http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm
Quote
South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction
Still image from the 200th episode of South Park
Muslims consider any physical representation of Muhammad to be blasphemous
Islamists have warned the creators of TV show South Park they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.
A posting on the website of the US-based group, Revolution Muslim, told Matt Stone and Trey Parker they would "probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh".
The Dutch film-maker was shot and stabbed to death in 2004 by an Islamist angered by his film about Muslim women.
A subsequent episode of the cartoon bleeped out references to Muhammad.
Drug-snorting Buddha
The posting gave details about a home Stone and Parker reportedly co-own.
It also listed the addresses of their production office in California and the New York office of South Park's broadcaster, Comedy Central.
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," warned the posting, written in the name of Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee.
"This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them," it added.
Mr al-Amrikee later told the Associated Press the posting was not an incitement to violence. It had been published to raise awareness of the issue and to see that it did not happen again, he added.
A Comedy Central spokesman said the network had no comment.
In the 200th episode of South Park, broadcast in the US and UK last week, Muhammad appeared several times inside a bear suit. Figures from other religions were also depicted, including a drug-snorting Buddha.
Wednesday's 201st episode saw any spoken references to Muhammad bleeped out, while a prominent banner stating "censored" was used in the programme.
Speaking in an interview with the Boing Boing website before the 200th show aired, the South Park team defended the scenes.
"We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'okay, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us,'" said Parker.
"It matters to me when we talk about Muhammad that I can say we did this... and I can stand behind that," Stone added.
"I don't think it's going to change the world, but this is how it's got to be for our show."
In 2006, Comedy Central banned Stone and Parker from showing an image of Muhammad in an episode that was intended to be part of a comment on the controversy caused by the publication of caricatures of the prophet by a Danish newspaper.
An earlier episode, Super-Best Friends (2001), contained an image of Muhammad but passed without comment.
"It was before the Danish cartoon controversy, so it somehow is fine," Stone told Boing Boing.
"Then, after that, now that's the new normal. We lost. Something that was okay is now not okay."
Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. The caricatures published in Denmark sparked mass protests worldwide.
Will the BBC: be "warned" by islamists for posting the image on their website?
:lol:
Funny. It was just this kind of crap that episode was joking about.
And watching the second episode now- the beat aint even Mohammed.
Yet further proof that radically religious people have no sense of humour.
I can't believe this show is still on
For a 200th special episode, it was surprisingly bad. And they didn't show Mohammed :(
I was wondering why this hadn't already happened.
What scares me is not the fundamentalists threats or their complaints. What scares me is the propensity to self-censorship that we (at least we in Sweden) see in the media. Newspapers wont print the offensive images, news channels wont show the offensive images. I do not fear islam or any kind of fundamentalism, I do fear the effects these threats seem to have on the media.
I certainly fear fundies. They might kill me if I do something they don't like.
Granted, afterwards all the "moderates" will decry such violence (or at least decry whatever the victim did to force such violence), but it won't do me any good, I will already be dead.
I'm surprised that they haven't already threatened South Park.
And only 200 episodes? Haven't they been on the air for at least a decade, or does it just seem like that?
Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
I certainly fear fundies. They might kill me if I do something they don't like.
Lots of people might kill you if you do something they dont like, or in an attempt to rob you, or in a psychosis, or because you looked at them/their girlfriend the wrong way, etc. That is something we cope with every day, but still we manage to handle those background noise-type risks without changing our way of life.
Yes, it is presumably quite horrible to have a fanatic coming after you, but can we really give in to that fear? What are the costs to our society, our way of life if we do cower from fear of offending? We only strenghten the lunatics with our silence and complicity, allowing them to shift forward their positions while we shrink away.
The only way to put an end to this is to keep living the way we do, and encourage an open society with dialouge and our freedom that we take oh so for granted. The alternative is unthinkable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 11:43:11 AM
I'm surprised that they haven't already threatened South Park.
And only 200 episodes? Haven't they been on the air for at least a decade, or does it just seem like that?
At least - I remember watching it late 90s.
But it's on cable, so they only made a dozen or so episodes per year.
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
I certainly fear fundies. They might kill me if I do something they don't like.
