Why aren't terrorists protesting this Humor?

[emilynghiem]

After the thread on Billboards or Cartoons being "racist" (and one person pointing out a more strict definition that racism involves holding one race inferior or superior to another)

What about this Ventroliquist humor?

What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?

In comparison, is this humor NOT mean. What makes it different if nobody is protesting this?
Is it because they will look stupid for going after someone who is actually FUNNY?

 

[Katzndogz]

These murders are not protests, unless the term protest has become completely changed. These are murders. They are murders because, even though western nations have gone out of the way to make sure that islam knows we will not make war against it, muslims are at war with the west. The killings will continue. It might be this comedian, it might be a journalist, or someone beheaded in the US, or on a London street.

As the video asks, "What are you waiting for?"

Islamic State Video Threatened Jihad on France - Bloomberg View

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The same thing that provoked the murder of Van Gogh. Insulting Islam.

From 2004 New York Times Story - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/international/europe/03dutch.html?_r=0

Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and writer who had recently made a television film critical of Islam, was shot and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street on Tuesday.

The killing shocked the Netherlands, already apprehensive over large-scale Muslim immigration, which has provoked an angry public debate. Mr. van Gogh's film added to that debate after it was broadcast in September.

Shortly after the killing, the police arrested a 26-year-old man of dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality, whom they refused to identify. It was not immediately clear if he had any connections to militant groups, but the police said he was not known to any Dutch law enforcement agency and that he had not been under surveillance.

Before fleeing, the man left a note on the body of the victim, said Eric Vermeulen, a spokesman for the Amsterdam police. The police declined to describe the contents of the message. The Dutch news media reported that it contained passages from the Koran.

 

[Sunni Man]

What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?

To answer your question:

There are even muslin comedians who poke fun at terrorists and fundamentalist members of the religion. Most muslims have no problem with satire and humor against public figures and the government.

But the Danish and French cartoons and videos were direct attacks on Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

And is beyond offensive to the average muslin and will not be tolerated. .......

 

[Uncensored2008]

After the thread on Billboards or Cartoons being "racist" (and one person pointing out a more strict definition that racism involves holding one race inferior or superior to another)

What about this Ventroliquist humor?

What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?

In comparison, is this humor NOT mean. What makes it different if nobody is protesting this?
Is it because they will look stupid for going after someone who is actually FUNNY?

They are. There have been many death threats against Jeff Dunham.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To answer your question:

There are even muslin comedians who poke fun at terrorists and fundamentalist members of the religion. Most muslims have no problem with satire and humor against public figures and the government.

But the Danish and French cartoons and videos were direct attacks on Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

And is beyond offensive to the average muslin and will not be tolerated. .......

Dunham requires armed guards wherever he goes, due to the threat of Muzzie Beasts.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

After the thread on Billboards or Cartoons being "racist" (and one person pointing out a more strict definition that racism involves holding one race inferior or superior to another)

What about this Ventroliquist humor?

What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?

In comparison, is this humor NOT mean. What makes it different if nobody is protesting this?
Is it because they will look stupid for going after someone who is actually FUNNY?

They are. There have been many death threats against Jeff Dunham.

How about Salman Rushdie who has been under protection of bodyguards for over a decade now? He wrote Satanic Verses and for that they wanted to kill him.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How about Salman Rushdie who has been under protection of bodyguards for over a decade now? He wrote Satanic Verses and for that they wanted to kill him.

Islam is a death cult started by a megalomaniac war lord to unify his soldiers on his quest for wealth an power. The evil that is Islam should have never survived past the death of the Warlord Muhammad.

 

[Pogo]

After the thread on Billboards or Cartoons being "racist" (and one person pointing out a more strict definition that racism involves holding one race inferior or superior to another)

What about this Ventroliquist humor?

What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?

In comparison, is this humor NOT mean. What makes it different if nobody is protesting this?
Is it because they will look stupid for going after someone who is actually FUNNY?

Seems to me what Jeff Dunham does mocks terrorism. He never mentions Islam. That distinction is crucial. There's a lot of rabble rousers, especially in these pages, who deliberately conflate the latter with the former as some sort of bigotry-superiority complex.

When they do that they place all adherents of an entire major religion, even if they have no stomach for terrorism, into a blanket statement bag of condemnation, in other words rhetorically paint them into a corner that their targets had no hand in creating. Thus it's an attack on them, and a completely unwarranted one, and in its sweeping generalization denies them the breadth to counterargue.

Not unlike finding some personal flaw of some obscure politician and then painting everyone of similar philosophical bent as "libtards" -- only stronger.

That's exactly why I rail against blanket statements of any kind around here and insist on specificity of causal relationships.
Exactly why.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seems to me what Jeff Dunham does mocks terrorism. He never mentions Islam. That distinction is crucial. There's a lot of rabble rousers, especially in these pages, who deliberately conflate the latter with the former as some sort of bigotry-superiority complex.

