comes to extremist religious figures I'm all about shouting a hearty "**** you" in their direction.

Besides, extremists are just going to hate us anyway for whatever arbitrary reasons they want in the end.  Might as well moon them while they seethe at us.

I'm with Jon Stewart on this one.

Jesus, Matt. Sementics! 

Oh dear, Craig. You just took the LORD's name in vain. That's a grave violation of one of the Ten Commandments. I'm afraid I'm probably going to have to kill you now. Sorry, it's just got to be done. I'm sure you understand.

Oh, Jon Stewart, my Electronic Jew, how I love you so.

I'm so drawing Mohammad on that day.

oh forget John Stewart this thread needs IRON MAN!

oh forget John Stewart this thread needs IRON MAN!

See, the problem with that is that Jon Stewart is on topic while Iron Man is not.

I dunno, guiz. I am very happy to have Robert Downey Jr. in this thread. :3

oh forget John Stewart this thread needs IRON MAN!

See, the problem with that is that Jon Stewart is on topic while Iron Man is not.

What if Iron Man is how SF is depicting the prophet Muhammad?

OHSNAP I'M GONNA HAVE THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS BOMB THE MOFO WHAT HAVE I DONE

"What if Iron Man is how SF is depicting the prophet Muhammad?"

eh?
why cant anyone get my iron man joke? he's the super hero that fights extremists in the movie didnt no one watch the movie?
darn it i'm always sucky with jokes <runs off crying>

Jesus, Matt. Sementics! I write a full paragraph and your immediate reply is to whine about termonology? The meaning behind the word is the same, it's just the type of people that are different.

What do you mean, "type of people?" As in, stereotyping a religion instead of a race is stereotyping a "different kind of" group? If so, it isn't really the same meaning. Islam is a culture. You choose a culture (or others force you into it, in which case they choose it for you) but you do not choose your race. This is too significant a difference to be dismissed as just being about terminology. And by the way, if by "immediate reply" you mean the first two sentences of it, then yeah. That's kind of why I bolded the part that the first two sentences were about, whereas the rest of it was focused on your comments about Islam.

Speaking of which, if they thought "that their deviation from the holy scripts was what cost them God's favor" then that's their problem. Aside from the obviously superstitious nature of such "logic" it doesn't address why "God's favor" would've skipped all the way over to a country that wasn't even Muslim in the first place. For what it's worth, I agree that western meddling played a role in today's nature of the middle east (I'm even inclined to think putting Israel there was a mistake to begin with) which is kind of why I specifically mentioned in my post that Islam was "obviously not the only" factor in this... but again, it not being the only factor wouldn't necessarily absolve its role.

Oh, and Castor, the John Stewart link doesn't work for me since I'm in Canada. Would you happen to have a link more globally-accessible than that, and/or the day that clip was from so I could look it up elsewhere?

Oh, and Castor, the John Stewart link doesn't work for me since I'm in Canada. Would you happen to have a link more globally-accessible than that, and/or the day that clip was from so I could look it up elsewhere?

Look for the April 22nd episode of the Daily Show on here.

What do you mean, "type of people?" As
in, stereotyping a religion instead of a race is stereotyping a
"different kind of" group? If so, it isn't really the same meaning.
Islam is a culture. You choose a culture (or others force you into it,
in which case they choose it for you) but you do not choose your
race. This is too significant a difference to be dismissed as just being
about terminology. And by the way, if by "immediate reply" you mean the
first two sentences of it, then yeah. That's kind of why I bolded the
part that the first two sentences were about, whereas the rest of it was
focused on your comments about Islam.

Matthew. Take two steps backwards. Stop anal-ysing words and look for CONTEXT. It's an easy thing to do.

Now. If I say "there is racism against those of the Muslim faith" I am making a very sturdy implication. What staggers me is it requires two damned replies of you throwing the dictionary at me to understand that there is NO DEEPER MEANING TO MY WORD CHOICE!

Re-read that.

Now again.

I simply picked a god damned word which means prejudice against a group of people. Again, I stated WHICH group of people in the sentance. Therefore, any sane and rational person would read it as "this causes prejudice against Muslims", only someone looking for reasons to argue would say "this causes us to think that Muslim is a country and/or skin color and not a culture or set of beliefs."

It. Was. A. Word. Even if I selected the wrong one in error, the context is still crystal clear. I know a religion is a culture and that I, as a white English person could be as Muslim is Mohammed himself if that was my belief system. I am not an idiot.

Incidentally, the context I was using it in, implied that the fact that only the radical terrorists are shown on news, and people are being mislead into thinking the entire religious body is represented enmasse by them.Hence growing resentment towards A FIFTH OF THE HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.

This is, of course, a bad thing. Hence my dislike of it happening. Which is the subject of my sentance. The sentance means nothing more than that. I promise. I'm the one who wrote it. I would know.