Lots of people might kill you if you do something they dont like, or in an attempt to rob you, or in a psychosis, or because you looked at them/their girlfriend the wrong way, etc. That is something we cope with every day, but still we manage to handle those background noise-type risks without changing our way of life.
Indeed. Well, we change some things - there are plenty of things I do to mitigate the risk of getting killed in a wide variety of ways. I wear a seatbelt, I don't wander around shitty parts of town at night, etc., etc., etc.
Quote
Yes, it is presumably quite horrible to have a fanatic coming after you, but can we really give in to that fear? What are the costs to our society, our way of life if we do cower from fear of offending? We only strenghten the lunatics with our silence and complicity, allowing them to shift forward their positions while we shrink away.
You are preaching to the converted, although I do note that it is pretty cheap for us to say that we should not change what we do - we aren't being targeted. If I was the producer of South Park, I might have a rather differing view, since the question is no longer theoretical.
There's lots of stuff I wouldn't do. I wouldn't widely publish Muhammad satire. And I wouldn't testify against organized crime. The Greater Good must take a back seat to My Good.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 11:43:11 AM
And only 200 episodes? Haven't they been on the air for at least a decade, or does it just seem like that?
I remember watching the very first episode where the fat one got abducted and probed by aliens in the summer of 97.
Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
... it won't do me any good, I will already be dead.
You make that sound like it was a bad thing.
Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
Indeed. Well, we change some things - there are plenty of things I do to mitigate the risk of getting killed in a wide variety of ways. I wear a seatbelt, I don't wander around shitty parts of town at night, etc., etc., etc.
I agree. The thing that scares me though is that media seems to avoid offending moslems like you avoid wandering around shitty parts of town at night. And if that continues, we are well on our way to put an end to our open society and the freedoms we take for granted. Not because of external threats, but by changing our way of life in an effort to appease those that cannot be appeased. If we shrink from this position, the next challenge will be an even deeper intrusion into our free society.
Already we see signs of it all around Europe, in Sweden for example, some baths have begun to practice "girls-only" swimming for a couple of hours each day, to avoid offending those that think that girls and boys should not be allowed to socialize without enough clothes on.
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2010, 11:58:39 AM
There's lots of stuff I wouldn't do. I wouldn't widely publish Muhammad satire. And I wouldn't testify against organized crime. The Greater Good must take a back seat to My Good.
And while that works for you, on an individual level, if everyone thinks and acts like you, our society will collapse. Its kinda like all those other things that we do because we have a responsibility to do it, while our individual effort in itself is neglectable (voting, throwing our garbage in the garbage bin, paying taxes, etc)
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 12:13:11 PM
if everyone thinks and acts like you, our society will collapse.
Vive la différence!
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 12:08:29 PM
I agree. The thing that scares me though is that media seems to avoid offending moslems like you avoid wandering around shitty parts of town at night. And if that continues, we are well on our way to put an end to our open society and the freedoms we take for granted. Not because of external threats, but by changing our way of life in an effort to appease those that cannot be appeased. If we shrink from this position, the next challenge will be an even deeper intrusion into our free society.
Already we see signs of it all around Europe, in Sweden for example, some baths have begun to practice "girls-only" swimming for a couple of hours each day, to avoid offending those that think that girls and boys should not be allowed to socialize without enough clothes on.
:yawn:
Never did like this show. I'm not really afraid of muslims either. So it's a wash.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2010, 12:38:56 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 12:08:29 PM
I agree. The thing that scares me though is that media seems to avoid offending moslems like you avoid wandering around shitty parts of town at night. And if that continues, we are well on our way to put an end to our open society and the freedoms we take for granted. Not because of external threats, but by changing our way of life in an effort to appease those that cannot be appeased. If we shrink from this position, the next challenge will be an even deeper intrusion into our free society.
Already we see signs of it all around Europe, in Sweden for example, some baths have begun to practice "girls-only" swimming for a couple of hours each day, to avoid offending those that think that girls and boys should not be allowed to socialize without enough clothes on.
:yawn:
yeah, that's exactly what I'll do if/when islamists ever get round to throwing you of a building for being gay. Just for you, though.
