freedom of speech vs. Islam

good point, aseverwas

spuds, aren't kof 02 and 03 packaged together, like with 2 discs or am i just crazy?

we should totally change this to a kof thread
 
Yeah, KOF 02 and 03 were packaged together on the PS2 and Xbox. Though, they were released as seperate games in arcades. But the console versions had lots of additional characters. KOF 02 was like KOF 98, in that it was a "Dream Match" game between the different sagas (98 came between the 94-97 Orochi Saga, and 99-2001 NESTS saga, and in 2003, the Ash Saga was started).

But SNK always throws in the Boss characters, as well as some others, in on the console version. 2003 added Maki Kagura, a new and improved Kusanagi, Chizuru Kagura, Mukai and Adelheid (the new-and-improved Rugal, who happens to be his son).
 
daiconv said:
spuds, aren't kof 02 and 03 packaged together, like with 2 discs or am i just crazy?

we should totally change this to a kof thread

Wait, what? How did you guys change from Islam to King of Fighters? Miss a few days and you're outta the loop.
 
But I'm curious to hear what you think the Western Muslim and eastern Muslim perspectives are said:
Not that I'm wanting to really get anyone fired up, but I'm cool with answering your question. The difference that I see has little to do with the texts, and more to do with the interpretation of the teachings. The basics are all the same, but there has been heated debate even within the different sects as to what is meant. The West (basically North America and most of Europe), don't have generations of Kurd vs. Shiite vs. Sunni vs. whoever. The passages I mentioned before are used to justify the slaughter. Against each other? Yes. All you have to do is declare someone an infidel. Let's say I interpret some part of beliefe differently than you. You can declare me an infidel and unfit to live. Then we rally our families, villages, etc. and try to take control of the other's land, government, whatever it takes to silence the loser's infidel views. To ensure that the loser's family or tribe does not get payback in the future, some extreme measures will periodically be used. Blah, blah, blah. We've heard about it for thousands of years. The West partook of it and our own bloodbaths as well.

The Eastern ones are willing to die, to throw themselves and their families into a battle (be it modern warfare or guerilla warfare or terrorism) to defend their beliefs, and somewhat more importantly for various groups, their assurance of a good afterlife. To have your people, your religious group be able to take control of a country and make it a haven for your brethren is a prize to be treasured. The West did that before. The Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, even the World Wars are examples of the West dealing with similar issues.

However, today's culture is different for the West. It is taboo to stand for your religious beliefs. It is considered rude to have a debate between different religions. It is unthinkable to kill someone because they worship a different god or don't worship anything. We would call it murder, and our judicial systems would settle it. My family would not take arms to massacre yours. Your mosque would not burn my church and shoot my brethren because we disagree on who Jesus is.

That's the perspectives I see. Someone born and bred into a society where the survival of you, your family and your beliefs are not guaranteed (or sometimes persecuted) by their own government has not tasted the freedom of religion. To that person, allowing a taboo or violation of their beliefs is unforgivable, intolerable, and must be punished. It is seen as an attack. The West makes a huge difference between verbal and physical attacks. Over there, it is almost the same and in many people's eyes (as evident in recent news) it IS the same.

Western perspective vs. Eastern. I may not have explained it very well, but you should get the idea.

Thanks BC.
 
Iori.jpg