When they do that they place all adherents of an entire major religion, even if they have no stomach for terrorism, into a blanket statement bag of condemnation, in other words rhetorically paint them into a corner that their targets had no hand in creating. Thus it's an attack on them, and a completely unwarranted one, and in its sweeping generalization denies them the breadth to counterargue.

Not unlike finding some personal flaw of some obscure politician and then painting everyone of similar philosophical bent as "libtards" -- only stronger.

That's exactly why I rail against blanket statements of any kind around here and insist on specificity of causal relationships.
Exactly why.

Dunham does a routine regarding 72 virgins, pretty clearly a slap at the Muzzie Beasts.

 

[Sunni Man]

How about Salman Rushdie who has been under protection of bodyguards for over a decade now? He wrote Satanic Verses and for that they wanted to kill him.

He is lucky to still be alive. ......

 

[Pogo]

Seems to me what Jeff Dunham does mocks terrorism. He never mentions Islam. That distinction is crucial. There's a lot of rabble rousers, especially in these pages, who deliberately conflate the latter with the former as some sort of bigotry-superiority complex.

When they do that they place all adherents of an entire major religion, even if they have no stomach for terrorism, into a blanket statement bag of condemnation, in other words rhetorically paint them into a corner that their targets had no hand in creating. Thus it's an attack on them, and a completely unwarranted one, and in its sweeping generalization denies them the breadth to counterargue.

Not unlike finding some personal flaw of some obscure politician and then painting everyone of similar philosophical bent as "libtards" -- only stronger.

That's exactly why I rail against blanket statements of any kind around here and insist on specificity of causal relationships.
Exactly why.

Dunham does a routine regarding 72 virgins, pretty clearly a slap at the Muzzie Beasts.

Perhaps for your shallow end of the gene puddle.
Riffing on "72 virgins" is clearly riffing on a stereotype. I just did the same thing with Frank as he insists he knows Elizabeth Warren's absence of Native American blood, suggesting there must be "heap big sale on firewater". Again, mocking a Hollywood cliché, not an ethnicity.

See the difference?

Nah, probably not....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps for your shallow end of the gene puddle.
Riffing on "72 virgins" is clearly riffing on a stereotype. I just did the same thing with Frank as he insists he knows Elizabeth Warren's absence of Native American blood, suggesting there must be "heap big sale on firewater". Again, mocking a cliché, not an ethnicity.

See the difference?

Nah, probably not....

So, you think "Muslim" is an "ethnicity?"

You never were real bright.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps for your shallow end of the gene puddle.
Riffing on "72 virgins" is clearly riffing on a stereotype. I just did the same thing with Frank as he insists he knows Elizabeth Warren's absence of Native American blood, suggesting there must be "heap big sale on firewater". Again, mocking a cliché, not an ethnicity.

See the difference?

Nah, probably not....

So, you think "Muslim" is an "ethnicity?"

You never were real bright.

I see once again I've overestimated your third-grade reading ability. Native American is an ethnicity. That's the subject there. This was part of what we call an "analogy", which is apparently beyond your ken.

Why don't you read it again until you begin to comprehend while the rest of the class goes to lunch.

 

[emilynghiem]

How about Salman Rushdie who has been under protection of bodyguards for over a decade now? He wrote Satanic Verses and for that they wanted to kill him.

Islam is a death cult started by a megalomaniac war lord to unify his soldiers on his quest for wealth an power. The evil that is Islam should have never survived past the death of the Warlord Muhammad.

Hi Uncensored2008
I think we need to make a much more clear distinction between
JIHADISM that worships JIHAD similar to ZIONISM that worships Armageddon and destroying earth to bring on the kingdom of god.

Muslims and Christians will both tell you that these extreme cults contradict
the reasons they worship through their respective faiths that help bring them closer to God in unity with humanity not against.

The way to tell the Universal Muslims and Christians:
Do they accept all religions as made by God to organize people by tribes for a good reason, even Constitutional laws and Buddhist laws as based on Natural laws given by God?

The people who can work toward inclusion are not the problem, and they can be atheist or nontheist
or Muslim Jewish or Christian believers, or Buddhists or naturalists/secular gentiles.

It's the people who live by retribution, taking retributive justice into their own hands as their purpose
that should be banned as an illegal cult.

So if all the other groups got together and wrote out a neutral language agreement
that religious members and groups must agree to respect due process of laws,
and the civil procedures for redressing grievances, and cannot abuse religion as an excuse
to kill or attempt to carry out death threats,
then we could stand up, unite and weed out the dangerous types that aren't agreeing to follow civil laws.

Those types CAN be banned, such as deporting them to an AGREED zone if they really
believe in living under totalitarian regimes without due process of laws.

They have equal freedom to practice their beliefs, but on each other only, not imposing on others who
believe in justice and peace. So we'd have to agree to set up zones where they can live if they really believe this way.

I think in the Sahara Desert where they can attack each other all they want and leave others out of it.
Create a liveable zone that is self sustaining and they can have their paradise there all under the laws they impose.

 

[Pogo]

You didn't complete your distinction there Emily. Basically you proposed a distinction between "Jihadism/Zionism" and.... you never gave an 'on the other hand'.

