Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Images of Mohammed

In case you haven't seen what all the hubub is about, here are some of the blasphamous pictures along with other images of Mohammed.
Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History


Some background on the controversy from Wikipedia

You too can draw Mohammed

And where do they get Danish Flags in the middle east ?

Classy as always, Iran responds .


Blogger Germanicu$ said...

"And where do they get Danish Flags in the middle east?"

More to the point, where do they get the money to buy them, if they're so dirt poor? That guy's selling them for $11 a pop - you could feed 20 Palestinians for a week on that!

Consider it a cautionary tale against a flag-burning amendment: if protestors can't burn old glory, our burgeoning flagmaking sector of the economy will collapse - or at least flag...

Props to mk for making our blog a home to incendiary free speech. Maybe Egyptian street toughs will start burning pictures of Kang and Kodos.

3:33 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

How do we even know what Mohammed looks like? I mean, if we drew pictures of Robert DeNiro with a bomb on his head and said it was Mohammed, would that still be blasphemy?

3:41 PM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

"Maybe Egyptian street toughs will start burning pictures of Kang and Kodos."
Stranger things have happened. Witness the pairing of OBL with Bert from Sesame Street

11:15 PM  
Blogger sexyretard said...

Comrade Jeff,

Who is your avatar?

9:22 AM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

"How do we even know what Mohammed looks like?" Good question. At least we know Jesus is blonde and blue eyed. Also everybody knows God is an American. He emigrated here from Europe in 1776.

"Props to mk for making our blog a home to incendiary free speech."
I actually had/have reservations about this. I think the Danish paper's solicitation for drawings was a provocation and I don't really believe in ruffling people's feathers unnecessarily. That being said I find the fact that many (certainly not all) Muslims think that a cartoon is worthy of rioting, flag burning, embassy burning and murder- while hostage taking/beheading and blowing up civilians is not makes me think "fuck em if they can't take a joke". I'm not really in favor of incendiary speech just for the sake of being incendiary. I object to these pictures just as I am not fond of work like "Christ Piss" and the Madonna made out of elephant dung. The major difference however is that nobody got killed b/c they objected to those works. Bottom line: I am far more offended at the response than what provoked it.

I'm guessing that avatar is from Casablanca (I'm shocked, shocked to find out that gambling occurs here!). Non?

10:38 AM  
Blogger sexyretard said...

It goes without saying that Jesus was blond and had blue eyes. That, or the flea market that sold me my porceline one (One) owes me my 15 dollars back.

I like this guy's take on it (see link below). I'm so sorry they were offended but, like MK, if they are less offended by beheadings (I haven't heard of anyone taking to the streets and rioting in opposition to them), then they are of a couple of cartoons, then screw them. They have the right to look away, and if allah is so wonderful, then surely he can deal with the infidels printing cartoons


11:09 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

What MK and S-Tard said. The question now is: will those European papers be hypocrites for not printing the equally news-worthy Holocaust cartoons?

My avatar is indeed the Claude Raines of Casablanca fame.

12:17 PM  
Blogger sexyretard said...

I don't believe it would be hypocritical, in that not everything submitted to a paper gets published, of course.

If, however, they choose not to run them, solely out of fear of offending someone, then that would certainly be hypocritical. If it's just because the cartoons are ridiculous, then it would not be. I can't submit a drawing of my arse to the Tribune and suppose it will be published.

9:48 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

"I can't submit a drawing of my arse to the Tribune and suppose it will be published."

Thank God! But seriously, those Mohammed cartoons a) kind of suck, and b) aren't newsworthy in and of themselves, but rather because of the reaction they provoked.

11:08 AM  
Blogger sexyretard said...

I don't disagree that they kind of suck. I don't find the degredation of anyone's faith to be particularly profitable, but then again, no one makes you read the Danish newspaper. I'm sure I (like everyone else) would find much objectionable, on grounds religious and secular, in magazines I have no compulsion to purchase.

This cartoonist, like Ted Rall who does his own crap, should do as he wishes, and the Muslims should boycott the paper, and encourage others to do the same.

Rioting in reaction to claims your religion is violent is, well, counterproductive.

5:03 PM  
Blogger Germanicu$ said...

What do people have against Ted Rall? Someone else laid into him recently, I believe in relation to the recent cartoon dust-up. I don't think he's fall-down funny, and he definitely swings from the left; but he's never been strident or offensive. His work appears in MAD Magazine, for crying out loud!

1:48 PM  
Blogger John said...

This is indicative of what kind of fanatics we are dealing with. If someone offends radical christions they boycott them. If you offend radical muslims, they try to destroy your property and kill you!

Is it PC to say that perhaps you could equate this with social maturity?


10:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home