Comedy Central censors southpark after threats of violence.

[Duddits]

Religion is the root of all evil, not money. More people have died in the name of religion than any other reason. Nothing we say is going to change the mindset of hardcore extremist Muslims who are hell bent on pushing their religion on the rest of the world. They hit us, we hit them. They says it's in the name of religion, we say it's in the name of global stability and national security. How do you think Salman Rushdie felt when he wrote the Satanic Verses and wound up with a price on his head?

Maybe Comedy Central should air this film...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Guerillas_(film)

 

[Hexx]

For all intents and purposes, yes, that IS what I'm saying. Not because I especially care about seeing South Park make fun of Islam, but because making fun of Islam shouldn't result in people getting killed.. And if it takes someone dying to wake the rest of the world up to the insidious poison that is fundamentalist Islam, then so bet it.

People can prattle on all they like about respect for other cultures, but someday they're going to have to realize that that respect is NOT reciprocal in this instance.

I agree with what you and Thelona are saying, but at the same time, I think the decision to censor the episode was made more for financial reasons than for political correctness. Comedy Central IS a business, so they gotta watch their bottom line first and foremost. Yes, Islamic extremists constantly take the cake, but until something is done about it, most, if not all would rather play it safe.

 

[Thelona]

I agree with what you and Thelona are saying, but at the same time, I think the decision to censor the episode was made more for financial reasons than for political correctness. Comedy Central IS a business, so they gotta watch their bottom line first and foremost. Yes, Islamic extremists constantly take the cake, but until something is done about it, most, if not all would rather play it safe.

Itd be interesting to see if they end up suffering worse financial response for caving, I'm sure they lost alot of fans, and I still think it'd be cool for matt and trey to say screw Comedy central and go somewhere else, Adult Swim would pick them up in a heartbeat, tho idk if they could compete budget wise with comedy central, maybe Fox or MTV,

 

[Thelona]

omg lfmao someones hacked the site of the main NY organization that gave the threats

http://www.revolutionislam.com/ XD so great.

They have drawn the wrath of the internets, i think they've picked a bigger fight then they intended.

 

[Morcheeba]

how far does "Better safe then sorry" go tho, how many of your own freedoms are you willing to compromise over threats of death.


its sounds cliche, and movies and cheap use of it have kinda killed it, but "Live free or die" is another saying i was raised to believe in.

Many in America including myself, would rather die for their freedoms then sacrifice those freedoms out of fear of violent repercussions.

Its not that i wanna see an uncensored version of southpark, its that the freedom of speech was violated, not for the FCC, not for what was deemed appropriate for cable, or appropriate for children, but because of threats of terrorism, that to me is unacceptable.

Its not the episode of south park, its the principle

I fully understand, and trust me when I say I'm usually right there front and center in the principal fights.

What I can't see being any help what-so-ever is if death were to occur over something as silly as a cartoon. The FCC can't save lives and I believe you're and others are right in saying if they are actually going to go as far as to kill someone over a cartoon no matter what precautions are taken, they'll find a reason to kill.

I get it, really. I just don't think at the end of the day it's worth it. Take the damn episode off the air until these fucks are dealt with. Then CC can run the episode all they want.

I would use this opportunity to address the real issue at hand which as these death threats and not an inhibitor of our freedom of speech.

 

[Thelona]

They are never going to be delt with tho, there will always be those willing to kill others for offense.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=144313

A decision by Comedy Central to bleep out the words "Prophet Muhammad" on a follow-up episode of "South Park" that aired yesterday is not enough to remedy the situation, the author of an extremist Muslim website told WND today.

Younus Abdullah Muhammad, author of RevolutionMuslim.com, charged "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone continue to "mock" Muhammad even though the Islamic figure's name was censored from a follow-up show that aired last night.

pretty much what i mean when i say the censorship does nothing but show these people that they can control our media threw threats of violence.

[video]http://cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2010/04/21/ac.griffin.south.park.threat.cnn[/video]
An interview with the leader of the "Revolution Muslim" and poster of one the main threats.

He pretty much states it flat out. to terrorize those who offend Muslim, to change their behavior threw fear of violence. Terrorism at work, and he wont have a single charge filed on him for it.

 

[Morcheeba]

They are never going to be delt with tho, there will always be those willing to kill others for offense.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=144313



pretty much what i mean when i say the censorship does nothing but show these people that they can control our media threw threats of violence.

[video]http://cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2010/04/21/ac.griffin.south.park.threat.cnn[/video]
An interview with the leader of the "Revolution Muslim" and poster of one the main threats.