That show has its moments, but then it shows a kid taking a dump on his teacher's desk to remind me why I don't watch it regularly.
I wonder how much more we need to be pushed before we wake up and put the Muslims "ass on glass" already.
As far as I can see it's a posting on an internet forum. I mean sure it sounds like incitement to me (I don't like the inclusion of the address) but if this counts as 'Islamists threatening' then I dread to think what the BBC could make of, say, CdM or Marti :mellow:
I don't recall CdM making death threats about anyone and Martinus overreacts but Muslims ACT on their threats. When Martinus walks around Warsaw stabbing people to death then I will worry about what he posts on internet forums.
Quote from: Jaron on April 22, 2010, 04:36:01 PM
I don't recall CdM making death threats about anyone and Martinus overreacts but Muslims ACT on their threats. When Martinus walks around Warsaw stabbing people to death then I will worry about what he posts on internet forums.
Yes, but one posting on one American internet forum doesn't make an Islamist threat.
What do they need to do exactly? Hold a press conference?
I mean there are many threats reported against our president and many of them I imagine are screened through internet sources.
It is sort of the grapevine through which you can see the beliefs and desires of a larger group.
On Languish there is a lot of talk about various political topics and while no one here speaks for the whole they surely offer insight into the worries, beliefs and hopes of the groups they represent.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 22, 2010, 03:30:18 PM
yeah, that's exactly what I'll do if/when islamists ever get round to throwing you of a building for being gay. Just for you, though.
k
Quote from: Jaron on April 22, 2010, 04:49:14 PM
I mean there are many threats reported against our president and many of them I imagine are screened through internet sources.
They're not reported on the BBC.
QuoteIt is sort of the grapevine through which you can see the beliefs and desires of a larger group.
On Languish there is a lot of talk about various political topics and while no one here speaks for the whole they surely offer insight into the worries, beliefs and hopes of the groups they represent.
I agree but it ain't deserving to be on the front page of a global news organisation :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 04:30:40 PM
As far as I can see it's a posting on an internet forum. I mean sure it sounds like incitement to me (I don't like the inclusion of the address) but if this counts as 'Islamists threatening' then I dread to think what the BBC could make of, say, CdM or Marti :mellow:
Yeah this is a story? One internet troll?
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2010, 07:23:53 PM
Yeah this is a story? One internet troll?
Of course. We're witnessing a clash of civilizations.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2010, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 04:30:40 PM
As far as I can see it's a posting on an internet forum. I mean sure it sounds like incitement to me (I don't like the inclusion of the address) but if this counts as 'Islamists threatening' then I dread to think what the BBC could make of, say, CdM or Marti :mellow:
Yeah this is a story? One internet troll?
Troll someone on the internet, and get global attention for it. Hmm.
Sounds like Jaron's wet dream, doesn't it?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filibustercartoons.com%2Fcomics%2F20060204.gif&hash=be5387b78731f55af1748c346bea274d2b2d74fc)
Quote from: dps on April 22, 2010, 08:48:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2010, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2010, 04:30:40 PM
As far as I can see it's a posting on an internet forum. I mean sure it sounds like incitement to me (I don't like the inclusion of the address) but if this counts as 'Islamists threatening' then I dread to think what the BBC could make of, say, CdM or Marti :mellow:
Yeah this is a story? One internet troll?
Troll someone on the internet, and get global attention for it. Hmm.
Sounds like Jaron's wet dream, doesn't it?
Not really. I havent trolled Languish in years. I'm past that kind of stuff now.
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 12:08:29 PM
Already we see signs of it all around Europe, in Sweden for example, some baths have begun to practice "girls-only" swimming for a couple of hours each day, to avoid offending those that think that girls and boys should not be allowed to socialize without enough clothes on.
I think self-censorship and this are two different things. I don't have a problem with the latter as long as this remains an option, and not the only choice - after all they are responding to market demand. And frankly, I think some non-muslim women would probably prefer to go to girls-only swimming hours, too - for the same reason they prefer to go dancing to gay clubs.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2010, 01:29:14 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 12:08:29 PM
Already we see signs of it all around Europe, in Sweden for example, some baths have begun to practice "girls-only" swimming for a couple of hours each day, to avoid offending those that think that girls and boys should not be allowed to socialize without enough clothes on.
