On September 13 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:26 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:23 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:11 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:10 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:53 Brutland wrote: so, let me get this right, a film talks about how violent and dangerous islam is, and then in defense of islam Not being violent, some islamic nuts go and kill people. man. i would hate to imagine if the type of people who were that crazy ever decided to get smart about their crazy. would be bad news
yet there are tons of people defending their actions. it's just crazy.
NO ONE'S defending the murderers. We're defending the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS who have done absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of bigotry.
My argument isn't that all Muslims are guilty by association, or that being Muslim necessarily means that you're a terrorist. But there is a direct link between believe in Islam that enables and justifies murderous rampages for blasphemy in the right situations.
Clearly they are highly tolerant of free speech.
Read the .pdf that it cites. It says it in the first survey:
"Large majorities in many of the countries polled specifically denounce the use of attacks on American civilians whether in the US or in a Muslim country."
And this while we have two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's see how Americans feel when terrorists invade America.
Large majority in the sense that around 70% to 85% disapprove.
You think it is OK that around 15% to 30% surveyed find terrorism acceptable? Keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these people.
Must be nice for those of us living in the comfort of our homes without foreign forces stomping on our democracy and killing our civilians on our land.
On September 13 2012 00:14 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:06 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:36 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:15 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:00 Souma wrote: [quote]
You know very well that it is not just religion that causes these people to go out murdering others. I would put my money on Christians going out chopping off heads if they were oppressed as a lot of these Muslim nations have been. U.S.-backed dictators who slaughter innocent civilians? Yeah, that's totally okay.
I will never justify suicide bombing; I will always deem it barbaric and tragic. But if you think America does not have its fair share of blame, you are sorely mistaken.
Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.
We are now mired in a religious war in Iraq and elsewhere. Our enemies--as witnessed by their astonishing willingness to slaughter themselves--are not principally motivated by political or economic grievances. How many more architects and electrical engineers must fly planes into buildings before we realize that the problem of Muslim extremism is not merely a matter of education? How many more middle-class British citizens must blow themselves up along with scores of noncombatants before we acknowledge that Muslim terrorism is not matter of poverty or political oppression?
I've already said that you cannot compare Buddhism to any other religion. How about we compare Muslims to the Jews, who have been engaged in systematic genocide against the Palestinians? But if you really want to bring up Buddhists, how about the Buddhists of Myanmar murdering Muslims? And if Christians were in the same situation, they would be leading crusades right about now.
Yes, Muslims in general have more radical principles, but the ones going out murdering people are a tiny, tiny minority of fanatics. The quotes you've listed before were all taken out of context. You might want to actually read the Quran. It might help you understand them more.
And jeeze, really? The United States directly props up a heinous monarch who slaughters his people and suddenly, it's every Muslim who gets the backlash for it. Lose-lose situation for the Muslims, ain't it?
Genocide? You mean the Palestinian's myriad of attacks on the Israelis. I don't see how this proves your point, given that this is a conflict that at it's core is based on an interpretation of who the Bible says owns the land.
And you realize that the violence between the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar was started by the Muslims who raped and murdered a Buddhist?
The point is, there is a easy path from Islam to murderous atrocities. Don't take my word for it, go watch some videos of these murderers and terrorist boasting. Let them speak for themselves.
You can call them tiny, tiny minorities all you want, all murder is a tiny, tiny minority, but the fact remains that this tiny, tiny minorities doesn't exist in other religions. There are gradations of evil and intolerance.
When's the last time any other religion rioted and murdered because someone else made fun of their god? And multiply that by, what, 6?
Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, must have nothing to do with this:
And the Myanmar situation stems much further back than an incident in which some men attempted to rape a girl:
The point is, these people who are committing murderous atrocities -- this tiny, tiny minority -- interpret the Quran in their own way, a way in which most every other Muslim condemns.
The thing with Western nations is, we don't need to use religion as a pretense to murder people - we use Democracy. Islam is to them what Democracy is to us. I wonder who's taken more lives - Democracy or Islam?