He pretty much states it flat out. to terrorize those who offend Muslim, to change their behavior threw fear of violence. Terrorism at work, and he wont have a single charge filed on him for it.

That's just a fucking sin right there.

Why is there nothing in place to nab these creeps...

 

[Raesvelg]

Rather than "better safe than sorry", in relation to this sort of thing I was raised on a somewhat different philosophy; Once you pay the Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane.

Never negotiate with terrorists. Never compromise with extremists. Not once. To display weakness is to invite further attack.

It applies to playground bullies and leaders of rogue states alike.

 

[Tristam Green]

1.) I'm sure they're shitting their pants that they've "drawn the ire of the Internets". Nevermind that these fuckers have been doing this via word of mouth since before the inception of the Internet.
2.)

Never negotiate with terrorists. Never compromise with extremists. Not once. To display weakness is to invite further attack.

This. We are a nation of pussies, who believes we don't negotiate with terrorists, despite the fact that we do the very thing daily, by virtue of fooling ourselves that we're taking moral high ground by minimizing civilian casualties when we *do* go to war (that whole sleeping dragon concept).

3.) @Duddits - during the Crusades, the Christians and the Muslims went back-and-forth as the most powerful groups in the world, monetarily. You tell me what root of evil caused them to commit atrocities in the name of religion.

 

[Duddits]

3.) @Duddits - during the Crusades, the Christians and the Muslims went back-and-forth as the most powerful groups in the world, monetarily. You tell me what root of evil caused them to commit atrocities in the name of religion.

The Crusades was a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns that were fought mainly in the name of religion. That alone gave them reasons to commit atrocities.

 

[Georgebobbilly]

I enjoyed Jon Stewart's message to them crazies radicals

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-on-comedy-centrals-censorship-of-south-park/

 

[ShomeGhuye]

omg lfmao someones hacked the site of the main NY organization that gave the threatshttp://www.revolutionislam.com/ XD so great.

Very funny, though I think maybe they should have made that picture in the background one of Mohammed for good measure. Despite all that, Tristam does bring up a good point when he infers that they probably don't really mind it *that* much. I didn't see the website prior to you posting it so I can't make my own judgment on the matter.

We are a nation of pussies

The subtext of my initial post, for those that didn't pick up on it. We're supposed to be at war with these assholes, and they're at war with us. It almost doesn't make sense to me that we're giving in to these demands, except that it's toward the preservation of life.

I also recall somebody stating that no resistance is worth it if it isn't from somebody higher up / bigger / I don't remember exactly. The problem is anybody in this sort of classification won't be the first to resist because when it does in fact end with loss of life, the fingers will be pointed in their direction, and they'll be ruined. That's why nobody high up goes beyond anything other than a condemnation IMO.

 

[Raesvelg]

Very funny, though I think maybe they should have made that picture in the background one of Mohammed for good measure. Despite all that, Tristam does bring up a good point when he infers that they probably don't really mind it *that* much. I didn't see the website prior to you posting it so I can't make my own judgment on the matter.

For the record, that IS a picture of Muhammad. It's actually one of the ones that ran in the Danish newspaper that more-or-less brought this particular little foible of Islam to the fore recently.

This. We are a nation of pussies, who believes we don't negotiate with terrorists, despite the fact that we do the very thing daily, by virtue of fooling ourselves that we're taking moral high ground by minimizing civilian casualties when we *do* go to war (that whole sleeping dragon concept).

The startling thing is that I doubt most people have the foggiest idea, particularly in those countries where we do attack, how restrained our response usually is.

If the United States military were so inclined, hell, if the United States Air Force alone were so inclined, we could be wiping cities off the map on a weekly basis, and be doing it all with conventional weapons.

 

[Tristam Green]

The startling thing is that I doubt most people have the foggiest idea, particularly in those countries where we do attack, how restrained our response usually is.

If the United States military were so inclined, hell, if the United States Air Force alone were so inclined, we could be wiping cities off the map on a weekly basis, and be doing it all with conventional weapons.

Well, in an ideal sans-opposition scenario, of course.

I'm all for reservation and "cooler heads prevailing", but seriously, there comes a time when you need to fight fire with fire. The Roosevelt Administration didn't get the US through WWII with harsh words.

 

[ShomeGhuye]

For the record, that IS a picture of Muhammad. It's actually one of the ones that ran in the Danish newspaper that more-or-less brought this particular little foible of Islam to the fore recently.

Oh, good. I thought it looked familiar ><;

 

[Raesvelg]

Well, in an ideal sans-opposition scenario, of course.

