Jordanian court has begun blasphemy proceedings against Danish artist Kurt Westergaard

[lunakilo]

Danish cartoonist who drew The Prophet is being tried in a Jordan court

I was just wondering what people think about this.

How can you put to trial a person in country A for breaking the laws of country B even if that person has never been to country B and what he did was not a crime in country A?

What is the point of this trial?

 

[Gharib]

so if a guy in country A presses the red button to launch a nuke over country B for no reason can country B put him on trial and even punish him?

 

[lunakilo]

so if a guy in country A presses the red button to launch a nuke over country B for no reason can country B put him on trial and even punish him?

So in country A it is legal to nuke country B?
I think counrty B would be more angry at country A for allowing the nuking of other countries than at the person who pushed the red button.

And making people angry really compare to killing people?
[edit] it is generaly (international law) accepted that nuking people is wrong, but ******* people off is (to my knowldge) not illigal.

 

[Gharib]

So in country A it is legal to nuke country B?

you don't even have to ask that. what would be your answer if i said yes and if i said no?

I think counrty B would be more angry at country A for allowing the nuking of other countries than at the person who pushed the red button.

i didn't say can country B punish the one who pushed the button in country A at other countries.

And making people angry really compare to killing people?

where did i say that i'm making a comparison?

[edit] it is generaly (international law) accepted that nuking people is wrong, but ******* people off is (to my knowldge) not illigal.

according to whom is it not illegal to _____ people off?

 

[lunakilo]

you don't even have to ask that. what would be your answer if i said yes and if i said no?

It was not ment to be a question, sorry. I was implying that his actions was not illigal in country A.

i didn't say can country B punish the one who pushed the button in country A at other countries.



where did i say that i'm making a comparison?



according to whom is it not illegal to _____ people off?

So what did you say?
The whole nuking anology is confusing me.

What is your oppinion of the trial the article in the OP refers to?

 

[Kerr]

so if a guy in country A presses the red button to launch a nuke over country B for no reason can country B put him on trial and even punish him?

I think nuking another country is different then drawing a picture . If Muslims in denmark (or whatever the English name for the country is) took offense, let them take it to court there. No need for the rest of the world to get involved.

 

[Gharib]

It was not ment to be a question, sorry. I was implying that his actions was not illigal in country A.

so if it is not illegal in country A to nuke country B then country B has no say, is that what you are saying?

So what did you say?
The whole nuking anology is confusing me.

here it is again. if country A nukes country B by the press of a red button without taking a step into country B can country B punisht the apropriate authority of country A?

What is your oppinion of the trial the article in the OP refers to?

i didn't read much other than the few lines at the start. i will have to read it first.

 

[Gharib]

I think nuking another country is different then drawing a picture . If Muslims in denmark (or whatever the English name for the country is) took offense, let them take it to court there. No need for the rest of the world to get involved.

in what way is nuking a country different to drawing a picture of our Prophet Muhamed?

Muslims don't live only in Denmark, are you saying that it is unjustified for muslims living outside of Denmark to get upset, angry and to react?

 

[lunakilo]

I think nuking another country is different then drawing a picture . If Muslims in denmark (or whatever the English name for the country is) took offense, let them take it to court there. No need for the rest of the world to get involved.

They did. Or at least they tried, but the case never made it into the courtroom.

 

[lunakilo]

so if it is not illegal in country A to nuke country B then country B has no say, is that what you are saying?

I was just saying that if the nuking-anology should make ANY sense then it would have to be considered legal in country A to nuke country B.

here it is again. if country A nukes country B by the press of a red button without taking a step into country B can country B punisht the apropriate authority of country A?

1. I don't accept that you can compare nuking people to drawing pictures that some people find offensive.
2. (forgetting number 1 for a moment) I see the nuking-scenario as a disagreement between two countries, and not between country B and a person in counrty A who pressed the button. I don't know if any kind of international law exists which could be used here. If there isn't, we are stuck. Country A and B can yell at each other and nuke each other some more. If an acceptable international law exists, I would say that country B should put the apropriate authority of country A on trial for nuking country B.

What I don't accept is that country B has the right to judge a person in country A by the national laws of country B.

i didn't read much other than the few lines at the start. i will have to read it first.

Fair enough

 

[Gharib]

I was just saying that if the nuking-anology should make ANY sense then it would have to be considered legal in country A to nuke country B.

i told you it doesn't matter, you can have it both ways, it still makes it wrong and country B has every right to seek justice.

1. I don't accept that you can compare nuking people to drawing pictures that some people find offensive.

1. 
   
   so you agree that country B has a right to punisht those from country A that nuked B.
   