I'd reiterate that the distinction to be made is between terrorism (which is politics) and Islam (which is religion). They are after all independent of each other. A terrorist who happens to follow (and see himself as a crusader for) Islam, has more in common with the Scott Roeders and Eric Rudolphs of the world than with the peaceful followers of their own faith.

That is, bombing a satirical publication or hijacking planes into buildings represents "Islam" to the same extent that bombing abortion clinics and lesbian bars represents "Christianity".

 

[emilynghiem]

You didn't complete your distinction there Emily. Basically you proposed a distinction between "Jihadism/Zionism" and.... you never gave an 'on the other hand'.

I'd reiterate that the distinction to be made is between terrorism (which is politics) and Islam (which is religion). They are after all independent of each other. A terrorist who happens to follow (and see himself as a crusader for) Islam, has more in common with the Scott Roeders and Eric Rudolphs of the world than with the peaceful followers of their own faith.

That is, bombing a satirical publication or hijacking planes into buildings represents "Islam" to the same extent that bombing abortion clinics and lesbian bars represents "Christianity".

Sorry, look Underneath where I refer to
Muslims and Christians.

Thanks, Pogo. I think your way of explaining helps a lot with
these issues that people run together emotionally. I hope
we get a lot more of these issues sorted out this year, and use those terms to spell out real-life
solutions and agreed principles to follow, for helping others to straighten all this out as well.

This isn't for naught. What we establish here can help many others to reach an agreed understanding.
Thanks for that!

 

[Pogo]

This may be off the topic and more on that of religion in general but just to single this out:

The way to tell the Universal Muslims and Christians:
Do they accept all religions as made by God to organize people by tribes for a good reason, even Constitutional laws and Buddhist laws as based on Natural laws given by God?

I'm neither Muslim nor Christian but no, I wouldn't accept that. I think the phrase "given by God" is a land mine. All it takes is one wag to declare he speaks for "God" to send everything up in flames. I think it's more important to acknowledge that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, you name it-ism are all structures made up by humans and as such, as flawed and imperfect and from time to time, flat-out wrong as any one of us, and that they're necessarily finite attempts to grok the Infinite, and that that shortcoming will always be so.

But perhaps this sentiment is what you were trying to convey expressed differently.

Not sure what you meant by "organize people by tribes" here though...

 

[emilynghiem]

This may be off the topic and more on that of religion in general but just to single this out:

The way to tell the Universal Muslims and Christians:
Do they accept all religions as made by God to organize people by tribes for a good reason, even Constitutional laws and Buddhist laws as based on Natural laws given by God?

I'm neither Muslim nor Christian but no, I wouldn't accept that. I think the phrase "given by God" is a land mine. All it takes is one wag to declare he speaks for "God" to send everything up in flames. I think it's more important to acknowledge that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, you name it-ism are all structures made up by humans and as such, as flawed and imperfect and from time to time, flat-out wrong as any one of us, and that they're necessarily finite attempts to grok the Infinite, and that that shortcoming will always be so.

But perhaps this sentiment is what you were trying to convey expressed differently.

Not sure what you meant by "organize people by tribes" here though...

Hi Pogo. And your responses are always welcome on my threads, which I expect to branch out.
These are holistic issues, not something that always stays in the box they were packaged in.

I agree we need to make a DISTINCTION.
The LANGUAGE we create is man made.
but the laws we express come with the universe.

We didn't create nature. We didn't create human nature.
We didn't make up the laws of science or the universe out there.
That is what I mean by "given by God" or by NATURE.

You are correct that the language and terms for these laws
are made by man to try to communicate and establish agreement
and common understanding of what laws are affecting us.

But no, the underlying laws are NOT "created by man" but discovered
like laws of gravity, physics, energy and mass. We didn't make those up.
Those come from God or NATURE or the Universe/Creation,
whatever you want to call Life or the source of life. Doesn't have to be called God for you or nontheists.

But for those who believe God is the source of all life and creation,
yes, I would say that to be consistent, the theists would be less divided
if we all agreed the laws that Buddhism, Islam Christianity and Constitutionalism
are based on all come from the same God or Source. And then the way they
are written, interpreted and enforced is biased and shaped by man.
If we agree by conscience or by Christ on the spirit and letter of these laws,
that is what it means to establish God's will or God's truth as universal for all humanity.

That's for theists.

For you as a gentile, you can call it whatever you want
but it is better we agree that these natural laws come from
human nature that apply to all people so we can include each other equally, regardless of
social grouping that doesn't change the fact we are all human beings under natural laws that came with life.

 

[bodecea]

After the thread on Billboards or Cartoons being "racist" (and one person pointing out a more strict definition that racism involves holding one race inferior or superior to another)

What about this Ventroliquist humor?

What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?

In comparison, is this humor NOT mean. What makes it different if nobody is protesting this?
Is it because they will look stupid for going after someone who is actually FUNNY?

Oh, it wouldn't surprise me if Jeff is getting death threats.