I think self-censorship and this are two different things. I don't have a problem with the latter as long as this remains an option, and not the only choice - after all they are responding to market demand. And frankly, I think some non-muslim women would probably prefer to go to girls-only swimming hours, too - for the same reason they prefer to go dancing to gay clubs.
Lack of testosterone?
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2010, 01:29:14 AM
And frankly, I think some non-muslim women would probably prefer to go to girls-only swimming hours, too - for the same reason they prefer to go dancing to gay clubs.
Sexism and heterophobia? Bigots.
Anyway those are not comparable at all. Gay clubs are not restricted to gay only.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2010, 10:04:17 AM
Sexism and heterophobia? Bigots.
Anyway those are not comparable at all. Gay clubs are not restricted to gay only.
Why does it bother you so much that some women would prefer to swim without men around?
Because when guys do it, women cry. Re: Bars & Taverns.
We do? :huh:
The only time I remember it being an issue is when it was a Men's Club that restricted all membership at all times to men. Even then, the courts ruled in the favor of allowing such venues.
I'm talking about setting aside a few hours a week to allow women-only swim times. Apples/Oranges
How is it different? Discrimination is Discrimination. Wether it's for 5mins or all the time.
Quote from: merithyn on April 23, 2010, 10:17:38 AM
Why does it bother you so much that some women would prefer to swim without men around?
I am not really but I do have a problem with public institutions of any sort excluding anybody based on gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else. Publicly supported sexism is not something I am interested in. I also tend to notice that separation of genders tends to lead to gender inequality historically.
If their bigoted views demand it, and they want to buy their own pool to keep the barbarian men out that is their own business.
Quote from: merithyn on April 23, 2010, 10:27:11 AM
The only time I remember it being an issue is when it was a Men's Club that restricted all membership at all times to men. Even then, the courts ruled in the favor of allowing such venues.
I'm talking about setting aside a few hours a week to allow women-only swim times. Apples/Oranges
Private club. There are private women's health clubs and so forth as well.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 23, 2010, 10:30:15 AM
How is it different? Discrimination is Discrimination. Wether it's for 5mins or all the time.
The men's clubs rights were upheld by the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2010, 10:33:07 AM
Private club. There are private women's health clubs and so forth as well.
I see. So the complaint is with the public pools - owned by the park districts or city, I assume? - having these single-gender times. What if the pools are owned by private businesses rather than the city or park districts? Would you have an issue then?
Quote from: merithyn on April 23, 2010, 10:36:03 AM
I see. So the complaint is with the public pools - owned by the park districts or city, I assume? - having these single-gender times. What if the pools are owned by private businesses rather than the city or park districts? Would you have an issue then?
Nope.
I wouldn't like it but that is the way to do it if they want to exclude part of the public.
What if, from a financial stand-point, it makes more sense to have three days a week several hours that are set aside for single-gender swimming? For instance, the pool by my house is owned by the park district, but is in dire financial straights. Every summer, there is discussion of closing it.
Now, if it came out that a large group of people really want single-gender swimming and this could potentially make the pool solvent or - heaven forbid - put them solidly in the black, would you have the same objections? After all, if they don't do this, then the pool will be closed to all. If they do, then there's a good chance that the pool will be around for quite a while.
Mind you, I have my personal objections to this happening. I'm just curious how deep your concerns run.
I have no problem with public pools having "women only" swim times if it is motivated by a bunch of women asking for the service because they don't want to be ogled by men all the time, or whatever.
If it is because the local cleric demanded that it be done because his god says it should be done, I would most certainly take issue with that.
Ogling women at the swimming pool is my right! :angry:
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 23, 2010, 08:44:10 AM
Lack of testosterone?
Drop by Montreal sometimes Alci lad - I'll show you just how much testosterone I lack :contract:
-----
As for muslims there's only one language they understand: violence. Put them down and keep them down. <_<
G.
Weird that such a big deal is made over this, as said it was just a internet posting and Mohammed was never actually shown.