Oh, and Castor, the John Stewart link doesn't work for me since I'm in Canada. Would you happen to have a link more globally-accessible than that, and/or the day that clip was from so I could look it up elsewhere?

Look for the April 22nd episode of the Daily Show on here.

Ah ok, found it. I take it the bit about the death threats was just from "part 1 of 4" (the first 10 min. 40 sec.) and the rest was about other subjects? I watched a bit of part 2 but it seemed to be about something else. Also, was the "Muslim correspondent" guy on there supposed to be actually Muslim, or just pretending to be so as to make a point?

And Craig, I wasn't calling your post unclear, nor did I say there was any deeper meaning to your word choice. I was using it to point out the significant difference between racism and disdain for a particular culture. Hence when you dismissed it as "whining about terminology" I said why the difference was worth pointing out, and added that most of my post wasn't about it anyway.

<looks at frustrated craig> i cant take it any more! 
<wears megaman suit> i must defend the brai.. i mean craig!

"And Craig, I wasn't calling your post unclear, nor did I say there was any deeper meaning to your word choice"

its okay to disagree with people matt but when you take what they said in negative meaning different from what they said, that just hurts. espacially nice people.. craig is obviously a non-hater or judgemental person he's super frighteningly kind,  his post was against me being too rough and mean.

hope you understand what i'm saying, craig was being nice dont make him seem evil he cant play that part.

It's asking a little too much for some extremists to just CHILL THE HELL DOWN, but I think it's asking a bit more to stop an internet flashmob "for the lulz" event because it might have negative reprecussions.

I guess we have a month to see how this story plays out.

I think this is a spectacularly good idea, especially because of what Dirk said.

Oh dear, Craig. You just took the LORD's name in vain. That's a grave violation of one of the Ten Commandments. I'm afraid I'm probably going to have to kill you now. Sorry, it's just got to be done. I'm sure you understand.

Members of every other creed have to put up with things that offend them. This sort of nonsense is simply proof that they need to be offended MORE.

I propose that a likeness of Muhammad and L. Ron Hubbard in the throes of passion be carved into the moon, or possibly skywritten in some sort of bright neon pink.

Seriously though, this is where the decentralization of the Internet can help. Sure, they can kill a cartoonist who publishes with a real name, but what can they do to anonymous Internet users? As it gets more and more common they will have to learn to deal with it like a sufficient number of people in more diverse cultures did.

its okay to disagree with people matt but when you take what they said in negative meaning different from what they said, that just hurts. espacially nice people.. craig is obviously a non-hater or judgemental person he's super frighteningly kind,  his post was against me being too rough and mean.

hope you understand what i'm saying, craig was being nice dont make him seem evil he cant play that part.

What are you talking about? I was just trying to clarify what I was saying, and was paraphrasing Craig a little to make my point.

Super frighteningly kind? Like when he compared me to some lunatic character from Metal Gear for the lulz? I don't recall the details (to be fair it was years ago) but it was a bit unfair for him to be taking things I said so far out of context just for the sake of ridicule. This isn't to claim to know anything about his real life personality of course, I'm just commenting on his apparent online persona. I guess you just perceive it differently.

Oh and Vec, that quote from Dirk Amoeba reads "Craig Bayfield wrote" at the top; could you fix that please?

"Seriously though, this is where the decentralization of the Internet can help. Sure, they can kill a cartoonist who publishes with a real name, but what can they do to anonymous Internet users? As it gets more and more common they will have to learn to deal with it like a sufficient number of people in more diverse cultures did"

that's an important issue to disscuss really.
why be so over protective? if you truely belive something nothing can shatter that faith, but the way they always try to defend a negative view or an opposing view its like they're afraid ones faith will shatter and thats weakness. they call themselves extremists but are they really into the faith more then others?
if they truely love and know the prophet isnt like that, then there's no need to be upset at what's said instead laugh at others ignorance XD

"he compared me to some lunatic character from Metal Gear for the lulz? I don't recall the details (to be fair it was years ago) but it was a bit unfair for him to be taking things I said so far out of context just for the sake of ridicule"

he he... wish i seen that

oh forget John Stewart this thread needs IRON MAN!

See, the problem with that is that Jon Stewart is on topic while Iron Man is not.

What if Iron Man is how SF is depicting the prophet Muhammad?

OHSNAP I'M GONNA HAVE THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS BOMB THE MOFO WHAT HAVE I DONE

This can only happen under the circumstances that Black Sabbath - Iron Man is played, Muslims hate metal so it'll only infuriate them further!

Hey guys! Here's some deluxe blasphemy for you!

Comedy Central really need to stop being complete pansies, or South Park needs a new channel.

I propose that a likeness of Muhammad and L. Ron Hubbard in the throes of passion be carved into the moon, or possibly skywritten in some sort of bright neon pink.

I APPROVE! XD

It boggles my mind how IQ is seemingly irrelevant to religious beliefs.

Well actually...