Stop misdirecting. What has the Israeli-Palestinian conflict got to do with the topic?
Western countries did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq to murder its civilians in the name of democracy. And even before the invasion of Iraq, suicide bombings and other barbaric acts were done in the name of Islam. 9/11? While 9/11 wasn't the start of the conflict between the Western world and the Islamic world, that doesn't change the fact that it is the ideology of Islam that uniquely explains why they are murdering Americans and blowing themselves up. They even do us the favor of telling us precisely this. Nothing else is as brutal, relentless and irrational, the conflict in Myanmar doesn't even come close.
Again, when's the last time another religion goes on a homicidal rampage because someone insulted their god?
Does America go on homicidal rampages because someone has insulted to idea of democracy?
To compare democracy to Islam is absurd.
You really want to keep me awake.
What do you mean what does the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have to do with the topic? You're the one who said that Muslims employ terrorism just because of their religion. I proved that was wrong. These guys have a legitimate right to hate the West.
Did you forget what the U.S. has done in the Muslim world since the Cold War?
Comparing Democracy to Islam is not insane. The Vietnam War? The Korean War? Instilling democracy across the globe? Then murdering democratically-elected leaders? Have we really forgotten? Or is the CIA just that good?
Many peoples have been oppressed and still are oppressed, yet they do not turn to suicide bombings and murdering blasphemers. I never dismissed that there are geopolitical causes that make Muslims hate the West, but what turns that hatred into suicide bombings is Islam.
As I previously quoted:
Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim.
But this case is about blasphemy, what other religion murders for blasphemy?
There's nothing taught in Islam that specifically mentions suicide bombings. That's just a tactic they came up with themselves because it's the most effective. There's nothing in Islam that says drawing Muhammad must be punished by death. It's just some crazies being crazy.
At least we (apparently) agree on something: people are being oppressed. Should they be suicide bombing civilians? No. Should they be murdering people for blasphemy? No. But is the U.S. (or Israel) completely clear of blame? No.
No, it is NOT just "crazies being crazy". There are passages in the Quran, that have already been quoted in this thread that calls for blasphemy to be punished with death and for infidels to be killed.
These Muslims are NOT just making this shit up. It's real, it's in the Quran, and it's a threat. It's a threat that this one religion could breed so much crazies, intolerance and violence, compared to all the other religions. To disregard the seriousness of this threat is to be utterly derelict and naive.
Based on what do you conclude that this is just "crazies being crazy"?
The shit you posted from the Quran is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Even that list of quotes you posted. READ THE QURAN.
On September 13 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:26 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:23 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:11 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:10 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:53 Brutland wrote: so, let me get this right, a film talks about how violent and dangerous islam is, and then in defense of islam Not being violent, some islamic nuts go and kill people. man. i would hate to imagine if the type of people who were that crazy ever decided to get smart about their crazy. would be bad news
yet there are tons of people defending their actions. it's just crazy.
NO ONE'S defending the murderers. We're defending the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS who have done absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of bigotry.
My argument isn't that all Muslims are guilty by association, or that being Muslim necessarily means that you're a terrorist. But there is a direct link between believe in Islam that enables and justifies murderous rampages for blasphemy in the right situations.
Clearly they are highly tolerant of free speech.
Read the .pdf that it cites. It says it in the first survey:
"Large majorities in many of the countries polled specifically denounce the use of attacks on American civilians whether in the US or in a Muslim country."
And this while we have two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's see how Americans feel when terrorists invade America.
Large majority in the sense that around 70% to 85% disapprove.
You think it is OK that around 15% to 30% surveyed find terrorism acceptable? Keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these people.
Must be nice for those of us living in the comfort of our homes without foreign forces stomping on our democracy and killing our civilians on our land.
Ever heard of the London bombers?
Ever heard of drone strikes? The Iranian Shah? Trust me, we've done a lot worse, and if we compounded what we've done and transferred it to Western soil and targeted Western civilians, we wouldn't suicide bomb anyone - it'd be WW3.
