'Anti' Isalm cartoons....

leaskovski · 10 Feb 2006 at 23:31

Chronos-X said:
Sheep giving it large and hardcore to the masses

Now that my friend is funnier than the secretary for education get a dirty egg in her face!

Dingo · 11 Feb 2006 at 00:19

leaskovski said:
Now that my friend is funnier than the secretary for education get a dirty egg in her face!

As opposed to on her face with her ludicrous decisions and policies!! :eek:

cleanbluesky · 15 Feb 2006 at 21:52

http://www.tshirthell.com/muhammad.htm

H oho ho h oho h oho!

fireblade900 · 15 Feb 2006 at 21:58

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 22:27

[shrill old woman voice]He's not the prophet he's a very naughty boy[/shrill old woman voice]

Life of Brian II -The Desert Years

VIRII · 16 Feb 2006 at 07:28

On XFM this morning I think I heard something about an episode of "Spooks" being axed by the BBC because they were afraid it would offend Muslims as it featured an Al-Q terrorist being shot dead.
Apparently the episode cost £1million to make?
What doesn't potentially offend muslims? I can't understand why a bomber or Al-Q operative being shot dead would be offensive.

Excuse the vagueness of the information but it was 06:30 when it came on the radio.

dirtydog · 16 Feb 2006 at 07:34

VIRII said:
On XFM this morning I think I heard something about an episode of "Spooks" being axed by the BBC because they were afraid it would offend Muslims as it featured an Al-Q terrorist being shot dead.
Apparently the episode cost £1million to make?

Hmm I sincerely hope that isn't true. There have been Spooks episodes which dealt with 'touchy' subjects before - remember the episode from series 2 (I think) where the young boy is brainwashed by the leader of his Mosque to become a suicide bomber - and at the end of the episode he blows himself up. I'm not sure but I think they were Muslims.

Chronos-X · 16 Feb 2006 at 08:19

VIRII said:
On XFM this morning I think I heard something about an episode of "Spooks" being axed by the BBC because they were afraid it would offend Muslims as it featured an Al-Q terrorist being shot dead.
Apparently the episode cost £1million to make?
What doesn't potentially offend muslims? I can't understand why a bomber or Al-Q operative being shot dead would be offensive.

Excuse the vagueness of the information but it was 06:30 when it came on the radio.

Talk about a Daily Mail open and shut case!

Perhaps it featured some standard islamic practises that could lead to a "they say we're all like this" reaction that came from the cartoons? Yes, sometimes tact and diplomacy is needed!

What you have to remember is that a person can be intelligent and not take things for face value, look at the big picture of any situation in its context. But people are stupid.

VIRII · 16 Feb 2006 at 08:32

Chronos-X said:
Talk about a Daily Mail open and shut case!

Perhaps it featured some standard islamic practises that could lead to a "they say we're all like this" reaction that came from the cartoons? Yes, sometimes tact and diplomacy is needed!

What you have to remember is that a person can be intelligent and not take things for face value, look at the big picture of any situation in its context. But people are stupid.

I know it is early in the morning but could you write something that made sense and had a point for once when you reply to my posts?

WTF are you talking about?

It was the shooting of an Al-Q operative that was thought to upset muslims. The question is simply why would that upset muslims?

Secondly I was asking if anyone else had heard of this or knew anything a bit more specific.

Did you miss the irony of "sometimes tact and diplomacy is needed but you must remember people are stupid" ?

Finally "a daily mail open and shut case" - why do you insist on rubbishing newspapers as though it infers some sort of intellectual capacity on your part to do so?

cleanbluesky · 16 Feb 2006 at 09:25

VIRII said:
Finally "a daily mail open and shut case" - why do you insist on rubbishing newspapers as though it infers some sort of intellectual capacity on your part to do so?

Why do some posters think mentioning a daily paper is a substitute for an argument or opinion...

Nitefly · 16 Feb 2006 at 11:30

VIRII said:
Finally "a daily mail open and shut case" - why do you insist on rubbishing newspapers as though it infers some sort of intellectual capacity on your part to do so?

