Maker of religiously critical film shot dead

[Michael]

That is simple, Michael. You find the film maker innocent; Bruce does not find the film maker innocent. Why do you want him to lie?

Lie about what? What is it you think Bruce is trying to say, such that - condemning the killer would be construed as a lie?

I don’t think Bruce is lying, but your sentence suggests that you feel Bruce supports the killer’s actions.

Well that’s how I read the posts as well, so I think it’s crap – which was what my rant was about.

Before allowing any muslims to live there, they should have made it clear something like this : "The freedom here also means anyone can . . . .

It is made clear, if one takes the time to read the constitutions of the countries one migrates to.
The onus is on the immigrant to live according to the society’s rules and regulations – not the other way around.

Are you finished ranting and raving?

maybe

You see that's typical Western behavior towards Muslims......read only what you want and only highlight the controversial things that a Muslim says

Come off it, if a White Supremist killed an African for having a white partner, because that was a “great insult to his religious-belief”, then you’d be just as outraged – or I hope you’d be – if then someone went blathering on about how blacks should know that when they go with a white person – well well they’re taking a chance and if they get killed – well they should of known better, so really maybe a bit of it’s their fault for going with a white.

F*ck That – I refuse to accept it.

What Bruce should have said is, yes this guy was a nutty sociopath and what he did was wrong, I hope he gets the most sever punishment possible. Because this sort of thing has happened in other religious groups, ie; Christian, Jewish, Hindi etc , , , maybe we should all look at what it is in our Religious beliefs and Books that cause people to think like this and, for the betterment of society, remove it.

Let me ask, as a Muslim, do you know if the Qur’an says ANYTHING in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that is derogatory towards another culture, people or religion? Because if it does then you can bet it wasn’t by any God and should be removed.

You should be able to do what you want only realize that certain behavior has certain risks attached to it..... A woman should be able to wear what she wants in a "free" society right? But if she walks around half-naked day after day then does her chance of being raped increase or decrease? Of course it's not her fault but certain behavior draws certain elements from society

And we as a society condem the perpetrators, we don’t go off saying the women was asking for it and so maybe it’s OK.

And if that does happen, those judges need to be removed as soon as possible.

Think about like this; let’s say there was some group of guys with fetish for girls that were mostly covered. They then went on to rape many mostly covered girls – lets say that happened to all be Good Muslim girls, wouldn’t you get a little bit pissed off if someone was on here blathering about – well maybe they shouldn’t have been covering themselves and sticking out so much bla bla bla . . .

Its ridiculous.

The guy was an artist and so what if he made a movie that peeved some people, tough live with it. I’m sure God’s a big boy and can take care of thing’s itself.

Muslims did just that(check my posts)....but their punishments will come from the Creator you should try objective reading and stop looking for things that support your views

It appeared by everneo’s comment about lying that they felt similarly.

But I see your point, and I understand where you’re coming from. But I certainly didn’t feel that Bruce was at all condemning the Killer – if anything he seems to be excusing the sick-o’s actions by blaming the artist.

Again not supported by Muslims although Russians had no problems killing Chechnian(sp) children for many years....are you outraged at this also? I must have missed your posts on it

I have never heard anyone at anytime say anything supportive towards the Russians. As a matter of fact yes they suck and if there were a hell some of them will rot in it along with some Americans’ in Iraq.

So thats phony when we say that? What should we say when someone who says they are a muslim commits acts that are totally against what the Koran says?

OK then you tell me

1) Was this guy a Muslim?
2) Were the Bali Bombers?
3) Were the Chechen Rebels? Any of them Muslims?
4) What about the Ayatollah in Iran? Is he Muslim?
5) What about the Iranian Judge that sentenced the 16 year Persian girl to death for adultery – we he a Muslim?
6) What about Arafat?
7) How about Saddam?
8) What about the Royalty in SA are they Muslim?
9) What about the Sunni are they Muslim?
10) Are Shite Muslim?
11) Is Sufi a Muslim?
12) Are Druze Muslims?

Thanks I’m curious to hear who are and are not Muslims.

Anyway, that’s exactly the reason why a book can not be perfect, anyone can find something to mean anything and you know what - they do.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Yeah seriously, I can't condemn the killing of anyone, but I can condemn people who do condemn killing and yet defend these actions.
There truely is a crazy pro-muslim bias among liberal circles which can at times reveal itself to be beyond insane.