On September 13 2012 00:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:24 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:14 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:06 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:56 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:36 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:15 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.
We are now mired in a religious war in Iraq and elsewhere. Our enemies--as witnessed by their astonishing willingness to slaughter themselves--are not principally motivated by political or economic grievances. How many more architects and electrical engineers must fly planes into buildings before we realize that the problem of Muslim extremism is not merely a matter of education? How many more middle-class British citizens must blow themselves up along with scores of noncombatants before we acknowledge that Muslim terrorism is not matter of poverty or political oppression?
I've already said that you cannot compare Buddhism to any other religion. How about we compare Muslims to the Jews, who have been engaged in systematic genocide against the Palestinians? But if you really want to bring up Buddhists, how about the Buddhists of Myanmar murdering Muslims? And if Christians were in the same situation, they would be leading crusades right about now.
Yes, Muslims in general have more radical principles, but the ones going out murdering people are a tiny, tiny minority of fanatics. The quotes you've listed before were all taken out of context. You might want to actually read the Quran. It might help you understand them more.
And jeeze, really? The United States directly props up a heinous monarch who slaughters his people and suddenly, it's every Muslim who gets the backlash for it. Lose-lose situation for the Muslims, ain't it?
Genocide? You mean the Palestinian's myriad of attacks on the Israelis. I don't see how this proves your point, given that this is a conflict that at it's core is based on an interpretation of who the Bible says owns the land.
And you realize that the violence between the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar was started by the Muslims who raped and murdered a Buddhist?
The point is, there is a easy path from Islam to murderous atrocities. Don't take my word for it, go watch some videos of these murderers and terrorist boasting. Let them speak for themselves.
You can call them tiny, tiny minorities all you want, all murder is a tiny, tiny minority, but the fact remains that this tiny, tiny minorities doesn't exist in other religions. There are gradations of evil and intolerance.
When's the last time any other religion rioted and murdered because someone else made fun of their god? And multiply that by, what, 6?
Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, must have nothing to do with this:
And the Myanmar situation stems much further back than an incident in which some men attempted to rape a girl:
The point is, these people who are committing murderous atrocities -- this tiny, tiny minority -- interpret the Quran in their own way, a way in which most every other Muslim condemns.
The thing with Western nations is, we don't need to use religion as a pretense to murder people - we use Democracy. Islam is to them what Democracy is to us. I wonder who's taken more lives - Democracy or Islam?
Stop misdirecting. What has the Israeli-Palestinian conflict got to do with the topic?
Western countries did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq to murder its civilians in the name of democracy. And even before the invasion of Iraq, suicide bombings and other barbaric acts were done in the name of Islam. 9/11? While 9/11 wasn't the start of the conflict between the Western world and the Islamic world, that doesn't change the fact that it is the ideology of Islam that uniquely explains why they are murdering Americans and blowing themselves up. They even do us the favor of telling us precisely this. Nothing else is as brutal, relentless and irrational, the conflict in Myanmar doesn't even come close.
Again, when's the last time another religion goes on a homicidal rampage because someone insulted their god?
Does America go on homicidal rampages because someone has insulted to idea of democracy?
To compare democracy to Islam is absurd.
You really want to keep me awake.
What do you mean what does the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have to do with the topic? You're the one who said that Muslims employ terrorism just because of their religion. I proved that was wrong. These guys have a legitimate right to hate the West.
Did you forget what the U.S. has done in the Muslim world since the Cold War?
Comparing Democracy to Islam is not insane. The Vietnam War? The Korean War? Instilling democracy across the globe? Then murdering democratically-elected leaders? Have we really forgotten? Or is the CIA just that good?
Many peoples have been oppressed and still are oppressed, yet they do not turn to suicide bombings and murdering blasphemers. I never dismissed that there are geopolitical causes that make Muslims hate the West, but what turns that hatred into suicide bombings is Islam.
As I previously quoted:
Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim.
But this case is about blasphemy, what other religion murders for blasphemy?