Not sure exactly what he meant, but the daily mail does come up with some ridiculous things. Lets not forget the headline "THREE DAYS TO THE APOCALYPSE" when later night drinking was introduced...

Perhaps the BBC thought that the episode might make out that 'muslim people are the enemy' perhaps a bit like the gollywogs were the bad characters in Noddy. Of course, anyone with good sense would know that isnt the case.

cleanbluesky · 16 Feb 2006 at 11:48

Nitefly said:
Perhaps the BBC thought that the episode might make out that 'muslim people are the enemy' perhaps a bit like the gollywogs were the bad characters in Noddy. Of course, anyone with good sense would know that isnt the case.

Are you associating Gollywogs with something?

"Behead those who insult Islam"... why of course anyone with good sense would know this isn't the case!

Borris · 16 Feb 2006 at 11:48

cleanbluesky said:
So this is the Free Speech our ancestors died for?

Although I don't wish to appear persnickety - we don't actually have "Free Speech" (unless you're a closet septic).

As far as free speech is concerned (and to dig up an old cliche) - we are fully at liberty to run into a crowded theatre yelling "Fire!".

Just because speech is free, doesn't mean that it doesn't have consequences.

vonhelmet said:
The alternative would be to give them enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot.

Rock, hard place.

Holy mixed metaphors, Batgirl!!!

One thing that confuses me, in particular, is the leaps of reasoning that have occurred.

Offensive cartoons are published in Denmark, and suddenly we are informed that the UK may face more terrorist attacks.

Did I miss something fundamental? Or rather, something fundamentalist?

Nitefly · 16 Feb 2006 at 11:50

cleanbluesky said:
Are you associating Gollywogs with something?

Yes, the characters were intended to represent black people.

cleanbluesky said:
"Behead those who insult Islam"... why of course anyone with good sense would know this isn't the case!

Was I even referring to that?

singist · 16 Feb 2006 at 11:57

cleanbluesky said:
Are you associating Gollywogs with something?

snip

And here's me thinking it was Jam

cleanbluesky · 16 Feb 2006 at 12:04

Nitefly said:
Yes, the characters were intended to represent black people.

The question is, where does the racism lie - with the creators of Noddy for choosing characters with the characteristics of black people or for the people who see this reference the idea that black people are any way represented by charicatures

Was I even referring to that?

I believe you were talking about Islam... anyone with good sense would know this

cleanbluesky · 16 Feb 2006 at 12:05

singist said:
And here's me thinking it was Jam

No, its Marmalade - IT'S THE MARMALADE OF RACISM!!!

Nitefly · 16 Feb 2006 at 12:19

cleanbluesky said:
The question is, where does the racism lie - with the creators of Noddy for choosing characters with the characteristics of black people or for the people who see this reference the idea that black people are any way represented by charicatures

Well....

Source said:
The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, Here Comes Noddy Again, a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ******, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and ****** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woogie and ******, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song -- which, as you may guess, was Ten Little ****** Boys.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Agatha Christie book of 'Ten little *******' either.
Anyway, heres the webby:
http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/golliwog/
I think its pretty obvious what the situation was, contemporary or otherwise.

cleanbluesky said:
I believe you were talking about Islam... anyone with good sense would know this

*groan* You truely deserve 3 dots for that

cleanbluesky · 16 Feb 2006 at 12:30

So mischievous creatures with European characteristics are in fact racial effigies as well?
Is Gollum a slur against Europeans?

Borris · 16 Feb 2006 at 12:51

cleanbluesky said:
So mischievous creatures with European characteristics are in fact racial effigies as well?
Is Gollum a slur against Europeans?

Quite possibly, if it were coopted as a racial slur, much as what happened to the term Golliwog.

The difference being that golliwogs were created as effigies of Africans, not effigies with African characteristics.

Golem is just an effogy of Vladimir Putin.

Whilst it's not the most vicious racial characterisation, it's up there with Little Black Sambo and the Minstrels.