It absolutely does not matter how offended this muslim was by the movie, people can be offended by any ridiculous thing, someone could be deeply offended by a gay relationship and kill both partners.
Would a defense for that person's actions be "well you have to understand that to him seeing a gay couple is very offensive"?
I know you guys defending this muslim generally don't think like that, you will only manipulate your thought processes into such elaborate positions in order to avoid finding fault with a muslim.
Let's face it, there isn't a single other type of person you would even try to defend for such actions.

 

[Bells]

No one should ever be killed for their beliefs. And no one should ever be killed because their actions offend some members of society. It was a movie. If it offends you or the topic is offensive to you, don't go and see it. Boycott it. I'm sure that depriving the director of the money would have sent a better message than killing him.

And I have to agree with Lou, you can't condemn the killing and then defend it at the same time. You can't say that he shouldn't have been killed and then say you're glad he was killed. There's no middle ground.

 

[surenderer]

You can't say that he shouldn't have been killed and then say you're glad he was killed. There's no middle ground.

[/QUOTE]





I sure hope that wasnt directed at me because I have said nothing even close to that.....As a matter or fact I dont think Bruce did either as far as I know he said that the Murder was wrong but he wouldnt lose any sllep over the man being dead.....I see a big difference

 

[surenderer]

.

OK then you tell me

1) Was this guy a Muslim?
2) Were the Bali Bombers?
3) Were the Chechen Rebels? Any of them Muslims?
4) What about the Ayatollah in Iran? Is he Muslim?
5) What about the Iranian Judge that sentenced the 16 year Persian girl to death for adultery – we he a Muslim?
6) What about Arafat?
7) How about Saddam?
8) What about the Royalty in SA are they Muslim?
9) What about the Sunni are they Muslim?
10) Are Shite Muslim?
11) Is Sufi a Muslim?
12) Are Druze Muslims?

Thanks I’m curious to hear who are and are not Muslims.Anyway, that’s exactly the reason why a book can not be perfect, anyone can find something to mean anything and you know what - they do.[/QUOTE]







1) dont know it seems he may have been but as far as I know he hasnt been caught.....if he was a nut from the crazy house that escaped that was from muslim desent(sp?) would you still blame Islam?

2) They went to Islamic Schools so I would say yes......but when asked about why he had also killed christians in the bombings one of them said: " Asked about Christians who died in attacks, he replied: "Christians are not my brothers." which is against Islam (along with the bombings)

3) Although most Chechens are Muslim, Aslan Maskhadov, who became president of Chechnya after Russian forces withdrew in 1996, was seen as relatively secular. However, he came under increasing pressure from radical Islamic factions led by warlord Shamil Basayev and eventually declared Sharia law, or Islamic law, an idea that has less support among the public at large than it does among the rebels.

4) Yes.....although not mainstream Islam (shia) and was mainly popular in Iran(and the US after he overthrough a puppet the US set up in that country)

5) Well 1st of all that girl is in Prison and she had her brothers baby and the fault in this case lies with the family who has asked for this punishment.....I dont know anything about the judge

6) Yes.....Although propped up to have more power than he really has and has been used as a "scapegoat" by Israeli's and the US

7) Only when it was convient for him to be one....he ran a Secular state that had waaayyyy to many pictures of himself around to be a true muslim (in my opinion) he also slaughtered many innocent muslim's which goes aaginst the Koran

8) Not really in my opinion......the are Wahabi's which although use the Koran as a reference their behavior (in my opinion) is unislamic

9) lol.....yes well I am....sometimes misguided (small percentage of them)

10) yes....although in my opinion sometimes misguided (small percentage of them)

11) there is a whole thread about this elsewhere.......they take the Shahada so I would say yes but some of the things they say and practice............

12) While preserving many Islamic symbols, the Druze religion also incorporates Gnostic and neo-Platonic tenets...so I guess but I dont know really (same as Sufi's)


Now can I ask you a few ..............

1) Was Hitler a Christian?

2) Is George Bush a Christian?

3) are the men who knowing killed maybe up to 100k people in Iraq "Christ-like" (christians)

4)Is Tony Blair Christian?

5) Was Ronald Reagan Christian when he gave Sadaam Chemical Weapons?

6) Is this woman who said that God told her to kill her sons Christian?:

http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.c...6dc144ded9eedf25895f4512d&POS=12&CM=WPU&CE=12

7) were the soldiers at Abu Grahib christian?

8) Are the KKK christian?

9) was Timothy Mcvey christian?

10) etc..........


You see in my mind I dont use those examples as a mindset for all Christians. I admit that some Muslims do just as Im sure you admit that some Christians use your left as a defination of all Muslims and that is indeed a problem :m:

 

[path]

I sure hope that wasnt directed at me because I have said nothing even close to that.....As a matter or fact I dont think Bruce did either as far as I know he said that the Murder was wrong but he wouldnt lose any sllep over the man being dead.....I see a big difference

I think she was making a general statement about posting things like "well he brought it upon himself or he insulted a belief that muslims take very very seriously" etc.

Bruce said amongst other things

I would not have had him killed, if only because the ammo it will give stormfront-troopers like path here

not much condemnation there is there.

 

[path]

More contents of the note that was around the knife stuck into Theo Van Gogh's chest and the dutch response.
Here

excerpt

THE HAGUE -- The government vowed tough measures yesterday against what a leading politician called ''the arrival of jihad in the Netherlands" after a death threat against a Dutch lawmaker was found in a letter pinned with a knife to the body of a slain filmmaker.

The five-page letter, signed by a suspected terrorist group, was released Thursday by the justice minister, and forced political leaders to take on bodyguards.

I think this sums up what people were trying to express regards this incident and the right and wrong of it.

''These people don't want to change our society, they want to destroy it," he said

 

[surenderer]

More contents of the note that was around the knife stuck into Theo Van Gogh's chest and the dutch response.
Here

excerpt



I think this sums up what people were trying to express regards this incident and the right and wrong of it.

The thing I find irritating about that article is the use of the word "Jihad" In the West, "jihad" is generally translated as "holy war," a usage the media has popularized. According to Islamic teachings, it is UNHOLY to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable. If I were to translate the words "holy war" back into Arabic, we find "harbun muqaddasatu," or for "the holy war," "al-harbu al-muqaddasatu." WE CHALLENGE any researcher or scholar to find the meaning of "jihad" as holy war in the Qur'an or authentic Hadith collections or in early Islamic literature. Why doesnt the West know this? You see I see something like this and it makes me think that the West WANTS this to be a "holy war" because thats how it is always described



The Creator says in the Qur'an( interpetation of meaning):

"And STRIVE (JADIHU) for Allah with the endeavor (JIHADIHI) which is His right. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in the DEEN (religion) any hardship..." (22:78)


"And whosoever STRIVES (JAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAHIDU) only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether independent of the universe." (29:6)



etc........if this is off-topic I apologize but I would like to know if that term was used in that letter because any true muslim would know better :m:

 

[Michael]

.
1) Was Hitler a Christian?

2) Is George Bush a Christian?

3) are the men who knowing killed maybe up to 100k people in Iraq "Christ-like" (christians)

4)Is Tony Blair Christian?

5) Was Ronald Reagan Christian when he gave Sadaam Chemical Weapons?

6) Is this woman who said that God told her to kill her sons Christian?:

http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.c...6dc144ded9eedf25895f4512d&POS=12&CM=WPU&CE=12

7) were the soldiers at Abu Grahib christian?

8) Are the KKK christian?

9) was Timothy Mcvey christian?

10) etc..........

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) Yes as well as a sociopath
7) Yes
8) Yes as well as being brainwashed Christian they are brainwashed to believe in racial supremacy.
9) Yes

You see in my mind I dont use those examples as a mindset for all Christians. I admit that some Muslims do just as Im sure you admit that some Christians use your left as a defination of all Muslims and that is indeed a problem :m:

I know a number of Muslims and I don’t use the examples to represent all Muslims, what bugs me and what I was getting at is that when a person (that happens to be Muslims) does some heinous crime in the name of God because of what they were taught, I hear any number of Muslims say – well they’re not "real" Muslims because the Qur'an is against that.

Well, I beg your pardon - I think the Qur'an (or Bible or whatever) can be used to justify doing about anything.

And they are.

The simple fact is Muslims use the Qur'an to incite hatred, Christians the Bible and Jews the Torah. Whereas many mainstream Christians and Jews accept this has happened and is happening and try to change it, I don't see many Muslims doing this.

Instead I hear something like, well the Russians are bad and do as bad. So what - then its OK? Because with the deafening silence - that's what it sounds like.

I will agree that the same reasoning used by the leaders in the Islamic armies to kill the non-believers is the same reasoning that the Christians use to kill non-believers. So it doesn’t matter what religion people are. Any book can be interpreted in such a way as to be used to kill people?

I agree that Islam has spread peacefully - Would you agree that Islamic also spread by killing and that Islamic armies conquered many peoples in the name of God?

Was this killing of polytheists to spread the "truth" of Islam righteous in your opinion? Did Mohammed ever lead these armies?

I agree Islam has spread both by force as well as by peace - but for some reason many Muslims seem to like to forget the later arrangement, or deny it even happened, or say well it was Gods-will so it was OK. I’m sure the guy that killed the artists thinks the same.

Let me ask a couple other questions:
1) What does it mean to be “perfect”?
2) Is the Qur’an “perfect”?
3) Which is more perfect (i) a book that can be interpreted in such a way as to incite hatred or (ii) a book in which it is impossible to be interpreted in a way to incite hatred?
4) Is the Qur’an used to incite hatred? Can you give some examples of how it is used and which verses in the Qur’an are miss “interpreted” to such an effect? How do you interpret these verses?

 

[Michael]

The thing I find irritating about that article is the use of the word "Jihad" In the West, "jihad" is generally translated as "holy war," a usage the media has popularized. According to Islamic teachings, it is UNHOLY to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable. If I were to translate the words "holy war" back into Arabic, we find "harbun muqaddasatu," or for "the holy war," "al-harbu al-muqaddasatu." WE CHALLENGE any researcher or scholar to find the meaning of "jihad" as holy war in the Qur'an or authentic Hadith collections or in early Islamic literature. Why doesnt the West know this? You see I see something like this and it makes me think that the West WANTS this to be a "holy war" because thats how it is always described



The Creator says in the Qur'an( interpetation of meaning):

"And STRIVE (JADIHU) for Allah with the endeavor (JIHADIHI) which is His right. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in the DEEN (religion) any hardship..." (22:78)


"And whosoever STRIVES (JAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAHIDU) only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether independent of the universe." (29:6)



etc........if this is off-topic I apologize but I would like to know if that term was used in that letter because any true muslim would know better :m:

From Aljazeera: Saudi scholars - Support Iraqi fighters

The scholars - some of whom have been criticised in the past for their views - issued a fatwa, or religious edict, prohibiting Iraqis from offering any support for military operations carried out by US forces against anti-US fighter strongholds.

"Fighting the occupiers is a duty for all those who are able. It is a jihad (holy war) to push back the assailants ...," said the letter dated 5 November.

I'm sure jihad has many meansings but it seems even Aljazeera "translates" it to mean holy war. And I think that's what many people do think: Holy War

(kind of Bush- like mentality huh?)

 

[path]

The thing I find irritating about that article is the use of the word "Jihad" In the West, "jihad" is generally translated as "holy war," a usage the media has popularized. According to Islamic teachings, it is UNHOLY to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable. If I were to translate the words "holy war" back into Arabic, we find "harbun muqaddasatu," or for "the holy war," "al-harbu al-muqaddasatu." WE CHALLENGE any researcher or scholar to find the meaning of "jihad" as holy war in the Qur'an or authentic Hadith collections or in early Islamic literature. Why doesnt the West know this? You see I see something like this and it makes me think that the West WANTS this to be a "holy war" because thats how it is always described



The Creator says in the Qur'an( interpetation of meaning):

"And STRIVE (JADIHU) for Allah with the endeavor (JIHADIHI) which is His right. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in the DEEN (religion) any hardship..." (22:78)


"And whosoever STRIVES (JAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAHIDU) only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether independent of the universe." (29:6)



etc........if this is off-topic I apologize but I would like to know if that term was used in that letter because any true muslim would know better :m:

Surrenderer I understand your sentiment regarding jihad as a military venture but it is not the west or the media that has given jihad this meaning it is muslims. You can claim they are mistaken all you want and they can and do claim you are mistaken. Either way allah ordering believers to kill others is in the quran many times over. I know you mean that those were specific instructions regarding a specific time in the past BUT the quran does not make any such specific claims regarding time (if I am wrong please post the correction). There is also the book of jihad in sunnah regarding military jihad. We all prefer your defintion of jihad but the other interpretation was also there before western media existed. I am not trying to say you or they are right or wrong just that military jihad is not an invention of the west.

 

[johnahmed]

So he got what he deserved then?

hey may or may not have deserved to die,but in life there are always boundries that are risky to cross,there are always people in all walks of life all be it a tiny minority who will be so "grossly offended" that they will take extreme measures,i.e it wouldt surprise me if some one praising peodofilia and rape at some point got lynched and killed. It doesnt necesseraly mean he deserved it but it does mean there are reprecussions when u cross certain boundries.

 

[surenderer]

Let me ask a couple other questions:
1) What does it mean to be “perfect”?
2) Is the Qur’an “perfect”?
3) Which is more perfect (i) a book that can be interpreted in such a way as to incite hatred or (ii) a book in which it is impossible to be interpreted in a way to incite hatred?
4) Is the Qur’an used to incite hatred? Can you give some examples of how it is used and which verses in the Qur’an are miss “interpreted” to such an effect? How do you interpret these verses?[/QUOTE]




1) My interpetation is something without error

2) An untranslated Koran(arabic) in my opinion gives the perfect message to live life by

3) Well since it is being followed by humans who arent perfect there will always be mistakes made

4) yes sometimes it is......there are firey Mullahs who hate Jews that misinterpete some things the Koran states as for an example I dont have alot of time right now but for the moment(interpetation of meaning):

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.



Now this is used by Mullah's inciting hatred and by Westerners who dont understand ,but what it is refering to is the Jew's and Christians who were conspiring aghainst the Muslims during that time of War They would pretend to be friends with the Muslims only to backstab them during War



Afterwards the Prophet(pbuh) was told:

[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.


There are many examples of this (that one is the 1st example that comes to mind) Now Muslims and Jews have actually lived together in unity for centuries....only with the advent of Zionism and Israel has there been renewed problems


As far as treating "People of the Book" (jews christians):

Say: "O people of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's will)."



Will write more later inshallah :m:

 

[path]

hey may or may not have deserved to die,but in life there are always boundries that are risky to cross,there are always people in all walks of life all be it a tiny minority who will be so "grossly offended" that they will take extreme measures,i.e it wouldt surprise me if some one praising peodofilia and rape at some point got lynched and killed. It doesnt necesseraly mean he deserved it but it does mean there are reprecussions when u cross certain boundries.

BULLSHIT! That might wash in the middle east or soviet russia but it doesn't fly in a modern democratic state. this is EXACTLY what we have been trying to explain here.
Expressing an opinion should in no way mean risking your life.
Pedophilia is a crime encouraging a crime will get you in trouble with the authorities as well as society at large. We are not talking about a crime here we are talking about social commentary. Criticizing, artistically or directly some segment of society is part and parcel of a free society give that up and you are not living in a free society, give that up and abuse can run rampant! Give that up and nazi's can take power again etc etc.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE, NO JUSTIFYING MURDER FOR AN OPINION YOU DON'T LIKE!

 

[path]

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.



Now this is used by Mullah's inciting hatred and by Westerners who dont understand ,but what it is refering to is the Jew's and Christians who were conspiring aghainst the Muslims during that time of War They would pretend to be friends with the Muslims only to backstab them during War

Can you please post the verses in the quran that explain that this is only valid for that specific time or war?

Afterwards the Prophet(pbuh) was told:

[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.


There are many examples of this (that one is the 1st example that comes to mind) Now Muslims and Jews have actually lived together in unity for centuries....only with the advent of Zionism and Israel has there been renewed problems


As far as treating "People of the Book" (jews christians):

Say: "O people of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's will)."

This is also used to say(in other verses of the quran) that those who do associate partners with allah (ie. christians) will burn in eternal fire in hell.
Sorry gotta run

 

[path]

Some more from the Netherlands

For some Dutch officials it was evidence of a social experiment gone horribly wrong. “We were naive in thinking people would exist in society together,” said Rita Verdonk, the immigration and integration minister whose name also appears on the death list.

For those that try and rationalize this of this behavior

She added that Moroccan immigrants “have never learnt about Dutch values”, despite efforts to train them to respect the country’s mores

.