There's nothing taught in Islam that specifically mentions suicide bombings. That's just a tactic they came up with themselves because it's the most effective. There's nothing in Islam that says drawing Muhammad must be punished by death. It's just some crazies being crazy.
At least we (apparently) agree on something: people are being oppressed. Should they be suicide bombing civilians? No. Should they be murdering people for blasphemy? No. But is the U.S. (or Israel) completely clear of blame? No.
No, it is NOT just "crazies being crazy". There are passages in the Quran, that have already been quoted in this thread that calls for blasphemy to be punished with death and for infidels to be killed.
These Muslims are NOT just making this shit up. It's real, it's in the Quran, and it's a threat. It's a threat that this one religion could breed so much crazies, intolerance and violence, compared to all the other religions. To disregard the seriousness of this threat is to be utterly derelict and naive.
Based on what do you conclude that this is just "crazies being crazy"?
The shit you posted from the Quran is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Even that list of quotes you posted. READ THE QURAN.
This is why military intervention in foreign countries is a bad idea... Look what ends up happening.
Also all religious texts have passages that seem genocidal and violent in nature. People just choose to interpret them differently. It's unfortunate that there are hate preachers in any religion, and unfortunately all religions have some.
On September 13 2012 00:23 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:11 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:10 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:53 Brutland wrote: so, let me get this right, a film talks about how violent and dangerous islam is, and then in defense of islam Not being violent, some islamic nuts go and kill people. man. i would hate to imagine if the type of people who were that crazy ever decided to get smart about their crazy. would be bad news
yet there are tons of people defending their actions. it's just crazy.
NO ONE'S defending the murderers. We're defending the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS who have done absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of bigotry.
My argument isn't that all Muslims are guilty by association, or that being Muslim necessarily means that you're a terrorist. But there is a direct link between believe in Islam that enables and justifies murderous rampages for blasphemy in the right situations.
Clearly they are highly tolerant of free speech.
Read the .pdf that it cites. It says it in the first survey:
"Large majorities in many of the countries polled specifically denounce the use of attacks on American civilians whether in the US or in a Muslim country."
And this while we have two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's see how Americans feel when terrorists invade America.
Large majority in the sense that around 70% to 85% disapprove.
You think it is OK that around 15% to 30% surveyed find terrorism acceptable? Keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these people.
Keep in mind that perspective is different. Those people who support terrorism view themselves as freedom fighters fighting against American Imperialism and view American civillian casualties similar to German casualties during World War II.
And Americans who supported the War in Iraq (a majority in the early years btw) viewed themselves as liberators only to be hated for all the violence they caused.
On September 13 2012 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:35 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:26 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:23 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:11 Souma wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:10 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:53 Brutland wrote: so, let me get this right, a film talks about how violent and dangerous islam is, and then in defense of islam Not being violent, some islamic nuts go and kill people. man. i would hate to imagine if the type of people who were that crazy ever decided to get smart about their crazy. would be bad news
yet there are tons of people defending their actions. it's just crazy.
NO ONE'S defending the murderers. We're defending the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS who have done absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of bigotry.
My argument isn't that all Muslims are guilty by association, or that being Muslim necessarily means that you're a terrorist. But there is a direct link between believe in Islam that enables and justifies murderous rampages for blasphemy in the right situations.
Clearly they are highly tolerant of free speech.
Read the .pdf that it cites. It says it in the first survey:
"Large majorities in many of the countries polled specifically denounce the use of attacks on American civilians whether in the US or in a Muslim country."
And this while we have two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's see how Americans feel when terrorists invade America.
Large majority in the sense that around 70% to 85% disapprove.
You think it is OK that around 15% to 30% surveyed find terrorism acceptable? Keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these people.
Must be nice for those of us living in the comfort of our homes without foreign forces stomping on our democracy and killing our civilians on our land.
Ever heard of the London bombers?
Ever heard of drone strikes? The Iranian Shah? Trust me, we've done a lot worse, and if we compounded what we've done and transferred it to Western soil and targeted Western civilians, we wouldn't suicide bomb anyone - it'd be WW3.