   
   

   What I don't accept is that country B has the right to judge a person in country A by the national laws of country B.

   
   then why did the person in country A do to the people in country B that which country B considers illegal? it is only fair that he gets judged by the laws of country B.

 

[Kerr]

in what way is nuking a country different to drawing a picture of our Prophet Muhamed?

A nuke is a weapon of mass destruction. It can destroy cities and make the ground unlivable for a very, very long time. A picture is not compare to that kind of destruction.

Muslims don't live only in Denmark, are you saying that it is unjustified for muslims living outside of Denmark to get upset, angry and to react?

I haven´t seen the picture, so I don´t know. But of course they can get upset and angry. My issue is that another country tries to prosecute the guy who did this. It would be like if you did something where you live that would be a crime in my country, but is not a crime in your country, and I try and bring you to court here.

 

[Kerr]

They did. Or at least they tried, but the case never made it into the courtroom.

Ok, didn´t know that. Thanks .

 

[beenie]

This whole thing is silly IMO.
It's a picture, one that would have been long forgotten if Muslims would just let it be instead of making a huge deal about it. Sure, it's not allowed to draw images of Prophet Muhammad in MUSLIM countries, but not outside of them. Why do we care so much? It's some dude drawing an image. It's like banning books: no one hears much about it or knows much about it until we make a big ol' deal about it.

Forget about it and move on. If another image pops up, ignore that one too; they'll get bored and move on to drawing more Osama bin Laden cartoons or something.

Let the guy go and stop proving him right that we're intolerant.

Oh, and comparing an image of Prophet Muhammad to nuking another country? Really? How is the image harmful or deadly to another's health? Offensive, yes. Deadly? Harmful? Nope. Sorry, I don't see the comparison.

 

[Gharib]

This whole thing is silly IMO.
It's a picture, one that would have been long forgotten if Muslims would just let it be instead of making a huge deal about it. Sure, it's not allowed to draw images of Prophet Muhammad in MUSLIM countries, but not outside of them. Why do we care so much? It's some dude drawing an image. It's like banning books: no one hears much about it or knows much about it until we make a big ol' deal about it.

Forget about it and move on. If another image pops up, ignore that one too; they'll get bored and move on to drawing more Osama bin Laden cartoons or something.

Let the guy go and stop proving him right that we're intolerant.

sister, i'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but your level of love for the prophet is very low. remember no one will enter paradise unless they love Allah more than everything, and then love Muhamed more than everything after Allah.

i am sad that i had to read your post.

 

[lunakilo]

i told you it doesn't matter, you can have it both ways, it still makes it wrong and country B has every right to seek justice.

I would say it makes a big difference whether the actions af the person in county A are illegal in country A or not.

so you agree that country B has a right to punisht those from country A that nuked B.

If international law says so, yes.

then why did the person in country A do to the people in country B that which country B considers illegal? it is only fair that he gets judged by the laws of country B.

In my oppinion no, it is not fair.

Example:
In country C it is legal to shoot cats.
In country D it is illegal to shoot cats.
A person in country C shoots a cat in country C.
is it fair that he gets judged by the laws of country D?

 

[kai]

sister, i'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but

your level of love for the prophet is very low

. remember no one will enter paradise unless they love Allah more than everything, and then love Muhamed more than everything after Allah.

i am sad that i had to read your post.

Thats not a very nice thing to say eselam!

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder about reciprocity & hypocrisy.
Suppose The US passed a law requiring respect for this country & its leaders.
Would Islamic countries approve of our prosecuting everyone in their country who said inflammatory things such as "Death to America!"?
Should we expect these countries to enforce our speech laws against their own populace?

 

[beenie]

sister, i'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but your level of love for the prophet is very low. remember no one will enter paradise unless they love Allah more than everything, and then love Muhamed more than everything after Allah.

i am sad that i had to read your post.

ummm, what? Did you bother to read my post? I agreed that it's offensive, wrong, and rude to make images of the Prophet. I am of the opinion that KILLING a person over it is an over-reaction. Would our Prophet kill someone who made fun of him? NOPE. He instead visited them and did kind things. We are to follow HIS actions and HIS responses, not our passions and anger.

You will never know my love for the Prophet and Allah, and I am deeply offended that you have made this statement about me. Because I think killing someone over a drawing is not the right course means I don't love Prophet Muhammad and Allah? Please, brother, rethink YOUR statements...judging others is a grave sin in our religion.

I think you have misunderstood me, and I'm quite sad to have read YOUR post. Don't ever think that YOU will know who enters Paradise, brother; that is a huge error.

 

[Willamena]

so if a guy in country A presses the red button to launch a nuke over country B for no reason can country B put him on trial and even punish him?

If country B recognizes the nuke as inconsequential, then they wouldn't bother.