It is hardly surprising. Many of Holland’s 1m Muslims consider the Dutch government to be depraved in its acceptance of “abominations” such as drugs, prostitution and gay marriage. They want nothing to do with it.

For Bruce's "higher punishments" comment

At the same time, Dutch tolerance no longer extends so readily these days to immigration and religious diversity. In graffiti scrawled on walls all over the city, the message is seen repeatedly, “Go home if you don’t like it”.

Regarding a dislike for others opinions
These are reactions from the dutch and I am not suprised.

 

[Repo Man]

Here in the U.S., our religious extremists are homegrown, and strongly resent any efforts by "furriners" to crowd their turf. I'm reminded of Eric Rudolph, the nutjob who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, and some abortion clinics and a gay nightclub. Then went on the run for a few years in One of the Carolinas, where bumper sticker showing support for him ("Run Eric, run!") were proudly displayed.

Failure to assimilate can cause very serious problems.

 

[Gravity]

 

[Bells]

I sure hope that wasnt directed at me because I have said nothing even close to that.....As a matter or fact I dont think Bruce did either as far as I know he said that the Murder was wrong but he wouldnt lose any sllep over the man being dead.....I see a big difference

It was a general statement surenderer, and I stand by it. No matter how insulting someone or something may be to one's faith, it does not warrant committing murder in defence of that action. And one cannot condemn such an action and then condone in it a round-a-bout way. Words such as those spoken by Bruce on page 1 of this thread, for example:

I would not have had him killed, if only because the ammo it will give stormfront-troopers like path here. But I can't say I don't feel sad he got it. He went very far. he could have been a active racist, he could have killed Muslims, he could have visciously attacked Islam like many others have done. But he pushed it too far. As I said, there much difference between, opposition, criticism, hatred, and what he has done.

show both condemnation and also an agreement of why it has happened. There is no middle ground on this issue. You either agree that the director should have been killed or you do not. I personally do not. There are better ways of protesting against a movie such as this, which would have a better impact, instead of committing murder.

And words such as this from page 4 of this thread:

No, just less seriously. The guy messed with the wrong crowd.

do not further the causes of any person or group in society. By making such a statement, he is giving the cretins who view Muslims as enemies and killers what they want. There was an art display here in Australia a few years ago where there were statues of the Virgin Mary in a vat of urine and crufixes with other bodily fluids and solids placed on it. Many Christians were in an uproar and death threats were made. I don't recall if the gallery allowed the showing to take place, and I wasn't too keen on seeing it as I don't view bodily fluids as being art. But the point I'm trying to make is this. If it is that offensive, don't go and see it. Protest, sign pettitions, boycott the movie, but don't kill the guy who makes it. This director made this movie in the hope to get a rise out of the Muslim community and in killing him, the people who committed this crime gave him just what he was after. By killing this cretin who made this movie, you've proved whatever point he was trying to make or put across, because he was doing everything he could to insult Muslims into reacting with violence. And unfortunately for both parties involved, he got the last word and he still got what he wanted. He wanted Muslims to react and they did, in the most violent way. His movie will now be given new emphasis in that the director who made it died for it. Stupid move by the killers. As I said, other things could have been done to protest against this movie and Muslims could have come out on top because it would not have given this cretin the violence he wanted you to react with.

This movie wasn't made to criticise the Islamic faith or the Muslims who follow the faith, it was made simply to try and force Muslims to react with violence, and sadly, he got just what he was after. Muslims could have taken the high ground on this issue and frankly protested in other ways. Do I think it is offensive? If I were a Muslim, yes I would be offended. I'm an athiest and I still wouldn't go and see it, not just because it's offensive but because of the reason the twit made the movie. But killing the director just goes way beyond what is acceptable in society.

 

[Roman]

Also, it depends on how 'offensive' is that 'offensive'. Some offensives are more than murder for some people. Your concept of freedom or your laws don't have any effect on their belief.

It seems like all the people here who defend the murder of van Gogh, or try to justify it, seem to argue that we watch our back's, cause belief is stronger than morality, law or decency.
In which case, if offending a certain minority simply with words is enough to provoke the minority to react violently and barbarically, should not that minority be removed? Obviously the minority cannot cope with modern, democratic civilization, and therefore should not be enititled to any of its rights.
Perhaps the Muslim fucks who get "very, very very offended" should move back to the fucking desert, or we should hunt them. I mean, I find there little head rags really, really offensive.