You completely missed the point. You claim that:
Must be nice for those of us living in the comfort of our homes without foreign forces stomping on our democracy and killing our civilians on our land.
Except the London bombers where home bred. So they did comfortably conclude in their cozy homes that it's time to kill and bomb in the name of Islam.
On September 12 2012 23:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:15 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.
We are now mired in a religious war in Iraq and elsewhere. Our enemies--as witnessed by their astonishing willingness to slaughter themselves--are not principally motivated by political or economic grievances. How many more architects and electrical engineers must fly planes into buildings before we realize that the problem of Muslim extremism is not merely a matter of education? How many more middle-class British citizens must blow themselves up along with scores of noncombatants before we acknowledge that Muslim terrorism is not matter of poverty or political oppression?
I've already said that you cannot compare Buddhism to any other religion. How about we compare Muslims to the Jews, who have been engaged in systematic genocide against the Palestinians? But if you really want to bring up Buddhists, how about the Buddhists of Myanmar murdering Muslims? And if Christians were in the same situation, they would be leading crusades right about now.
Yes, Muslims in general have more radical principles, but the ones going out murdering people are a tiny, tiny minority of fanatics. The quotes you've listed before were all taken out of context. You might want to actually read the Quran. It might help you understand them more.
And jeeze, really? The United States directly props up a heinous monarch who slaughters his people and suddenly, it's every Muslim who gets the backlash for it. Lose-lose situation for the Muslims, ain't it?
Genocide? You mean the Palestinian's myriad of attacks on the Israelis. I don't see how this proves your point, given that this is a conflict that at it's core is based on an interpretation of who the Bible says owns the land.
And you realize that the violence between the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar was started by the Muslims who raped and murdered a Buddhist?
The point is, there is a easy path from Islam to murderous atrocities. Don't take my word for it, go watch some videos of these murderers and terrorist boasting. Let them speak for themselves.
You can call them tiny, tiny minorities all you want, all murder is a tiny, tiny minority, but the fact remains that this tiny, tiny minorities doesn't exist in other religions. There are gradations of evil and intolerance.
When's the last time any other religion rioted and murdered because someone else made fun of their god? And multiply that by, what, 6?
Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, must have nothing to do with this:
And the Myanmar situation stems much further back than an incident in which some men attempted to rape a girl:
The point is, these people who are committing murderous atrocities -- this tiny, tiny minority -- interpret the Quran in their own way, a way in which most every other Muslim condemns.
The thing with Western nations is, we don't need to use religion as a pretense to murder people - we use Democracy. Islam is to them what Democracy is to us. I wonder who's taken more lives - Democracy or Islam?
If I made the same chart for UK territory from the days of the Empire to the present day, would you also deem it acceptable for the UK to attack - for instance - India? Using that chart to justify violence is dumb.
Your example is dumb. If it was Germany taking over England, it would make sense for the English to fight back, yes.
Okay, now I go to bed.
You're from America, so how about this:
Would it be okay for Native Americans to start bombing parts of the USA?
EDIT:
To the people above, my example was supposed to be extreme and stupid, it highlights just how stupid the original chart is.
The indiens fought back when Americans took over their lands, and who ever said they shouldn't have ? Also, Israelians took over Palestine 60 years ago, not very far, perfectly normal for them to fight.
The amount of time required for people to stop being pissed off about something is completely subjective. The point remains that using that chart to justify violence (directed almost entirely at innocent civilians I might add; it's not as if this is a military conflict) is entirely ridiculous.
It's SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE. The Palestinians are losing and have lost way more civilians than the Israelis. They lost THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
What was the name of the capital of Palestine? What was it's currency?
This is about the religion and has to be about it. Although you don't see christian extremist bombing shit I feel that all extremism is wrong and terrible. Killing people is always wrong, but I think things like denouncing evolution and science will eventually lead to killing people because you go backwards and that means mentioned medieval times etc. Arabs/Muslims are not stupid. Do you ever wonder/know that we use arabic numerals, algebra and algorythm are arabic words not greek like you may think. Do You know why, I present to you this:
On September 12 2012 23:53 Brutland wrote: so, let me get this right, a film talks about how violent and dangerous islam is, and then in defense of islam Not being violent, some islamic nuts go and kill people. man. i would hate to imagine if the type of people who were that crazy ever decided to get smart about their crazy. would be bad news
yet there are tons of people defending their actions. it's just crazy.
NO ONE'S defending the murderers. We're defending the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS who have done absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of bigotry.
The majority of muslims has done nothing to put these criminals behind bars. Tell me why don't muslims try to improve their image by actively searching out of people with extremist thoughts and put them on watch, then arrest them as soon as they walk out of their home with a weapon.
On September 13 2012 00:43 Voltaire wrote: This is why military intervention in foreign countries is a bad idea... Look what ends up happening.
Also all religious texts have passages that seem genocidal and violent in nature. People just choose to interpret them differently. It's unfortunate that there are hate preachers in any religion, and unfortunately all religions have some.
What's to interpret about "putting someone to death"?
On September 12 2012 23:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:15 Souma wrote: [quote]
I've already said that you cannot compare Buddhism to any other religion. How about we compare Muslims to the Jews, who have been engaged in systematic genocide against the Palestinians? But if you really want to bring up Buddhists, how about the Buddhists of Myanmar murdering Muslims? And if Christians were in the same situation, they would be leading crusades right about now.
Yes, Muslims in general have more radical principles, but the ones going out murdering people are a tiny, tiny minority of fanatics. The quotes you've listed before were all taken out of context. You might want to actually read the Quran. It might help you understand them more.
And jeeze, really? The United States directly props up a heinous monarch who slaughters his people and suddenly, it's every Muslim who gets the backlash for it. Lose-lose situation for the Muslims, ain't it?
Genocide? You mean the Palestinian's myriad of attacks on the Israelis. I don't see how this proves your point, given that this is a conflict that at it's core is based on an interpretation of who the Bible says owns the land.
And you realize that the violence between the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar was started by the Muslims who raped and murdered a Buddhist?
The point is, there is a easy path from Islam to murderous atrocities. Don't take my word for it, go watch some videos of these murderers and terrorist boasting. Let them speak for themselves.
You can call them tiny, tiny minorities all you want, all murder is a tiny, tiny minority, but the fact remains that this tiny, tiny minorities doesn't exist in other religions. There are gradations of evil and intolerance.
When's the last time any other religion rioted and murdered because someone else made fun of their god? And multiply that by, what, 6?
Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, must have nothing to do with this:
And the Myanmar situation stems much further back than an incident in which some men attempted to rape a girl:
The point is, these people who are committing murderous atrocities -- this tiny, tiny minority -- interpret the Quran in their own way, a way in which most every other Muslim condemns.
The thing with Western nations is, we don't need to use religion as a pretense to murder people - we use Democracy. Islam is to them what Democracy is to us. I wonder who's taken more lives - Democracy or Islam?
If I made the same chart for UK territory from the days of the Empire to the present day, would you also deem it acceptable for the UK to attack - for instance - India? Using that chart to justify violence is dumb.
Your example is dumb. If it was Germany taking over England, it would make sense for the English to fight back, yes.
Okay, now I go to bed.
You're from America, so how about this:
Would it be okay for Native Americans to start bombing parts of the USA?
EDIT:
To the people above, my example was supposed to be extreme and stupid, it highlights just how stupid the original chart is.
The indiens fought back when Americans took over their lands, and who ever said they shouldn't have ? Also, Israelians took over Palestine 60 years ago, not very far, perfectly normal for them to fight.
The amount of time required for people to stop being pissed off about something is completely subjective. The point remains that using that chart to justify violence (directed almost entirely at innocent civilians I might add; it's not as if this is a military conflict) is entirely ridiculous.
It's SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE. The Palestinians are losing and have lost way more civilians than the Israelis. They lost THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
What was the name of the capital of Palestine? What was it's currency?
On September 13 2012 00:43 Voltaire wrote: This is why military intervention in foreign countries is a bad idea... Look what ends up happening.
Also all religious texts have passages that seem genocidal and violent in nature. People just choose to interpret them differently. It's unfortunate that there are hate preachers in any religion, and unfortunately all religions have some.
What's to interpret about "putting someone to death"?
Well there are also parts of the bible that say things like "If a man's wife dies, and she has a younger sister that isn't married, the younger sister must marry the man". What's there to interpret about that? Yet no one actually does this. People still choose to look past things like that in religious texts. The point is that most people actually end up disregarding a lot of the literal statements made in religious texts.
On September 12 2012 23:29 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Genocide? You mean the Palestinian's myriad of attacks on the Israelis. I don't see how this proves your point, given that this is a conflict that at it's core is based on an interpretation of who the Bible says owns the land.
And you realize that the violence between the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar was started by the Muslims who raped and murdered a Buddhist?
The point is, there is a easy path from Islam to murderous atrocities. Don't take my word for it, go watch some videos of these murderers and terrorist boasting. Let them speak for themselves.
You can call them tiny, tiny minorities all you want, all murder is a tiny, tiny minority, but the fact remains that this tiny, tiny minorities doesn't exist in other religions. There are gradations of evil and intolerance.
When's the last time any other religion rioted and murdered because someone else made fun of their god? And multiply that by, what, 6?
Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, must have nothing to do with this:
And the Myanmar situation stems much further back than an incident in which some men attempted to rape a girl:
The point is, these people who are committing murderous atrocities -- this tiny, tiny minority -- interpret the Quran in their own way, a way in which most every other Muslim condemns.
The thing with Western nations is, we don't need to use religion as a pretense to murder people - we use Democracy. Islam is to them what Democracy is to us. I wonder who's taken more lives - Democracy or Islam?
If I made the same chart for UK territory from the days of the Empire to the present day, would you also deem it acceptable for the UK to attack - for instance - India? Using that chart to justify violence is dumb.
Your example is dumb. If it was Germany taking over England, it would make sense for the English to fight back, yes.
Okay, now I go to bed.
You're from America, so how about this:
Would it be okay for Native Americans to start bombing parts of the USA?
EDIT:
To the people above, my example was supposed to be extreme and stupid, it highlights just how stupid the original chart is.
The indiens fought back when Americans took over their lands, and who ever said they shouldn't have ? Also, Israelians took over Palestine 60 years ago, not very far, perfectly normal for them to fight.
The amount of time required for people to stop being pissed off about something is completely subjective. The point remains that using that chart to justify violence (directed almost entirely at innocent civilians I might add; it's not as if this is a military conflict) is entirely ridiculous.
It's SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE. The Palestinians are losing and have lost way more civilians than the Israelis. They lost THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
What was the name of the capital of Palestine? What was it's currency?
Wow, I actually agree with paralleluniverse about something substantive. The end is nigh!
It doesn't take much understanding of religion or history to see that Islam is definitely different from the other major religions in terms of violent propensities.
On September 13 2012 00:43 Voltaire wrote: This is why military intervention in foreign countries is a bad idea... Look what ends up happening.
Also all religious texts have passages that seem genocidal and violent in nature. People just choose to interpret them differently. It's unfortunate that there are hate preachers in any religion, and unfortunately all religions have some.
What's to interpret about "putting someone to death"?
Well there are also parts of the bible that say things like "If a man's wife dies, and she has a younger sister that isn't married, the younger sister must marry the man". What's there to interpret about that? Yet no one actually does this. People still choose to look past things like that in religious texts. The point is that most people actually end up disregarding a lot of the literal statements made in religious texts.
Doesn't make them christian to just look past things in the text given to them by their god. In fact it makes them less christian. (same going for any religion). Also remember you're talking about disregarding quotes, instead of interpreting them which is the usual excuse.
RIP. My father does diplomatic work like this...luckly he is working in the balkan atm... but seriously, civilians shouldnt get caught up in shit like this.
On September 13 2012 00:43 Voltaire wrote: This is why military intervention in foreign countries is a bad idea... Look what ends up happening.
Also all religious texts have passages that seem genocidal and violent in nature. People just choose to interpret them differently. It's unfortunate that there are hate preachers in any religion, and unfortunately all religions have some.
What's to interpret about "putting someone to death"?
Well there are also parts of the bible that say things like "If a man's wife dies, and she has a younger sister that isn't married, the younger sister must marry the man". What's there to interpret about that? Yet no one actually does this. People still choose to look past things like that in religious texts. The point is that most people actually end up disregarding a lot of the literal statements made in religious texts.
Doesn't make them christian to just look past things in the text given to them by their god. In fact it makes them less christian. (same going for any religion). Also remember you're talking about disregarding quotes, instead of interpreting them which is the usual excuse.
I'm not a defender of religion. I'm actually strongly against organized religion because it causes people to behave like sheep. I'm just saying that a majority of people just disregard the types of passages you're describing or choose to interpret them as metaphors. Is it hypocritical? Very. But it's how most people justify their religious beliefs, despite how violent their holy texts are.
On September 12 2012 23:29 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Genocide? You mean the Palestinian's myriad of attacks on the Israelis. I don't see how this proves your point, given that this is a conflict that at it's core is based on an interpretation of who the Bible says owns the land.
And you realize that the violence between the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar was started by the Muslims who raped and murdered a Buddhist?
The point is, there is a easy path from Islam to murderous atrocities. Don't take my word for it, go watch some videos of these murderers and terrorist boasting. Let them speak for themselves.
You can call them tiny, tiny minorities all you want, all murder is a tiny, tiny minority, but the fact remains that this tiny, tiny minorities doesn't exist in other religions. There are gradations of evil and intolerance.
When's the last time any other religion rioted and murdered because someone else made fun of their god? And multiply that by, what, 6?
Gee, I wonder why the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, must have nothing to do with this:
And the Myanmar situation stems much further back than an incident in which some men attempted to rape a girl:
The point is, these people who are committing murderous atrocities -- this tiny, tiny minority -- interpret the Quran in their own way, a way in which most every other Muslim condemns.
The thing with Western nations is, we don't need to use religion as a pretense to murder people - we use Democracy. Islam is to them what Democracy is to us. I wonder who's taken more lives - Democracy or Islam?
If I made the same chart for UK territory from the days of the Empire to the present day, would you also deem it acceptable for the UK to attack - for instance - India? Using that chart to justify violence is dumb.
Your example is dumb. If it was Germany taking over England, it would make sense for the English to fight back, yes.
Okay, now I go to bed.
You're from America, so how about this:
Would it be okay for Native Americans to start bombing parts of the USA?
EDIT:
To the people above, my example was supposed to be extreme and stupid, it highlights just how stupid the original chart is.
The indiens fought back when Americans took over their lands, and who ever said they shouldn't have ? Also, Israelians took over Palestine 60 years ago, not very far, perfectly normal for them to fight.
The amount of time required for people to stop being pissed off about something is completely subjective. The point remains that using that chart to justify violence (directed almost entirely at innocent civilians I might add; it's not as if this is a military conflict) is entirely ridiculous.
It's SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE. The Palestinians are losing and have lost way more civilians than the Israelis. They lost THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
What was the name of the capital of Palestine? What was it's currency?
For a systematic genocide, i'll say we're doing a pretty bad job.
Jerusalem, and they used the Jordanian Dinar as their currency.
No idea why people are arguing about Palestine in a thread about Libya, though.
...What?
As far as i'm concerend, Jerusalem was under British control before it belonged to Israel, and before that, the Ottoman empire, and before that the Mamluks, before that? The crusaders and the Saljuks? Before that even? The Caliphate, before that Byzantine, before that the Roman empire, before that Hellenists, before that Persians and Babylonians, and last, the Israelits. At no point in time was "Palestine" an independant country, nation, or whatever you'd like to call it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/israel-palestine_map.jpg)