What I would expect a big deal to be made of is yesterday's Supernatural. The Hindu gods are just pagan monsters who eat people. And Ganesh gets killed. Hindus have their crazies too (yes, just as bad as the Islamic ones) but I've seen no rumblings yet.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2010, 10:04:17 AM
Anyway those are not comparable at all. Gay clubs are not restricted to gay only.
Some lesbian clubs are restricted to women only though :ultra:
Quote from: Tyr on April 23, 2010, 12:02:18 PM
Weird that such a big deal is made over this, as said it was just a internet posting and Mohammed was never actually shown.
I believe the bit was cut due to the outcry and death threats.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2010, 12:44:04 PM
Some lesbian clubs are restricted to women only though :ultra:
What? That is an outrage!
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2010, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2010, 10:04:17 AM
Anyway those are not comparable at all. Gay clubs are not restricted to gay only.
Some lesbian clubs are restricted to women only though :ultra:
They got sick of all the fag hags fobbing them off with 'eww i'm straight'?
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2010, 02:27:52 PM
What? That is an outrage!
I know. Gay bars are flooded with women but they can't have even decidedly gay men.
To be fair some gay bars do ban women, but they're generally the ones with locker rooms.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2010, 03:17:06 PM
To be fair some gay bars do ban women, but they're generally the ones with locker rooms.
:yes:
Quote from: Bluebook on April 22, 2010, 11:36:03 AM
What scares me is not the fundamentalists threats or their complaints. What scares me is the propensity to self-censorship that we (at least we in Sweden) see in the media. Newspapers wont print the offensive images, news channels wont show the offensive images. I do not fear islam or any kind of fundamentalism, I do fear the effects these threats seem to have on the media.
If you don't fear islam you are either very brave or very naive.
I'm not brave or naive, so I fear them.
If you think the only relevant issue here is the effect on western media, you are very short-sighted as well.
I myself see this as another symptom that my final conclussion that islam have to be modernized by force or else we the rest of the world will pay dearly, as the best solution to the muslim question.
Apparently there is going to be a "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0424/seattle-cartoonist-promotes-everybody-draw-mohammed-day/)" on the 20th May.
I drew Mohammed and posted Him on Languish years ago.
I read the Koran and posted it on Languish last year.
I got the 72 virgins and put them on Languish last month.
Quote"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," warned the posting, written in the name of Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee.
"This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them," it added.
Mr al-Amrikee later told the Associated Press the posting was not an incitement to violence. It had been published to raise awareness of the issue and to see that it did not happen again, he added.
:lol: "Mr The American" seem like a good name for an islamist. I especially like the Abu Talhah part, as Talhah was one of the ten men Mohamed promised paradise and the 72 virgins while these men were alive.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 26, 2010, 02:30:36 PM
I got the 72 virgins and put them on Languish last month.
Talentless trash?
Siege, are you saying this is a clever troll ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 02:29:30 PM
I read the Koran and posted it on Languish last year.
I have spit and pissed on Qurans. Does that counts?
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2010, 02:38:23 PM
I have spit and pissed on Qurans. Does that counts?
Is that how they taught you to read in Israel?
Quote from: Jaron on April 26, 2010, 02:37:14 PM
Siege, are you saying this is a clever troll ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Can't tell. My first impression is the guy is a converted white-american. No second or third generation american born muslim from arab ascendency would ever call himself "the american". Also, Talhah was one of the first dudes to convert to Islam. He is very prominent in sunni religion. He was like 18 yo when he did so (20 being the traditional age of adulthood in the arab world).
Though Abu means "Father of" and its ussually intended as saying that you have a male son, which is VERY important for arabs, the new age muslimtards have a tendency of calling themselves Abu anything outragious, from Father of War to Father of Hatred, and so on.
My impression is that this dude by electing to call himself Abu Talhah is saying he converted young, probably around age 18, and that he is a very pious muslim, but not necesarily a gun-toting jihadist, since Talhah didn't fair well at war.
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 02:41:06 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2010, 02:38:23 PM
I have spit and pissed on Qurans. Does that counts?
Is that how they taught you to read in Israel?
In Israel you end up in jail for doing something like this. Probably for a long time.
Reading? :o
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2010, 02:29:30 PM
I read the Koran and posted it on Languish last year.
Good read?