I'm all for reservation and "cooler heads prevailing", but seriously, there comes a time when you need to fight fire with fire. The Roosevelt Administration didn't get the US through WWII with harsh words.

Oh aye, there are a reasonable number of countries in the world we couldn't do that to... immediately. There's a smaller list of countries that it would take years to reduce to that level, and things would probably go nuclear if that happened.

But for the most part, give us a few weeks to months to establish air superiority, and most countries would find themselves wondering what the fuck happened when a few hundred B-52s show up for a little barbeque.

All in all, it's a tricky business, and the sort of "asymmetrical warfare" we're currently dealing with makes it considerably more complicated.

The "soft touch", so to speak, that the US has been employing thus far tends to embolden our enemies. They know that we'll hesitate to attack them when there is a high probability of civilian casualties. They know that there are things we won't do in order to beat them.

Ultimately, the way I see it, there are two options in fighting a war like this, and we're not really pursuing either of them.

On the one hand, you roll in with overwhelming numbers and unlimited restraint. You re-establish any and all services that were interrupted by the war as close to immediately as is humanly possible, and then proceed to make improvements on the lives of the citizenry, all while defending them and yourselves from the attacks of extremist nutjobs.

This, in my opinion, is what we should have been doing from Day 1.

The second option is... more direct. You invade, again with overwhelming force. You also send out any patrols in overwhelming force, and if anyone attacks you, you treat it precisely as you would if you were under attack by a military force of unknown strength. Which is to say with overwhelming firepower and less-than-discriminate targeting for the most part.

This option can work, but is more reliant on breaking the will of the populace through negative means, and as such considerably less consistent.

The two approaches have the same goal: to make the general populace understand that it is in their best interests if your forces get to do whatever it is that they came to do in an unmolested fashion. You are, in both instances, breaking their will to resist the occupation, and encouraging them to police their own populace.

 

[Dancingweapon]

I'm with Cheebs on the better to be safe than sorry thing. You don't know how stupid these people will be when they decide to direct their violence. Anyone could get hurt potentially. Sure I love South Park, but it really isn't a show good enough to have someone get hurt by it.

 

[bigbroon]

I don't blame them for bleeping it out, though I wouldn't have. I haven't read any of the thread other than the OP, so I may be writing something that's already been said, but who cares. I read somewhere that they were sent a video showing these Muslims murdering someone, and saying that this would happen to them if they aired the show. For this reason, I don't blame CC for censoring it, though as I already said, that would make me more inclined to air it. This is the stuff that makes me hate religious fanatics. I can understand people believing in their Gods and having their own beliefs, but when you try and force your beliefs, you overstep the line. Nothing, and I mean nothing, should be exempt from humour. South Park is renowned for being an extremely offensive show, and if you ever get even slightly offended, it's best not to watch it. Sad to see it censored, but again, I can see why.

 

[Valandil]

I don't know. I was just raised to believe 'to be safe than sorry' was the better option.

Some things are worth dying for.

 

[Thelona]

Woot! IT'S ON! may 20th has been declared Everybody draw Mohammed day!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/23/its-on-everybody-draw-mohammed-day-set-for-may-20th/
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/22/everybody-draw-mohammed-day
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/first-annual-everybody-draw-mo

Cue the predictable media squealing that “you’ll only antagonize them!” Antagonism, actually, is an idea straight out of the Hirsi Ali playbook: Her point to Anderson Cooper in the clip I posted earlier was that only by sharing the risk of retaliation for blasphemy can the public help protect her, Parker, Stone and other insolent infidels. If each threat produces more blasphemers than it silences, then threats suddenly become counterproductive. Or at least, they do to rational minds.

I'm so down! Starting on my Blasphemy now!

They make a great point, If the entire country goes Muhammad bashing crazy, then its alot harder to single out trey matt or other artist/media figures. Instead of just them taking the risk, we spread it out, safety in numbers if you will. I for one am more then willing to stand along side them.

and before people start in with "you're only asking for a terrorist attack" so what, we ask for a terrorist attack with all our freedoms these monsters hate. They already hate us more then anyone on earth except for Israel, so if they hate us even more, good for them.

i do slightly regret the effect on those Muslims who ARN'T extremist but are still bothered by a depiction of Muhammad, but this is America, i get my Judao/Christian sensibilities offended on a daily basis, time for you guys to suck it up, and take your share. the only reason this backlash is happening is because of the extremist pushing us.

Now where can i get a t-shirt with that picture of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban?